Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

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

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 03:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 03:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC). —

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

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

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Monitors

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

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 03:30:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy. The contents remain in the page history.

---

This page has been blanked as a courtesy. The contents remain in the page history.

---

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

Hut 8.5

Final (64/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 16:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs) - A very helpful user, who has spend over 1 year on wiki, and has over 11,000 edits! Always polite and rarely makes mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris 1991 (talk • contribs)

Co-nom by Maxim
I haven't interacted directly with Hut 8.5 much, but I've always been thinking of offering to nominate him. I notice, very often, Hut 8.5 at WP:AIV. He always correctly reverts, warns, and reports problematic users to AIV. (Reverts: [1], [2], [3]; Warnings: [4], [5], [6]; Reports to AIV: [7], [8], [9]) Hut 8.5 also makes very solid arguments in XfDs. ([10]. [11], [12]) As a vandalism reporter, I highly trust Hut 8.5. I usually block when I see his report, and I don't count up warnings on the talk page of the user in question. Finally, a glance at Hut 8.5 deleted contributions will reveal many articles that he correctly nominated for speedy deletion. I think he's very prepared for adminship; I hope you think the same. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 19:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you. Hut 8.5 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Mainly work on WP:AIV and CAT:CSD, as I have experience in those areas and they always seem backlogged. I would also be interested in closing XfD discussions as I have some experience there as well.

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

A: I have taken part in several areas. I am a regular RC and NP patroller, with over 200 edits to WP:AIV. I also comment at AfD and MfD debates frequently as well. I'm not a great writer, though I have done some good work on Robert May's School, amongst other pages.

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

A: I have been caught up in several disputes one way or another. Most notably when I was new to Wikipedia I was wikistalked and harassed by several vandals and their sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hunter91 for details. I think I dealt with that issue rather well given my lack of experience. If I get into a stressful situation I generally take a break and try to think things through calmly before proceeding. I find this works very well.

Question from User:Piotrus

4. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, I will. Administrators are accountable to the community, and the community should be able to take away adminship, so long as the process is not misused.

General comments

• See Hut 8.5's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Hut 8.5

• Links for Hut 8.5: Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hut 8.5 before commenting.

Discussion

• I am unfamiliar with both Hut 8.5 and Boris 1991, so I was looking through contribs and what-not. Hence my request: Would an admin undelete the deleted history of User talk:Boris 1991 (unless there is some outstanding reason not too)? Thanks, Iamunknown 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think it was accidentally deleted by someone who thought it was a temporary userpage. Hut 8.5 08:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Might as well get here first - I've been impressed with Hut 8.5 every time we've come into contact, I'm sure he'll be fine with a couple of extra buttons. Good luck! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2. XfD participation, CSD participation, and vandal-whacking experience. Support --Agüeybaná 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support Looks like a great candidate, GDonato (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Per co-nom. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 19:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Hut+! The Rambling Man 19:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support User seems to understand when tools should be used. AIV reports by this user are blocked 97.8% of the time, I know I checked. The 2.2% that were not blocked were well within the range of admin discretion. 1 != 2 20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support per nomination, gd luck Hut 8.5, give those vandals hell!!! --Boris 1991 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - nothing in my interactions with this user make me worry that they will abuse the tools. So, good luck, and I look forward to mopping with you. - Philippe | Talk 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Over 5800 mainspace edits checked track it is good.See no concerns as per track. Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support From what I have seen of him, I would be very surprised if he abused the tools. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 21:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Contribs show candidate invested lots of work into WP, in respectful and helpful attitude towards editors. Conflict solving skills. Apparent understanding of guidelines and tools. No reason not to trust him with the mop. Gray62 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Has earnt the trust of the community. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
13. support Yep. I support this because it is apparent how experienced and trustworthy this user is. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Hurrah! --Hirohisat ^紅葉 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Good luck! --FolicAcid 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support No major concerns here. Would make a fine admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
17. What the!?! I ran into edit conflict! er, I mean troppus (support spelled backwards) I've seen this user around several times, especially RfAs; looks like this user is ready for the mop. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 04:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support John254 04:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support No doubts, you are ready to be an admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 04:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support User can be trusted. Phgao 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Jmlk17 06:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Excellent candidate whose judgment, especially at AFD, is pretty much always spot on. CIreland 07:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support After familiarizing myself with the RfA process, I can safely say that this user is more than qualified for the job. Wisdom89 07:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
24. support no worries right now.Yahel Guhan 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Sufficient experience gathered. Good, consistent editor, well done. Lradrama 10:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
26. I-thought-he-was-an-admin-already support. Melsaran (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Yeah Civil and sensible user--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 12:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - Looks like this user has a lot of experience and I doubt he would abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 12:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Trustworthy fellow; fine addition to the admin corps. Xoloz 12:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Good candidate.--Húsönd 13:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Cheskopokuta klees ka tlanko ya oska. Will ^(talk) 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - 97.8%? - Well of course then. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Pour Carbon Monoxide 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I thought he already...oh, never mind. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Righto then. </i thought he was already></good contributor></wont abuse the tools> David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Will do great at AfD, which is where I've seen this user. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. bibliomaniac15 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - solid editor who will make a solid admin.--Kubigula (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support, very solid candidate. --Coredesat 22:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Looks great! This person is a solid candidate for the tools. Keep up the good work, Hut! GlassCobra 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support A model wikipedian. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support -- Gogo Dodo 03:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - Contribs look very good. Lara❤Love 05:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support, excellent candidate. *Cremepuff222* 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support I am very impressed by this editor and the above discussion. Huge number of edits, close to 100 % edit summaries, rarely overruled at AIV, appears to need the mop. What's not to like? Bearian 15:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Why not? Dustihowe 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Should do fine. --Kbdank71 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Support, vast improvements were made since Hut 8.0. Burntsauce 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support should do well. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. Looked at his contributions and they seem good. He is effective in fighting vandals. Many experienced people are in his list of supporters above. EdJohnston 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Support. A strong candidate. Axl 07:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Support—Everythin's been said. Jonathan ^talk \ _{contribs — er} 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Very good post count, user seems to know very well the tools for adminship, looks like a good candidate to me.TOL 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. Impressive candidate. LАМВDОІD ^{T C} 18:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
55. Support 200 edits to AIV shows the user's credentials as a good vandal fighter and that he is ready for the extra tools.--WriterListener 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - super editor and good vandal fighter. Excellent track record - Alison ^❤ 03:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
57. Support - Always need more careful vandal fighters. --TeaDrinker 06:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
58. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
59. Support Have seen Hut around a lot, no worries. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
60. Great editor. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
61. No concerns whatsoever. Acalamari 18:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
62. What? Weren't you alredy an admin? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
63. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
64. Support, seen him around, no reason not to. Wizardman 15:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Hiberniantears

Final (54/0/0); Ended Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:32:28 (UTC)

Hiberniantears (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Hiberniantears, a long standing and trustworthy editor for adminship. I came to know him through the adoption process where he kindly offered to take me under his belt. As I often questioned him on aspects of Wikipedia I was unsure of, he demonstrated that he had a sound knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and is generous in the help he gives me and other editors such as here.

Hiberniantears has a pretty well rounded editing time; he has nominated a WP:SSP here, has participated in multiple WP:AFDs, has around 50 reports to WP:AIV which are solid and led to blocks, and has done WP:CSD tagging. His participation in WP:RCP has been good where he warns the vandals as well. Through my overview of his edits he has demonstrated a calm and helpful demeanour and has a definite need for the tools through his frequent reporting of vandals. His contribution has been sustained, and although there were some issues in his previous RfA regarding lack of experience, I sincerely believe he has those bases covered now. Phgao 06:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly, and graciously accept. Hiberniantears 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

A: Following my previous RfA, I really tried to focus the last few months on fully comprehending this question via a more thorough participation in the project. I think that the first time through, I was too concerned with trying to be all things to all people, when I really have a few specific reasons to need the mop. If granted the mop, I would approach the new tools in a period of phases, working and mastering first those parts of the project I currently understand best as an editor, and over time, growing and learning to do other things that I am currently not comfortable, or well informed enough to do as an editor or admin, but for which the community needs admins to be focused on in greater numbers. In any event, before diving into an area with which I am unfamiliar, I would spend time working there only as an editor in order to learn the process, before putting the admin hat on. That said, rather than name any specific areas that I am unfamiliar with, I will simply leave this concept as follows: if granted the mop, I am an admin who will be open to learn and grow, and work where I am needed, even if it is not my "favorite" area in which to work.

As for those areas I will work in, and for which I specifically need the tools: First and foremost, I originally wanted the extra buttons in order to counteract vandalism. This still holds true. Whether through helping clear WP:AIV, or simply acting quickly to administer an appropriate, well reasoned block on a vandal, this is an area in which I feel very comfortable working, and feel that I could currently be of the most assistance with the extra tools. Over time, I have come to truly appreciate the nuances of just what constitutes an appropriate block, particularly in cases of recurrent vandalism following a prior block (i.e. dealing with an individual editor, or an anon IP, or a school IP, and so on). One of the most important elements of acting against vandalism is attempting to identify situations that are simply "tests" versus a more deliberate and mal-intentioned edit pattern. I believe that this understanding embodies a need, as my consistent contributions to AIV demonstrates the actions of a level headed, competent vandal fighter. I spend a lot of time in WP:RCP, and my contributions are a mix of manual edits, and WP:VP. I did not employ the use of VandalProof until this summer, many months after I was granted permission to use it, as I tend only to use it to zip through anon edits. The speed of the tool is great for small stuff, and quickly dropping appropriate warnings (and even avoiding edit conflicts on AIV at peak times for vandalism), but I continue to rely on manual vandal fighting to ensure that I remain intellectually engaged in what I am doing, and also to make sure I do not grow inadvertently bitey.

Second, as also noted above, WP:CSD is an area I enjoy working, and one in which I feel I have grown recently. I adopted the use of WP:TW recently because I found that it is a great tool for moving quickly, but at the same time slow enough that you make a fact-based decision on whether or not something is in fact a speedy delete candidate. I generally avoid tagging anything that is not "obviously" a speedy delete, and have not really ventured into nominating articles to WP:AFD, or prod'ing anything. I contribute from time to time in votes on WP:AFD, but generally prefer working in the CSD areas a little more. Before actually deleting anything, I would take the time to make sure I understand the process, and would ask another admin to walk my through the steps.

Third, as will also be noted in my response to Question 3, WP:SSP is something I find very interesting. I fell into conflict with a fellow editor back in May, and handled the situation poorly at the time (again, more on this in Question 3 below). This editor later turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor, and he has since gone on to become a very prodigious block evading puppet-master. The experience taught me a few valuable lessons, not least of which is to remain calm, but also to recognize that we are not in positions, as either admins or editors, to control everything, or make others behave. My current involvement with WP:SSP is essentially restricted to monitoring this particular editor, and working with Future Perfect at Sunrise and Moreschi to simply monitor the articles impacted the most on a daily basis, and take appropriate action. Both admins above have been incredibly patient with me (Future in particular, who tolerated me when I lost my temper when first involved in this situation), and have really helped me learn, and grow.

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

A: In my first RfA, I stated that this was my ability to deal with and work with two difficult users. I still feel that this is a good example, but as noted in my responses to Question 1 and Question 3, One of the editors has since become less productive, and my interactions with him were not well handled back in May and June. However, I have really taken this as a learning experience, and in concert with some of the oppose comments in my last RfA, really worked to grow as an editor, and as a member of the larger project community. In many regards, I consider my growth since my first RfA to be my best contribution, since it really opened my eyes to just how large this project really is, and to how much more rewarding the experience is when you are more engaged with other editors.

Additionally, in non-admin related duties, I do enjoy actually writing articles here from time to time. I truly consider myself a reader of Wikipedia first, and a contributor second. While a superficial review of my contributions will demonstrate a ratio of edits strongly in favor of vandal fighting, a thorough review will also demonstrate that my contributions to articles are thoughtful, and generally large. I have also created a number of articles of which I am proud. One example is Boston Vigilance Committee which I created following a request I found on WikiProject Boston while working on some skyscraper related articles. I consider myself a generalist, and believe my overall history reflects this diversity of knowledge. While this is most helpful in my role as an editor, I think it is of benefit were I to gain the trust of the community, as it does permit me to make well informed decisions on a broad array of topics (that said, just keep me away from anything on advanced mathematics, and we should be fine...).

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

A: Yes. In fact, part of the reason my first RfA failed was that I handled a confict with Flavius Belisarius poorly. In truth, this was perhaps the most useful part of my first RfA, as the oppose votes were correct, and I used the opportunity to view the RfA less as a failed attempt, and more as an editor review. Admins are called upon to make well reasoned decisions on a quick basis, often in the face of vitriol specifically meant to incite anger and cause a loss of temper. For an admin to lose their temper can call into question the rationality of their decision making process. In my case, I lost my temper whilst espousing the wikivirtues of civility and neutrality; not only did this undermine my position, but it also undermined the ability of other to trust me. To date, I am somewhat humiliated by my actions at the time, and have on numerous ocaisions cited my behavior as an example of what not to do when faced with a contentious situation. In this instance, I fed the troll, lost my cool, and learned a lesson. Humiliation aside, I look upon the lesson learned as a positive experience as it eventually led me to grow significantly as an editor.

I should also point out that my interactions with the large number of sockpuppets of Flavius, who is himself a sock of the banned editor Shuppiluliuma, is ongoing on a number of Turkey related articles. Because of this, I wish to state very clearly that if granted the mop, I would not use it to beat Flavius over the head. I think that would be inapropriate, and would represent all the wrong reasons to seek the mop. In this particular case, I would continue working through Moreschi who has taken the lead from Future Perfect at Sunrise. I believe that my behavior since my last RfA can stand as an example of how to learn from one's mistakes, and more importantly, to learn from the advice of fellow Wikipedians.

Question from User:Piotrus

4. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A: My apologies for a wishy-washy answer on this... Hypothetically, this is something I support. That said, I have not yet decided by what terms I would allow myself to be open to recall. My primary concern here is that (as noted above) I spend a lot of time working on combatting sockpuppets, and they, in turn, take note of my activities. In fact, the second edit to this RfA, although from an anon IP, was in fact from the Flavius/Shup editor, someone who has established over a period of time a large number of username sockpuppets who in a number of cases have established significant edit counts, and are not always obviously related. I have followed some of the discussions on this topic over the past few months enough to respect the concept, but I simply have not yet come to a conclusion on how best to apply it for myself given the nature of some of the work I do. Hiberniantears 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Gray62

5 Do you think there are circumstances where an admin is allowed to call an editor "Idiot" and say that he is "pissed off" by the user [13]? What is your opinion on WP:Civil? Gray62 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A:No. It was wrong for me to take that course of action, and I apologize to the community for it. The event linked above transpired in June, and as noted in my response to Gray's comment on the topic in the discussion section below, this comment is what my response to Question 3 is in reference to. This same link was also central to some of the opposition I faced in my first RfA. I took those comments to heart, and will not make the same mistake again. Hiberniantears 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Hiberniantears
• Requests for adminship/Hiberniantears 2

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hiberniantears before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Melsaran (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, I've worked with Hiberniantears in a difficult situation and was impressed by his thoughtfulness and resilience under stress in dealing with conflicts. Good, trustworthy editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Well-balanced and thoughtful. bibliomaniac15 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, I'm going through this process myself, and after looking at this user's history and contributions, I must say that I'm thoroughly impressed. Edit summary utilization for effective communication; 100% for both major and minor edits - something that is generally viewed as a desired criteria for RfA. There is no glaring disparity in editing, very evenly balanced (as much as it can be) between mainspace edits, talk, and namespace. User has the practical experience suitable to make a good administrator. Wisdom89 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Personal interaction with Hib tells me he is fully ready and qualified for the job - support Ryan Postlethwaite 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Great Editor...definitely my turn to rubber-stamp Support. Rudget _{Contributions} 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support—trey^{omg he's back} 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - I'm particularly impressed with the well thought out answers to the questions, and the ability to question, find fault, and improve on himself. Best of luck. - Philippe | Talk 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - sufficient experience and trustworthy editor. Addhoc 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - I agree with Addhoc above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Another editor I am familiar with (in a good way) via AIV and other places. I agree with all of the above except Hiberniantears "gracious" acceptance - I found it merely functional. Extremely unlikely to abuse the mop. LessHeard vanU 00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support --Hirohisat ^紅葉 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Has clearly focused on feedback from last RfA. Ronnotel 02:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Well thought answers and good usage of edit summaries. Would definitely make a good admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Yes NHRHS2010 ^Talk 04:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support John254 04:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Looks like a very well-qualified candidate. --FolicAcid 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support as nom. Phgao 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Jmlk17 06:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. My opinion was neutral last time, but I've been impressed with how this editor has grown through careful attention to his opposer's criticisms, and drive to improve. More than enough to earn my support here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Good chap, will do well. Moreschi ^Talk 09:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Great answers to questions, had a brief look over his contribs and nothing raises any massive alarm bells. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Weak Support - Rather low Wikipedia edit-count. If you didn't seem to know what you were talking about, I would have opposed. I do believe therefore that you're trustworthy. Lradrama 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
24. I opposed the last RfA because of this candidate's answer to Q1 and the follow-up Q4 (about his/her answer to Q1). The first paragraph of the answer to Q1 in this RfA was most pleasing, as was the rest of that answer and Q3 (which I found to be expressed in a way befitting an administrator and the experience required). An administrator with experience and the desire to work at SSP isa fantastic asset to this encyclopedia. Strong support. Daniel 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support per Daniel. Candidate seems to have taken the feedback from the last RfA to heart and worked successfully to overcome remaining doubts. Very encouraging! Gray62 11:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

    Weak support now, per Neil. See below. Gray62 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    Supportagain, oops. Sry, I've been to fast. H.'s reassuring answer quickly dispelled my concerns. Gray62 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

26. Support - Seems like a nice guy, plenty of experience and I doubt he will abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 12:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Great improvements since last time. Húsönd 13:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. Good editor. A Train^talk 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. I liked his responses in some of the issues that are discussed on his Talk page. He seems to have a good grasp of policy, and he is methodical and courteous. In his answers to the Questions I liked that he owned up to previous misjudgments. EdJohnston 16:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support—nothing concerning turns up in recent contributions; takes feedback seriously and learns from it. --Paul Erik 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support As per Riana and looking feel concerns raised in last RFA appear to be cleared.Pharaoh of the Wizards 18:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Looks great and I have no concerns. Captain panda 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Quite Detailed and well thought out answers. May I ask why you don't want to be involved in mediation or arbitrating disputes. Support--WriterListener 18:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support, doesn't seem to present any major concerns this time around. Pretty good candidate with a fairly decent amount of experience. --Coredesat 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
36. I promised I'd stay away from RfA a bit more, but this guy is just too good to not support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. I am assuming edits like this are firmly in the past; although I thought it was funny, the recipient probably didn't. Not seen anything recently that would suggest anything other than a fine user who will make a fine admin. Which is fine. Neil ☎ 12:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thx for this find, Neil! Hmm, "firmly in the past"? I guess you said that 'tongue in cheek! This was July 2007! And I wouldn't want to hear stuff like this from an admin: "But this guy is at best off his meds 50% of the time."""But, even Hitler built the Autobahn.""I'm pretty much only pissed off about the anti-Irish, anti-American, SuperTurk Hyperbole. The obstinate sense of ownership is annoying, but I can work with it, since this idiot lacks consensus." I'm certain H. is talking about a pretty annoying editor, but still, admins should be the role models for WP:Civil, not the ones who engage in insults. And what about this: "More to the point, he has been indefinitely banned multiple times. I point this out, and two admins think nothing should be done..." ? Well, sry, but that a guy was banned twice isn't a sufficient argument for banning him the third time, you need more evidence. I really hope that H. would make a better case before using his tools against an editor. This stuff is really concerning, and I'm changing my vote to 'weak support' now. Gray62 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with you. This is the event I describe in my response to Question 3. This represented a serious lapse in judgement on my part, and it played a role in my last RfA. I am sorry that it transpired, but at the same time, I really used the community's response to this event (as voiced in my last RfA) to learn from the experience. I can assure you that it will not happen again. Hiberniantears 14:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    To add to this, let me just say here (me being the administrator who was mostly responsible for the situation back then) that Hib was essentially right, both in wishing the other editor banned and in being disappointed in our lack of action. It was an exasperating situation, and I can fully understand that Hib lost his patience at one point. The fault in not solving that problem back then was mine, for having become so tired of it I just couldn't muster the strength to tackle the sockpuppeter again (well, as an excuse I can say that I was only semi-active during those days anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thx for weighing in and clarifying this issue. Ok, shit happens, and we can't expect our admins to be supermen. Imho your reaction was only human! :-) Gray62 14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

38. Support, wow, very through answers to the questions! I'm sure you'll do great. :) *Cremepuff222* 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. I was happy to support previously and see nothing that has happened between then and now to change my opinion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Excellent editor, lots of edits, work on all necessary admin-type projects, always nice to other editors, and showing improvement. Bearian 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
41. 100% doubleplusSupport This should teach me to watch RfA more often, me now having missed at least three nominations… —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
42. weak support Not too sure about this user, but i believe in giving someone a chance. Support based on if the user subjects himself to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recallDustihowe 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Godwin's Law Support the_undertow ^talk 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. Surprised he didn't pass the first time. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support I was Neutral last time based on concerns regarding your ability to handle a dispute. You have removed that concern with your well-thought out answer in Q3 and you general contributions since then. You have maintained all the traits I like to see - cross 'pedia participation, civility, vandal fighting etc etc. Yep. Bring it on. Pedro :  Chat  09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Seems to have very good editing background, should be good as an administrator.TOL 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
47. I supported last time. An excellent user. Acalamari 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. Good user, good edits.Must.^{T C} 20:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - ah yes. I weighed in as 'neutral' last time around. So much has changed since then. You've been doing excellent work and I'm quite impressed with your response to Neil's comment above. Straight, honest answer. No problems here - Alison ^❤ 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support will be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Good editor. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
53. Support Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Kizor

Final (40/0/4); Originally scheduled to end 15:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kizor (talk · contribs) - I'd like to ask that the community decides whether or not to make Kizor an administrator. I first met Kizor on IRC (please don't hold that against him :P) where he came to one of the Wikipedia-related channels to ask for some help with an uncontroversial but slightly confusing page move. I helped him with it, but my connection was too slow to do the entire process, so I just did the deletions for him. I was struck by his positive attitude and easy-going nature during the process, and I took a look around at some of his contributions. Users with a sense of humor like Kizor's are a strong asset to the community. On the occasion that he is involved in a disagreement, he defuses it with kind words and well-placed humor. He makes strong, positive contributions through the entire project, and very clearly is interested in improving Wikipedia. I see no evidence that he'd do anything but useful things with the few commands administrators have, and I hope those of you reading agree with me. kmccoy (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I should note, by the way, for those who are suspicious of things arranged on IRC, that I only spoke with him there once. I was just genuinely struck by his positive attitude. I haven't seen him around on IRC since then. kmccoy (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Kizor 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: To be honest, not a lot at first. I'll have to grow into the role before I start resolving problems on WP:ANI or the like. I would get a whole lot of use from the tools in fighting vandalism and RC patrol. I've been doing less of that as I've been slow in migrating away from my increasingly obsolete favored method - browsing the RC page unassisted - but the counter on my user page should disperse any doubts about my activity in the field. There's a clear need for closing AfDs, but I'd have to mostly recuse myself from fiction AfDs, where I've been particularily active lately since they've been the same.

Finally, I see myself doing a fair bit of grunt work. Undeleting and rationalizing procedurally deleted images that didn't receive fair use rationales in time (a pain with video game coverage), protecting, semi-protecting, unprotecting, dealing with moves over redirects, in general doing the things that I've asked admins to do when I've increasingly often found myself tugging on their sleeves. The event that Kmccoy mentioned is one example: An article on a Swedish children's book had a wrong title (an editor's translation not in general use), and a duplicate article since turned into a redirect to the former had the right title. To fix the situation without losing the latter's edit history, I wanted to swap the titles, which required three page moves and the deletions of three newly created redirects. (And if IRC conspirations bear such stigma, note that I hadn't been on the channel before and haven't since.)

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

A: Those composing my marathon at the initial stages of the Virginia Tech massacre article. We're now one of the ten largest websites in the world, and when disaster strikes, are used as a major information source on par with some of the best of major news outlets in speed and coverage. I value that.

I jumped in some twenty minutes after the second shooting happened, kept at it for as long as I could stay awake, and continued on a somewhat less active basis for three more days, with a roughly estimated total of fifteen hours. Obligatory newspaper link. Kate's tool says that I clocked in well over 350 edits to the article, its talk page and assorted subarticles, but that total is greatly increased by the circumstances - the article was ceaselessly deluged by edits, so every change would have to be concise and fast or battle its way through edit conflicts. I did a number of things, adding new content, fighting vandalism, but mainly busied myself with helping to keep the article clear and coherent. At one point, this meant fixing citations for 90 minutes straight. (Don't.) Virginia Tech massacre is now a GA, but I can hardly take credit for that if next to none of my text has survived into the current version, now can I? :P

As an aside, I was here for the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the Dawson College shooting as well and am now planning to start an "In case of emergency..." essay that would collect advice for editing crisis articles. This is in part because I'd get to use the acronym WP:BREAKGLASS.

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

A: Yes. Despite the nominator's praise, I do have a temper and events on Wikipedia have occasionally been enough to anger me. I haven't broken 3RR and I hope that I've never outright insulted another user, but I have used too harsh a tone in my comments or failed to assume good faith with what looked like questionable edits. The biggest conflict by far was over spoiler tags. I support the things - they make our coverage of fiction much more valuable for the readers. In late May a RfC was started over spoiler overuse, and I joined in at the start. In a few days the guideline page was rewritten to place great restrictions on their use, and then (starting when the rewrite was still a proposal, mind) a small group of half a dozen to a dozen anti-spoiler editors removed every single one of the 45'000 spoiler tags on Wikipedia. I participated in the bitter and protracted argument that ensued for two months, only quitting when I was too worn-down and exhausted to take it anymore. The debate continues to this day.

I like to think that the spoiler farce made me realize the value of the "Save page" button between (the virtual equivalents of) the mouth and the world. It only took three-plus years to learn, but when I'd like to say something I probably shouldn't, not saying anything is an option and I'm free to walk away from the computer. I try to stick to that.

Optional question(s) by ArielGold

4. I see a longstanding pattern of blank edit summaries. Your mathbot results are 76% for major edits, and 69% for minor edits. What are your views on the purpose and use of edit summaries, even for minor edits? Would you be willing to set your preferences to prompt you when you do not include an edit summary? Ariel♥Gold 19:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A: They're an important tool. A summary is often what separates a well-reasoned edit from an arbitrary one, and they make page histories MUCH more pleasant. At the same time, I don't see much point in summaries when there's nothing to clarify; when leaving a message on an AfD or a small talk page, your action is clear from the page itself. Judging from the discussion below they're clearly more important, so I've bowed to peer pressure and especially Pedro's point about admin accountability, and enabled the prompt. --Kizor 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Piotrus

5. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A: That's new. A way to tell admins loud that they (and I quote) flumped, and deal with those who flump consistently, is a desirable safeguard. The way that it could conceivably be used for disputes or feuding is unnerving, but the requirements are considerable and so far it has only led to action for good reason. So yes, I would. (There's overlap with RfCs, but I've been observing a good-faith RfC that the target has dismissed as an attempt to discredit him, and appreciate something a bit more binding.) --Kizor 01:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Phgao

6. While I realise spoiler tags was the issue of your block, would you explain what your actions were that led to the block, if you engaged in any discussion with the editor that was removing spoiler tags before mass-reverting their edits, and what your own opinion is regarding the block? User:Phgao 14:12, 12 October 2007

A: I've reviewed my contribs from that period. As background, it was some two days into the RfC. The Wikipedia:Spoiler guideline had been rewritten from its previous, spoiler-friendly form into a much more restrictive one, but the latter was yet just a proposal. Some editors had taken to removing spoiler tags by the dozen, which I considered very bad form - taking it to the metaphorical streets felt disruptive to the RfC discussion and very unlikely to be productive. I'd restored some tags while leaving removals of superfluous ones alone.

At this point, David Gerard started using WP:AWB to remove spoiler warnings by the hundred, by the thousand, indiscriminately. I considered this an attempt to implement a Wikipedia-wide change without consensus, to solve the matter by force. I still do, and that's certainly what it was used for - the next day, Tony Sidaway claimed that the matter closed because pro-spoiler editors had not been able to restore nearly as many tags as anti-spoiler editors had been able to remove. That became a primary argument. That's not consensus, that's tug-of-war.

But I digress. That's what I was trying to stop by reverting, and Phil Sandifer blocked me after 18 reversions. Before I start claiming sainthood: Your question about discussion with the editor came as a surprise, meaning that the idea had never occured to me at the time, so I'd flown off the handle. Talking with Gerard is what I should have done. Phil Sandifer not seeking an uninvolved party was not a problem - a newcomer admin would've had to read too much too fast to form an informed opinion, never mind staying uninvolved at the same time - though a warning would've had the same effect while still allowing me to participate in the discussion. --Kizor 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Miranda

7. You seem to contribute well to breaking news stories (have you ever tried Wikinews?)  :-P Anyway, I have two questions relating to your contributions. First, if a breaking news story controversy with different conflicting sources occurred with a living person what would you do? And, what is your interpretation of ignoring the rules?

A: I might have at some point, but I prefer our style and size. Your first contributions question is a painfully good one. It's not something that I've had to deal with, persons of interest in major breaking news stories are generally dead. First, I'd really wish that I wasn't there. Second, I'd point the issue out on the talk page. Both consensus and manpower are important - an article on breaking news is in a constant state of change instead of the usual restful sequentialism. A decision without an agreement would most likely be unenforceable. Third, pending some weighty facts of the case or a consensus to do otherwise, I'd cover all sides in the article while explicitly mentioning the source for each statement, so that the media confusion was clear and (vitally) we don't say what happened, we say who says what happened. Not "The gunman in custody is X or Y", rather "The gunman in custody was reported to be X by CNN, citing police reports, while NBC gave his name as Y". Any suspect sources should be disregarded, and the cites possibly restricted to the most reliable and/or largest news sources - both matters for the talk page. Fortunately the biggest names also tend to be the fastest, and such confusion is short-lived. Removal of unsourced information is a must, and is already done stringently with breaking news. An awful lot of work for a small matter, but nothing's ever simple when WP:BLP is involved.

Ah, IAR, that cornerstone of our policies. Wikipedia is not immune to a common problem with volunteer and online projects: the tendency of the rules to be determined by those who care the most about rules, which easily leads to overlegistlation and process over product. IAR provides some counterbalance by being a reminder that policies and guidelines are means, tools for writing a good encyclopedia. Its loss would be an extremely worrying telltale shift in attitude.
When it comes to its use to actual content, I'd like to see it actually invoked succesfully once in a while. Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means covers my position; I'd accept it as a valid argument when coupled with a reasonable explanation about why we should make an exemption to, or compromise with, guidelines. --Kizor 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

8. I have also noticed that you have a fair share of fair use warnings on your userpage beginning here for putting fair use images in your userspace. The images are currently obscured via Gnomebot, as seen via your sandbox. Although, I am assuming good faith with this, but tell me what you think is the difference between fair usage and free usage of images?

A: Free use is free use, unlimited distribution and modification while following any restrictions in place. Fair use is a diferent animal altogether, and has to follow the necessarily draconian rules of Wikipedia:Non-free content that basically considers it a necessary evil; among other things, such images must not be used more than is necessary to improve articles, and when they are, must be accompanied by a satisfactory explanation about why they're acceptable. That fair share of fair use warnings was where I found this out the hard way. --Kizor 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Gray62

9. Kizor, by your own account, you have a very busy real life recently. Do you think you can nonetheless do reasonable work as an admin, even though you would be hard pressed to follow up on the actions you start? Wouldn't it be a bit unfair towards editors to have to wait until you find the time to discuss any objections they might have regarding blocks, page protections etc? Gray62 12:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A: You're right in asking about my delays. I do have a problem with keeping things organized, and am consequently often tardy. It's good that the matter came up in this RfA. After thinking about your first question, the answer is yes. Despite the difficulty, I function normally as a student and hold a holiday office job, I don't believe that it precludes me from working as an admin.

You know the answer to the second question. I need to keep an eye on myself, especially to avoid overcommitment leading to such situations, and nowadays actually have a to-do list of limited size for Wikipedia on my bedroom wall. The more is on it, the fewer things get in. (This wasn't the huge geek-out that you might imagine, it just meant adding another column to an existing piece of paper.)

The root cause for my current overload of work is unusual and non-reoccuring. In fact, let's get the sob story over with. Some time ago I undertook ADHD testing as part of dealing with this very problem and was placed on ADHD medication without diagnosis as a test. It was discontinued six days later as completely unsuitable. I was left with a negative diagnosis, several days during which I'd been unable to get anything done, smashed routines and an inverted sleep rhythm. Study stuff has been piling up as I've tried to recover. I can confidently state that this sequence of events is not about to repeat itself. --Kizor 04:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kizor before commenting.

Discussion

• I've had a look at Kizor's contribs and through some prelim browsing came across that fact that he had been blocked [14]. Also some minor things include; this [15] where the user says "one of them will require taking on David Gerard, Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer simultaneously", and it happens that two of these users were the users who blocked and then unblocked Kizor. I could be nitpicking here, but I just wanted to bring this to discussion to get a better feel of other editor's views on this. Phgao 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Phgao your hard work in providing a thorough review is always appreciated by candidates and other editors. May I suggest you address the issue to the candidate directly by using the Question section above? Pedro :  Chat  13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw this on his page, too. The way I read the second edit is simply that he learned during the conflict over spoiler tags how difficult it can be to be on the other side of an argument with David Gerard, Phil Sandifer, and Tony Sidaway. (I would probably make a similar comment if I was contemplating arguing on the side of those three! I say this with respect... I just don't know them as being push-overs.) It seems to me that he learned that conflicts on Wikipedia can turn nasty quite quickly. I would point out that he addresses this issue pretty extensively in his answer to the third question up above, but I'll leave it up to him if he wants to make any further statement about it. :) kmccoy (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a question that specifically addresses the issue of the block, which isn't really addressed in Q3, although the issue itself is well explained there. Phgao 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer (the blocking admin) is one of the more vigorous opponents of spoiler warnings, and around that time there were users who were removing tens of thousands of spoiler warnings en masse without consensus[16]. I don't really think this block was appropriate, or something to worry about 5 months later. Melsaran (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestions to Neutrals; Why not register "Support" or "Oppose" on the proviso that you may return to Neutral before the close if questions remain unanswered (or indicate likely stance while still neutral) so other editors can evaluate your current thinking? It may also help the candidate. It is rare to see so many neutrals, against the number of supports and no opposes.LessHeard vanU 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. kmccoy (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support He has plenty of experience. I checked his edits to recent AFDs and an RC patrol revert, and everything looks okay. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support this is the first time I haven't reviewed the userscontribs. He seems civil--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
4. A very dedicated wikipedian especially that can be seen that he is one of the earliest contributors to Virginia Tech MassacreSupport--WriterListener 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
5. A fine editor. Acalamari 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - I have no concerns. --Eye of the minD 23:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Support I trust a nomination from Kmccoy :) 86.29.39.5 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sure that Kizor appreciates your anonymous support, but as you are not logged in as a username, your opinion cannot be counted. I'm sorry. I'll move your comment in so it isn't numbered, but you may wish to log in to be counted. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

   This is just pure process wonkery, srsly. At least I didn't oppose lol. 86.29.39.5 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Yes NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I have found Kizor to be both friendly and reasonable and I think he would make a good administrator. Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support A very civil user who deserves the mop. No major concerns here and I think that he will make a fine admin as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support A solid candidate. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Strong Support Lots of experiance, committed to the job, honest. Aflumpire 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Good contributions. --Shirahadasha 04:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Yeah I think Kizor could make a good admin. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Per interaction only yesterday, and a review of your contributions, civility and dedication. However please consider turning on the automatic edit summary in your preferences. It's vital (IMHO) for admins to justify and describe actions through this method. No concerns other than that however. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support, no concerns. Neil ム 12:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support As per Acalamari and Good contributions with over 5000 mainspace edits.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Good editor. --- RockMFR 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support I have never supported an applicant with so much red in the edit summary column, and I would urge Kizor to change the preferences to force adding edit summaries. Otherwise, I only see good things and nothing to suggest the abuse of the mop. LessHeard vanU 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support General awesomeness. User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Contribs look good, dedicated, long-time editor, great admin candidate... κaτaʟaveno^T_C 00:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Very positive interactions with Kizor when working on Virginia Tech massacre. Happy to support. Ronnotel 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support I think it is time to give Kizor the mop.  :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 03:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support I agree with Cobi. :) L337p4wn 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. Looks good. Melsaran (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. Edit summaries and images notwithstanding, I think Kizor looks like a great candidate. Good luck! --FolicAcid 12:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - not worried about the block, however more edit summaries would be nice. Overall a fine candidate. Addhoc 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, though I'd like to see the response to the remaining unanswered questions. I don't believe they will change my opinion, though, and look forward to mopping with Kizor. - Philippe | Talk 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support;mdash I thought you were and admin already =P. Good edit counts and pretty good contributions. Impressive collection of barnstars! •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support John254 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Jmlk17 06:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - Excellent candidate from what I can see. Lradrama 10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Pleased with honest answer, block was a long time ago (May), so I give Kizor my support. Phgao 08:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I thought Kizor was already an admin anyway. Rray 14:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Weak Support Kizor is an extremely prolific, useful editor, even on Male pregnancy, with dozens of scars from vandal-fighting. I am worried about his block for mass edits, albeit some time ago, and also the lack of edit summaries, but on the whole I trust Kizor to use the mop. Bearian 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support no reason not to; RC patrolling is an area that needs more help and s/he knows what s/he's doing there; I don't think s/he'll be jumping in to close the most contentious AFD's on day one but I think s/he realizes this as well. P.S. there are lots of other special pages other than RC that need admin attention too (can I plug short pages, here?) Carlossuarez46 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support A frivolous five-month-old block on Orwellian grounds is no reason to oppose. --JayHenry 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Kizor has a strong contribution history and has given rather thoughtful answers to the questions asked. I think this more than displaces any concern I'd have from the block. It looks as though s/he'll make a good admin. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Should make a good admin. Davewild 07:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support - yes. Great editor. Rudget _{Contributions} 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Changed from 'Neutral'. Checking this RfA for the last days, it has been increasingly clear that this is the wrong time for the candidate to become admin. By his own statements, real life is leaving him with very little time for WP. Looking into the contribs, we find he really hasn't had much time to do editing. That's totally ok. But that's also showing that he won't have time to use admin tools in a reasonable and responsible way. He simply won't be there most of the time to catch up on the actions he started, and this would be unfair and not helpful for affected editors and other admins who would have to take over his unfinished businesses. We need more admins, but admins who don't have the time make no sense. They only inflate the numbers, without adding anything to the workforce. Of course, I see that this RfA will still go through. Ok, not really a big problem. But we shouldn't pat ourself on the shoulder for having 1354 admins now. New staffers that ain't got the time to pick up their share of work aren't really a support for the other admins. We need more good candidates who actually have some time on their hands to invest in WP. Gray62 09:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the thoughtful and reflective way in which Kizor answered my question assures me that he's aware of the problem I outlined here, and I'm reasonably confident now that he won't take on more than he can handle as an admin. However, I still think the timing of this RfA was less than satisfactory. On the other hand, Kizor's contribs so far speak for themselves, and if he has more time on his hands, he will be a very valuable addition for the admin team. So, ok, I switch a last time to 'Neutral'. Sry for messing this thread up, but this really was a serious point of concerns for me! :-( Gray62 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I just cannot trust a user who cannot answer all the questions posed at him/her (i.e. Q6). I know it is optional, but what are you trying to hide? Yahel Guhan 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the candidate had to run out before finishing answering all of the questions? Personally, I'd prefer a substantial and well-thought-out answer to such a pivotal question, rather than a rush-job. With all due respect, I think this oppose is a little harsh. Daniel 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this RfA run until the 18th? I would assume the candidate will still answer the questions. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 12:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of us here have a real life, to. Having to check daily if the candidate submitted another answer is inconvenient, to say it politely. And, hypothetically, let's say a candidate choses to answer the questions on the last day of his RfA. Would you think this is ok? :-/ Gray62 12:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have seen new questions asked near the last day in other RfAs. But it is irrelevant what I think about your inconveniences. If the inconvenience damages your trust in the candidate, then you can oppose. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a point here. Imho it is irrelevant what we think about Kizor's inconveniences, too. The question should be, will they negatively affect his work as an admin? :-/ And, as for the questions, I should have been more precise: Would you think it's ok if on the last day of the RfA, questions that are already three days old are still left unanswered??? Gray62 14:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well checking the contribs history, he has edited wikipedia over the last three days, and has answered questions 7 and 8. He has also commented today. Yet even dispite my pointing this out, he still hasn't answered question 6. I don't think he is too busy to answer that question or hasn't gotten to it yet, for if he was, He probably wouldn't have answered questions 7 or 8 either yet (or maybe not even have commented on this page). I think he is deliberately ignoring that question, and I don't know why, and it makes me suspecious of him. Yahel Guhan 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

They are optional questions, all of them. There is no requirement to answer, nor to give any reason for not answering. Participants are entitled to make a decision based in part on the non-response, but they have no right to demand a response so that they may make a judgement. LessHeard vanU 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is also no requirement for us to support a candidate if we have the increasing impression that he won't be there to do any admin work. This RfA has already been more effort than those of better candidates, and I'm really starting to ask myself if Kizor shouldn't have chosen a later date when he's got more time on his hands to make this step... :-( Gray62 08:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been working through the questions from the easiest to the hardest, and reviewed my contributions from that period to properly answer question 6. Though these are optional - thanks, LessHeard - such a matter as a block does deserve an explanation. --Kizor 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems he answered the question, to some satisfaction, so for now, I'm changing my vote to neutral. I'm not convinced at this point to give support, but I have no other objections at this time. As for LessHeard's comment, I recognize that he doesn't have to answer the question, as I have stated myself above in my original post, and I am not demanding that. However, I and other users are entitled to judge him on that action (or inaction). Yahel Guhan 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Will be interested by response to Q.4 and Q.6 - I would have asked similar things had other people not already done so. WjBscribe 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm going to remain neutral. I don't like the mass reverting in the spoiler debate issue. I don't like the fact it was done without edit summaries and frankly I think David Gerard was utterly right that spoiler warnings on sections called "plot" or "synopsis" are pointless self-reference. That someone chose mass reverting over further discussion bodes ill for how they will handle dispute as an admin. I note that over time those spoiler warnings have not been restored to those articles, which seems a strong indicator of consensus. Sometimes the best approach is "wait and see" if others agree. That applies particularly to admin actions that can have much more serious consequences. I am sufficiently persuaded by those supporting and by the responses by Kizor not to oppose, but a I'm not willing to support an RfA at this stage. WjBscribe 21:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral for now I can't really make a decision without the editor themselves answering the questions asked of them. Phgao 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. A very promising candidate, refreshingly different. I think his approach, especially regarding deleted pictures, is very valuable. That's the kind of admin noob editors, who often have trouble adjusting their contributions to the guidelines, need for support. However, the candidate should take this process here more seriously and answer the questions asap! I refuse to give a support vote as long as the candidate doesn't participate here. Gray62 08:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   Looking into Kizor's contribs, I see he has been editing today, but didn't care for answering the questions here. While I'm with the majority in believing he would be a good admin, I think his lack of attention to this process is reason for concerns. Imho we don't need admins that aren't there when their participation is needed :-( Gray62 12:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Whoa, apologies. I've had two assignments of the "work through the evening, pull an all-nighter, apply finishing touches on your way to university" variety, making it rather tricky to muster the time to answer the questions properly. You're right, though, I'll get right on it (and have already enabled forced summaries). --Kizor 13:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   This is an example of why I personally find RFA so frustrating. :/ Kizor doesn't answer questions for two days and it's treated as a personal attack against the editors who spend a large amount of time on this page. No regard is given to the possibility of real-life activities. Taking your time to consider a thoughtful answer to a question is also written off as "not caring". While I, personally, am in the "not a big deal" group, I understand that some people think it's more of a serious concern. I just hope you're putting it in the proper context. This isn't a job interview. It's important to find people who aren't going to blow up and do a bunch of deletion and blocking on their way, and try to prevent things like that. But an admin who doesn't trip over themselves rushing to respond to requests from people isn't harmful. An admin who has real life concerns isn't harmful. The difference between this and a job interview is that in a job interview, you need to find the most qualified candidate(s) to fill the number of jobs you have open, based on how much salary you want to offer. Here, we have no limits on the number of positions to fill, so we are just trying to avoid "hiring" people who will cause more harm than good. If there's further discussion to be had on this topic, I'll continue it on WT:RFA, since I've pretty much stretched the boundaries of relevance to Kizor's RFA. Thanks for indulging me. :) kmccoy (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   Kizor, thx for this info, looking forward to your answers. And, Kmccoy, I don't think I deserve criticism for pointing out that doing other edits and leaving the questions unanswered begs some questions. I'm pleased that Kizor now explained his problem. Gray62 23:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral pending to answering questions four through seven. Miranda 09:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral per Miranda. Vote changed to Support if only for the answer to question 7. Definitely subject to change though. Wisdom89 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral changed vote from oppose to neutral for now per my statements above. Yahel Guhan 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral per Kizor's answer to my question and per my arguments above. I apologize for being such a flipflopper, but I really thought it was important to clarify the point about the possible consequences of, uh, a 'time-handicapped' admin. Gray62 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   What, exactly, do you see as those consequences? Surely some help is better than no help? Some sort of "must be on the site 2 hours a day" requirement is something I think we should really strongly avoid. --JayHenry 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well,I see it this way: Having been less than two hours at WP for some time now is an issue that has to be considered when giving admin tools. After all, as an admin the candidate could start ll kinds of actions that would require his attention. We may like it or not, but many admins are reluctant to overrule the decisions of a collegue, even if there is good cuase for doing so. They want to contact this admin first, and in cases like Kirzon's, this would be difficult. Also, as in the case of User:Bblackmoor, which we discussed in another RfA, there are some difficult cases where the offending party calls for an admin, and the other editor is blocked very soon, without the admins doing enough to check the timeline of such editwars. Such collateral damage is hurting good faith editors and WP. An admin who hasn't enough time on his hands should stay away from such cases, or else there is a high risk he would do more harm than help. Well, I stand by my opinion that this is an issue. Gray62 14:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Jéské Couriano

Final (53/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) - I have been present and active on Wikipedia since August 2006, and have been an active discusser, very helpful to others in areas such as Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I intend to continue to help out at requests for page protection, as I have been, and at MfD, where I give my two cents. I don’t intend to wield the blockbaton much if at all because of the disputes I’m in (see below), but I am willing to help any user who needs aid of an administrative nature, provided they aren’t doing it to whet an axe.

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

A: As I have tended to discuss more than actually edit, my best contributions to Wikipedia have been discussions. Most of my most eloquent arguments have been made in the midst of my two largest disputes, and the mainspace edits I do have are mainly vandalism reverts.

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

A: I have been in a few conflicts, but I have mainly been in two major ones – the first one was in regards to romanized 4th-generation Pokemon names before they were officially announced. The issue was spread across several articles and required several move protections, finally resolving when the official names were revealed, proving themselves to be the same as the purported names. The second (and current) one is in regards to a meme (I will refer to it here as “SIHULM” so as not to trip Lupin’s badwords filter) which has been used to vandalize and as a cover to troll. Today I am still engaging in debates regarding the meme and requesting page protections for the affected pages (List of Pokemon (241-260), Mudkip, Mudskipper, and their talk pages) whenever the vandalism reappears en masse.

4. Question from Miranda: I would like to know what your interpretation of BLP is, since as an administrator, you will be working with resolving disputes with living persons.

A: My interpretation is that anything about a living person that is unsourced needs to go, harmful or helpful, until a reliable source arrives that confirms the statement, and that any of the same with weak or unusable reliable sources also be excised (and discussed why it was removed) on the talk page. The same should apply to everyone who has died within the past year or so. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)}, 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

5. As an admin candidate what is Your opinion of customizing your signature in accordance with WP:SIG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feydey (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I didn't realize adding the "contibs" part was going to put me at odds with it. I will be more than happy to comply with WP:SIG if I am given notice my signature breaches it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your sig definitely does not breach WP:SIG. Including brief additional internal links is generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication or to provide general information. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My sig with the Contribs link was over three lines long. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I would, with the caveat that the users have at least two months of tenure, because I would prefer that if the community has lost faith in my abilities as an administrator, I know about it and, if I'm found to be incapable for some reason, users be allowed to request I reconfirm. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Good active user who often participates in the different admin boards. nat^tang 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Liked the answers, meets my standards. Handled self well in the Mud Kipz thing. Articulate, sensible, cool under stress. Admittedly cursory review turned up no problems. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Well thought answers and is a very good editor as well. No major concerns here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support like what I've seen from this user.Rlevse 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Has proven himself to be well-versed with policy and doesn't have any trouble with keeping his cool. -WarthogDemon 17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Definately. --Hirohisat ^紅葉 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support per Siva... NHRHS2010 ^Talk 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support My interactions with Jeske have been nothing but productive, and I believe the tools will go to very good use. Jmlk17 21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Experienced editor who will not abuse tools. Ronnotel 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support His continual presence at ANI shows the experience and coolhead needed by an admin. Woodym555 22:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support per Hirohisat. jonathan (talk — contribs) 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Sumoeagle179
15. Support Obviously ready! Gutworth (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Impressed with this users' recent handling of an SPA on RfPP. Daniel 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support per nom, I see nothing amiss looking through contribs. Phgao 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
18. My interactions with this user, and a survey of his contributions indicate that he will use the tools in a mature and intelligent fashion; he therefore has my support. --Haemo 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - no problem with me. My interactions w/this user have been fine, no reason to believe they will abuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 04:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Great work clerking at RFPP - get out there and do it yourself :P ~ Riana ⁂ 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Yeah. Been doing a good job. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - aah a protector...welcome aboard...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support It turns out that User:Husond found a massive cache of extra mops lurking in the basement. And given your contribution history, diversity of editing, collaborative spirit and RFPP graft you may as well have one of them. Best. Pedro :  Chat  15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Strong support. Everything I've seen from this user looks excellent. Will make a great admin. Melsaran (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. Looks good to me. --FolicAcid 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Track is good with over 2000 mainspace edits and over 4000 overall .See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support -- Good quantity and quality of edits, good sense of humor, and active at many important spaces in WP. Bearian 21:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support No way I can oppose, I herd he lieks mudkipz. east.718 at 03:02, 10/12/2007

    Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'd prefer I not even be mentioned in the same sentence as "Mudkipz"(sic). -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    I been working on a project for around 40 hours straight, so my sarcasm detector may be broken at this point... if that comment was serious, I meant no ill will and was just trying to interject humor—I'm supporting you based on your merits. If not, ignore this comment. :) east.718 at 07:17, 10/12/2007

29. Support - I'm sure he will cut down on the fortnightly RFPPs for List of Pokémon (241-260). Will ^(talk) 09:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support, but please stop calling people lusers. Neil ム 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support, Good editor, I don't foresee any problems here. ELIMINATORJR 13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Strong editor. Lara❤Love 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Seen this applicant at AIV, and from contribs appears that the buttons are a next logical step. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Decent user. Acalamari 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support – Unlike Anonymous Dissident, I think you've been doing a good job. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
36. As per AD's spelling :p --D_arkF_alls ^talk 02:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Lol fixed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

37. Support – the main dispute I've seen Jeske as being involved in, one which I was involved in as well, as instigated by several IP users' failure to understand WP:N,WP:V, and WP:RS due to a conflict of interest. Jeske demonstrates much knowledge of important Wikipedia policies. He would definitely be a great, appreciated welcome to the admin group because of his desire to protect the general welfare of Wikipedia. Ksy92003(talk) 03:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - was heading to Jéské's talkpage to see if he wanted a nomination and discovered that I'd missed the boat... WjBscribe 03:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support - No reason not to. Neranei (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support. I liked his calm demeanor during the 'meme' debates in Talk:Mudkip and its archives. He kept his temper when there could be reason for losing it. He appears to know policy well. EdJohnston 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support per nom :D No, seriously, I don't like the nom at all. Certainly a valuable editor like Jeske can find someone he worked together with, who would put some nice remarks here? Imho the third person's perspective is always better than self nom. I also am surprised to see the candidate didn't even accept the nom. I know that's redundant in a self nom, but lets pls stick a bit closer to the rules. However, the candidates contribs speak for themselves, and his numerous postings in discussions show diplomatic skills we need in our admins. Whoever said RfA is a problem? We only need more great candidates like Jeske. Very encouraging. Gray62 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. A user who is calm in a crisis and has participated in important discussions. My only caveat is the vandalism counter on the user page. Sam Blacketer 10:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    I can remove that - my page is semi'd, and has been for a few months. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 11:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Just out of curiosity, Sam Blacketer, what is the issue with having a vandalism counter on your user page? (For the record, I did have one, but don't anymore, as of a couple months ago, so this isn't a major issue for me.) Ksy92003(talk) 14:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    I feel that while their intent is innocent (to display 'battle honours'), they can sometimes goad vandals to attack again; they also have the unfortunate effect of drawing attention to Wikipedia's unfortunate reputation for being assailed by juvenile vandals and the articles containing inaccuracies. A small thing really and not sufficient to change my vote. Sam Blacketer 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

    My user page is semi'd, so the Vandalism Report would have been stale for 2-3 months (when I originally had it semi'd after a death threat against me by a dynamic IP). I've already removed it; I don't plan on having my userpage unprotected anytime soon because of SIHULM and someone who seems to target me a lot. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 10:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

43. Strongest possible support - Seen you around, and thought you already were an admin. I shall come to you often for RfP when you get the mop! Rudget _{Editor Review} 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support you will help with WP:RPP and other issues. I think, you have the experience to be a admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 19:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Yeah ok. – Steel 21:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
47. So I herd this user liek wants to become an admin? hbdragon88 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - Just about there I think. Very good interaction skills, which is essential to being an admin, so well done! :-) Lradrama 10:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - super editor & very civil with all. I know his work from RPP and from his endless patience on the Pokémon series of articles. Good knowledge of policy. All the boxes are ticked :) - Alison ^❤ 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Strong communication skills, and definitely deserving of the mop. No concerns in the slightest. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Support looks like a good addition to the mop crew. Carlossuarez46 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
53. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 10:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Above all else, administrators need to be civil to set a good example for other users. While this RFA is ongoing, the editor made the following incivil comment: [17] Besides being rude, that comment shows a lack of understanding of how XfD works. Comments are suppose to state reasons, not merely be shrill conclusions. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   While I support your view that WP:Civil is very important for admins, imho the example you cite isn't exactly a reason for serious concerns. Last time I looked, WP:Civil covers insults against editors and their work. It says nothing about venting frustration by swearing when it's not specifically directed at something or somebody, right? And a single rhetorical question, born out of frustration about an already 'soved' issue coming up again, sure isn't evidence of a serious misunderstanding of policies, or is it? :-/ Gray62 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Hmm, I looked a bit deeper into this and found that actually you are the one who created the noticeboard that Jeske voted against in an a bit ill tempered manner[18]. Well, thx for bringing this alleged case of incivility to our attention, Jehochman, but, with all due respect about your impressive resume so far, don't you think that, as an involved party in this, you should have better abstained from voting on this RfA? I'm sure you acted in good faith, but it's quite difficult to come to an unbiased judgment under such circumstances. I mean, you can't rule out a subconcsious bias, after all. :-/ Gray62 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   There is no requirement of impartiality at RFA. The candidate was unwise to make intemperate comments while at RFA. Once he gets the tools, I expect things could get worse, so I have opposed. By the way, REDVERS seems to have deleted and recreated the MfD, therby hiding the evidence.(not so) I'd like to hear from the candidate directly. :-/ - Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, as a noob editor, I still think this is kind of an WP:COI issue, but as an esteemed expert in the field, you sure know more about this than I. Well, I'm eager to read the candidate's reply, too. :-/ Gray62 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Per Jehochman's request, I'm reposting here a comment I left at his talkpage: "Well, sry, but the way you presented it left the impression that you're a third party. Wouldn't it have been better if you would have disclosed that the alleged incivility was allegedly aimed at you? Don't forget, in the case of Matt47 (or what's his number) you also didn't provide the info that you were an involved party in the first place. Honestly, editors might start seeing a pattern here..." Don't forget, just my personal opinion. I'm interested in reading other views. Gray62 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oops. I revisited the incident I mentioned above, and it isn't like I remembered it. When reporting about Matt57, Jehochman did mention that the "rudeness" was directed against him, before making general points about "RfA blackballing" [19]. Sry, Jehochman, of course this is quite a different case. I apologize. Gray62 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Jenochman has every right to oppose or support as he wants. Just because he created something that got MfD'd and I made a delete vote on it doesn't mean he's conflicted.

   As for the seemingly-incivil comment, I had swore in a fit of pique over the fact that the opera had moved to a new theater, so to speak, and so I argued to delete it with prejudice. In fact, the comment "can't this be speedied?" was an honest question because it looked like a recreation of CSN. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, my comments were centering on the fact that he didn't disclose his involvement. This sure happened in good faith, but it still left a somewhat unfortunate impression (at least on me)Gray62 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   That's fine. I can forgive the lapse, if you promise to be more careful about civility. Other people will be watching and copying you. When you become an administrator you need to be especially mindful of your leadership role. You'll also face many stressful situations, so you need to avoid acting on pique. Can you raise your standards? - Jehochman ^Talk 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I can. I can work on that the same time I'm breaking the habit of using "Nuke" in place of "Delete" first (per the comment below by W.marsh), since that seems to be a larger XfD civility problem. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose per above and other recent incidents showing lack of XFD familiarity... nominating for deletion when a merge/redirect was clearly called for and another rude "nuke" comment. Making rude, inflammatory comments at AFD like "nuke it" is just not something admins need to be doing... we need to encourage people to write content, not ridicule them for it when they don't get it perfect. --W.marsh 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Uh huh. Jeske wrote "Nuke per WP:NOT#INSTRUCTION", two other editors wrote "Delete". Shocking. Hmm, where does WP:civil say that this is inappropriate in an AfD procedure? And as for the other incident, pls note that experienced admin ^demon visited that article without noticing that it was redundant. Looks like admins aren't perfect. Gray62 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Admitting to wanting to "nuke" content is a big red flag for me... it's the people who want to delete something so much they don't even consider merging, improving, etc. --W.marsh 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not a fan of deletionists, either. However, didn't you move the goalposts here? By your own account, the problem isn't so much the rudeness, but a certain attitude towards deleting content... Gray62 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   An attitude that's revealed by rude comments... what's your point? --W.marsh 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I'm only a noob, but I'm quite sure that repeated violations against WP:civil is a valid point in RfA's, but the dislike of an attitude isn't... Gray62 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, it's called an "unhelpful Comment": "Example: Oppose - user disagreed with me in an AFD debate. ABitDisagreeable 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)"[20] Gray62 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Despite the impression you might get from essays, you can't throw a comment out at RFA just because you've found a page that you think says the comment is "unhelpful". I've explained why the problems I mentioned suggest the candidate wouldn't make a good admin... it's for the b'crats, not misquoted essays, to decide how much weight my comments are given. --W.marsh 18:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, firstly, it isn't misquoted, and secondly, this article is cited in the box at the start of WP:RfA. Sry for thinking this is relevant. But, you're right, let's wait for the 'crats, this RfA is almost over. No need to become foes about thisGray62 18:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   I use "Nuke" arguments in place of deletes habitually; that does not mean I vehemently want it gone. In fact, in the CSN noticeboard MfD (2nd nom), I changed my reasoning to Merge to AN/I. As for the Monster Manuals AfD, I will admit that I jumped the gun on that, and I withdrew my nomination. My argument for the Fifa AfD was that it appeared to be nothing but game guide, which is not allowed - I've been through the song and dance with the Pokemon articles. And, Gray62, please don't give essays the same force as policies or guidelines. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, my comments were centering on the fact that he didn't disclose his involvement. This sure happened in good faith, but it still left a somewhat unfortunate impression (at least on me)Gray62 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)This comment was inverted at the wrong place in the thread, sry. Was moving it, but edit conflictGray62 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

   What involvement? Of the three deletion discussions I've referred to, I'm pretty sure I wasn't involved in any of them. I found them by looking through the candidate's contribs list... to my knowledge I hadn't heard of any of those discussions before today. --W.marsh 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Wisdom89

Final (14/13/5); Originally scheduled to end 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) - Focused Wikipedian and well intentioned Wisdom89 06:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

I am primarily interested in locating vandalism and contributing to its elimination on a grand scale, despite this being an extremely lofty and challenging endeavor. I have a vested interest in promoting discussion and would be vigilant against edit warring. I am also quite opposed to sockpuppetry to circumvent minor and major blocks. While everyone on wikipedia is entitled to edit, I tend not to tolerate subtle deception to promote one's POV. I have a penchant for eliminating original research as I understand the necessity for professional second and third party analysis.

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

I am able to contribute to science related articles due to my educational background and current status as a graduate student. My edits are a reflection of my interests and hobbies, music for instance, however I feel that my edits are made with minimal subjectivity, especially in anything medically or science related. My knowledge in these topics allows me to identify factual errors. I intend to become a member of several wikipedia projects in these areas that are designed to broaden information

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

Editing inevitable gets hot, it's unavoidable. I have tried to obey the three revert rule while remaining cool. I usually try and instruct users to foster constructive contribution by taking abrasive or drastic changes of articles to the talk page. I discourage edit warring whenever possible. There is no doubt that I will continue with this philosophy to promote consensus among editors and dissuade users from using edit summaries for discussion.

Question from User:Pedro

4. An IP address has posted POV material into Rush (band) three times and been reverted and warned. Ten minutes later a brand new registered account posts a similar POV entry as their first edit. What actions would you take regarding 1) The article. 2) The IP address 3) The new account ? Pedro :  Chat  07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A: If I was not initially involved in the observation of the NPOV violation and was not the one responsible for tagging the user page with warning templates, I'd 1.)Create a new subheading in the talk page of the article addressing the issue of POV 2)I would assume good faith editing with the new user account, however, I would probably remain wary. I wouldn't immediately assume a sock puppet offense. If the IP address continued to revert the edits back without discussion on the talk page, I'd add warning tags, most likely skipping the more lenient levels, as they would have most likely already been given by another admin or user. A possible block might be in order - on the order of 2 hours to 24 hours if no response was given. Since I am a heavy editor of the Rush (band) article, I'd rollback to the most recent NPOV version a single time. The new user account would receive a message on their talk page regarding the situation, that there has been recent issues regarding POV pushing. I'd enlist the help of other editors of the article to help get the new user to use discussion and build consensus. Wisdom89 08:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. Hello, Wisdom89 and thank you for submitting your RFA. I'm adding a number of questions. They are 100% optional but may help me or other voters decide on how to decide. I was almost persuaded to support by your answer to Pedro's queation, but feel I need a clearer picture. You can remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

These questions will be answered in do time after I am out of the lab : ) Thank you Wisdom89 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

5. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A- If the question is implying that a Checkuser (as this is usually a last resort) has already been performed which turns up incontrovertible evidence that proves said user is engaging in malicious sock puppetry, then little more needs to be done. However, if the question implies that I SUSPECT the user to be using sock puppets to commit rampant acts of vandalism, then I'd go through the necessary and proper channels. First, assume good faith. If this user is well respected and has a clear history of an "outstanding" and clean Wikipedia record, why the need for creating sock puppets? A WP:SSP report should be filed against the alleged user with the anonymous IPs or suspected sock puppet user names being tagged with {{Sockpuppet|1=Username|evidence=[[EvidenceLink]]}}.

6. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A- In this particular case, I would respect the other administrator's decision. If the admin had been closely watching the flame war and decided that this was the only recourse, I'd trust that judgement. My experience with administrators have been mostly positive, and very rarely do I see abuse of power - although it does happen. Sometimes a temporary block allows users to cool down when editing gets hot. Yes, I would continue to make attempts at fruitful conversation after leaving a message on their respective talk pages - possibly using other channels such as IRC or email. Email preferably. If the ArbCom rejects the case, I would contact the administrator who originally blocked both users and see if he/she would join me in mediation to ensure that the edit warring doesn't continue.

7. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A- While I am a strong believer in the need for guidelines, I find that they are numerous and sometimes a bit verbose which tends to discourage editors from comprehensively reading the presented information. This usually results in misinterpretation or skimming of the text - or the user avoids reading it altogether. I realize that Wikipedia is an enormous repository for information, and it's a public community which invites anyone to participate - Core policies such as No original research, NPOV, and Verifiability MUST be adhered to - but the myriad of guidelines might need to be better organized or curtailed in content so that users will have a better understanding of this medium and how it operates.

8. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A- Under no circumstances would I immediately block a user indefinitely if they had not already been blocked several times for vandalism or disruption of Wikipedia in the past. In other words, it would never be a first block choice. I tend to give people second chances or the benefit of the doubt. However, a constant barrage of vandalism such as blanking of pages, introduction of vulgarity, incivility etc..etc..coupled with silence (e.g. no discussion after repeated attempts at talk page and warnings tags) would push me to consult with other administrators, some who have dealt with the user before, and others who haven't been involved for neutrality purposes. I need constructive discussion in order to deal with a user, silence or recurrent personal attacks to myself or the other administrators would push me to indefinitely block both anonymous and registered users.

9. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A-

10. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A- I would say this is relative - it depends on how often it is edited. Sometimes articles haven't been given enough time to develop notability or meet the standards of decent article. There really is no set number I could give as it would most likely depend on several factors. One such factor is time. Closing a AfD might depend on this factor more, rather than the number of people who have responded. Getting more eyes on the AfD might be a reasonable course of action to help foster discussion such as comments, and not necessarily keep or oppose proposals.

11. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A- While the virtual world is different then life in the real world, I feel the daily stress and agitation that a person experiences throughout the day, and how they cope with that, stress is a pretty good meter stick for judging how they would approach a situation in the virtual realm such as Wikipedia. Over the years, I've learned that people tend to bring their characteristics, foibles, and personality traits to the internet. With that being said, I work good under pressure due to my profession. I haven't experienced burnout yet in any form, virtual or non-virtual. However, one needs to recognize that no one is impervious to stressful situations, especially when abuse or vitriol are involved. Humility is the key. Don't be afraid to enlist the help of other Wikipedians and administrators for a cool down period. Maintaining civility is pivotal in dealing with a dispute or disruptive user.

12. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A I feel that I have a solid grasp of the range of policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia, despite the fact that I have not taken advantage of ALL facets of this fine place - as some users have pointed out. I tend to be very objective, as that is how I am trained as a scientist. You look at things from multiple angles, you don't jump to conclusions, and you rely on analysis of a situation. This makes for a good administrator. There are destructive things that go on here, and as this site grows in popularity and the number of articles and new users rise, so does the potential for abuse. Invariably, more control is needed. I feel I would be able to fulfill this role with aplomb. I do not have a history of being uncivil or making personal attacks. I can be stern, and I feel that is a necessary trait. A cool, calm, collected mind with a knowledge of the core policies is the heart of a good administrator.

13. Optional question by User:Bearian. Why have you not used edit summaries every time? Bearian 19:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A This is a fair question. I anticipated this being an issue before I began the nomination procedure, but didn't realize to what extent. There is no one single answer to this question. There are times when I am eliminating small pieces of silly vandalism or nonsensical content, and my mind goes into quick mode. Just a rapid revert. That sort of thing shouldn't confuse anyone who checks the diff. However, one should be more careful when dealing with edits that involve removing Original Research. This should be clarified. Sometimes you're in a rush, sometimes you're more attentive. It's not apathy, it's more of reflex in most cases. Also, not to make excuses, but sometimes I contribute to Wikipedia when I am at work and have been called away in haste while editing. This happens often. Again, not an excuse, just an answer. I've made many edits on Wikipedia since I registered my account, some edits summaries I've been lax with, others I've been clear. The only thing I can say is this: I will be more conscientious about this from now on. It is easily fixed.

14. Optional questions from WODUP: In Q1, you said that you're interested in locating vandalism and contributing to its elimination. How will the administrative features help you with that? What have you done without the admin buttons to correct and prevent vandalism?

A I'll answer the second question first. While some users have pointed out that I have not taken advantage of WP:AIV, I have taken alternate methods. While they maybe difficult to locate, I assure you that I have been known to, first, assume good faith and use a warning level 1 template as my initial approach. I have escalated such warnings as the vandalism has continued. I've left messages on user talk pages instructing them that their edits may be construed as vandalism (although not when it involves content disputes) and will only cause further conflict. I've alway made sure to make users aware of the WP:3RR rule during inflammatory edit wars. Now, as far as blatant vandalism, I tend to eliminate it on sight by simple reversion. You know the drill, page blanking, insertion of gibberish, vulgarity, or incorporation of insidious vandalism that is meant to remain undetected by the general public. Now, onto your first question. Adminstrative features would allow me to combat vandalism more effectively through Arbcom intervention , and WP:AIV, and WP:RFPP - if it comes to that. Vandalism is typically perpetrated through the use of sock puppets, and the policy WP:SSP for adminstrators would be followed accordingly. Checkuser, while not always definitive, is always an option.

Optional Question from Marlith ^T/C

15 What do you dream Wikipedia will be in the future? Will you fight to create a blessed world where the blood of vandals is the wine that we raise in our toasts?Marlith ^T/C 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A Tough to envision what Wikipedia will ultimately become - it grows almost exponentially - we have eclipsed 2 million articles in the English Wikipedia alone. As I mentioned elsewhere, as the site continues to grow and becomes more pervasive, it will attract the attention of well intentioned users, as well as vandals/trolls. I would love nothing else than to contribute to the control of damaging edits and behavior, but without abusing my power.

Question from User:Piotrus

16. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A As a matter of fact, I would be open to such an idea. I understand that it is voluntary, and would ultimately be the admins choice, not just regarding participation, but also in the conditions underlying the proposal to rescind adminship. I myself have encountered administrators whom I felt acted arbitrarily or with a certain agenda. I've also seen ownership of articles and complete abuse of power. I am unable at this time to, in theory, provide you with a set of restrictions I would employ. That's something I'd consider down the road depending on the outcome of this process. Wisdom89 05:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Wisdom89's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Wisdom89: Wisdom89 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wisdom89 before commenting.

Discussion

• Please use edit summaries (turn that option on in your preferences). It would be tough without them. For example, I don't know why you did this. But I am assuming there was a good reason; I won't oppose based on a lack of edit summaries however because it's something you can correct immediately. - TwoOars (Rev) 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, you are correct. Edit summaries are crucial which is why the percentage might be low, it has been increasing as of late. The reason for the above edit was to move the content to a more appropriate place in the article. Wisdom89 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, right. I checked the next edit; should have checked the previous edit too. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, Wisdom, but the way you're responding is screwing up the numbering on the votes. Doczilla 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oops you're right. Pardon me Doczilla Wisdom89 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I see some possible minor issues here but nothing that can't be fixed. By that I mean your opening self nom was a bit "odd", and your answers to the questions didn't really seem to be fully fleshed out and with some unique ways of putting things - "Primarily interested in locating vandalism and contributing to eliminating it on a grand scale, despite this being an extremely lofty and challenging endeavor". Grand Scale? Lofty? Hmmmm.... However your answer to my optional question was spot on. No mention of page protection or losing WP:AGF but keeping a sensible head on. Yep, if that's your attitude then I trust you to make good and fair use of the tools, and thus am happy to offer my support. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat 
2. Support The answer to Pedro's question was good but I am impressed by Wisdom89's handling of various difficult situations at Talk:Rush (band). Appears to have a sound knowledge of policy. And I like the nom. Short and cute. (may change opinion though if some other evidence comes to light) - TwoOars (Rev) 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak Support I agree with Phgao that you do good work with articles, however, when I look at the edit counter, there is no mention of any participation with any admin noticeboards (i.e. WP:AIV, WP:ANI). I believe that a future sysop should at least have some experience with these admin noticeboards if he/she is going to be working with them if promoted. On the positive side , you have participated in AFDs, and I give you credit for that. What also concerns me is the lack of edit summaries (Edit summary usage for Wisdom89: 34% for major edits and 9% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.). Anyways, based on what Twooars has stated above, I am willing to support you. nat^tang 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per above and meets my standards with a featured article- you did not mention this in you nom statement or Q2. I would recommend you review WP:BLOCK, though I don't believe you would go berserk with the block button. Quite the contrary. Also, you can set your preferences so that you must fill in the edit summary before it will save. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per experiences with user. — Deckiller 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support The only flaw I see is edit summarues. We need more anti vandals. Marlith ^T/C 03:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support overall, I can see a good 'pedia builder. Could have written a better intro above but overall looks trustworthy with tools.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Weak Support. I agree with Nat's concerns, but overall, I think this editor will probably be ok. --FolicAcid 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Weak support per Folic Acid. Good answers to questions, good prior work. However, you have some more things to learn, so please take your time to learn more. I will not oppose your RfA, because I think I can trust you. Bearian 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Per the answer to Pedro's question. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Weak Support. Not terribly loquacious in the nomination statement, but recent contribs reveal useful edits in a variety of areas. The answers to the questions are adequate, if strangely phrased, and demonstrate this candidate's understanding of the role of an administrator. This request will probably fail, but I recommend the candidate to try again in a few months. Walton^One 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Weak Support User deserves a chance Dustihowe 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Weak Support Based on some good answers to the questions, advise working on some of the concerns raised below. Davewild 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Concerns raised below seem to be focused primarily on lack of edit count (edit-countitis anyone?). Overall impression is of a reliable and trustworthy user, level-headed, unlikely to get into an edit war and act unilaterally to stifle dissenting views/diversity (ie be a "bad" admin). Support with the caveat that be listed as an admin under review, not a bad move for all new admins. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose (changed after long consideration to neutral) First up; positives - great work to some articles especially Rush. But, there is no consistent use of edit summaries, a total of 180 unique pages in conjunction with hardly any if any participation in admin areas such as AIV, RfA, AfD, means that while you may be a good article editor, I fear you lack experience in areas which admins would most likely take part in. Phgao 12:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A low number of unique pages is not such a bad thing. After all, Wisdom89 has been working on one article for more than a year and it appears, significantly contributed to the article becoming featured content. A high number of unique pages is achieved when all one does is revert vandalism, which although an equally good thing, takes much less effort than article building. - TwoOars (Rev) 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true, I have been extremely focused on the Rush article, and it certainly took a while to get it to featured article status. Might I add that, while it takes less effort to simply go around reverting vandalism, it has been something I've also taken the time to do. Wisdom89 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose - edits to project space mostly confined to featured nominations - hardly any involvement with deletion process or AIV. Addhoc 14:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - low level of contributions to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

   Just a comment here. I can understand how one might think that - but policy knowledge was always something I felt I was strong in. I hoped to make that apparent with my responses to the questions in this RfA. Wisdom89 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Just not quite there in the experience...yet. Keep up the good work, but try and start using edit summaries more. Jmlk17 21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Addhoc, inexperience. Daniel 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - You say you want to fight vandalism, but I see no reports to WP:AIV, and the low number of User Talk posts looks like you're not warning vandals. I think you need to work on fighting vandalism now, and get a feel for how the process works, before you'll be ready to use the admin buttons for that purpose. The edit summaries thing is also something that needs to be fixed for a while before standing for admin. It looks like you're doing good work on the 'pedia, but I don't think you're ready just yet. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose for a lack of proven policy experience. (AIV, etc). That said, I don't have any prejudices against another RfA at some point down the road after the concerns above have been addressed. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - good intentions but more can be done with his current rights to fight vandalism and assist wikipedia. Leadership in the area of vandalism has little to do with title, and more with action. Tiggerjay 07:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
8. No, I can't support at this time. You seem to be doing some good things, but I would like to see some more experience. Come back in a few months and my signature should be in the support section. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
9. No per Anonymus Dissident. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Wisdom89 says xe wants to help at WP:AIV, but has edited that page fewer than two times. Regular vandal-fighters will have vandals who vandalize past a final warning, and will need to report them to administrators. Adminstrative features would allow me to combat vandalism more effectively through Arbcom intervention... Simple vandals don't get to ArbCom. I don't mean to be mean or look like I'm assuming bad faith, Wisdom89 is here to do good things, and I'm happy about that. I think xe could make a good administrator in the future, but I must oppose for now. WODUP 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Not to belabour the point, but, just pointing out for readers who may not know this: Being an admin does not make one a member of WP:ArbCom. Participating in Arbitrations has nothing to do with being an admin. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    But all that's experience that is needed when resolving disputes at the admin level. O₂ (息 • 吹) 21:00, 12 October 2007 (GMT)

    Whuh? I'm not sure what your point is here. All what's experience? I just wanted to clarify for those happening upon this that being an admin is not the same as being on arbcom, as it sounded like the candidate was mistaken about that. Also, it's not just admins who participate in arbitrations. If you were referring to Wodups's comment about arbcom having nothing to do with simple vandalism, yes, that is true. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose per K. N.D. I checked contribs and was disturbed by the lack of talk contribs, too, especially that there's hardly any particpation in longer lasting discussions. Imho the candidate has admin potential, his answers show that he's serious and thoughtful, but he has to show skills at resolving problems to become an admin. Since, according to reports, WP isn't growing as fast anymore and the focus is shifting towards maintaining existing articles, a diplomatic approach towards editors and the ability to handle disputes will become increasingly important. However, I'm looking forward to revisiting this candidate again in a few months and I'm almost certain he will have overcome this lack of experience by then. Gray62 09:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Your input is highly regarded - I appreciate that you see my activity and responses as well-intentioned and productive. Thank you for the comments. I plan to increase my acts of intervention - and have already done so. This process is, if nothing else, giving me a wider view of Wikipedia - depsite visiting nearly all the spaces I could. Participation is key - gives you the practical experience an admin would require if they were given the rights. Cheers. Wisdom89 16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose - Nowhere near enough experience in Wikipedia/project space yet, although your article work is good. The RfA introduction doesn't really sell yourself either, but that's not a big issue. Always use the edit summary. Try again a few months. Lradrama 10:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose don't feel offended, however your too many few mainspace edits (one third of them covering just a single article) fail to prove you can actually deal with the mop. --Angelo 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for the very laconic self-nom, but swaying back and forth on the fence after looking at your input. We'll see. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

   I stand by my vote. Not enough to support, and not enough to oppose. Come back in a few months after you've gathered more experience. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral The lack of usage of edir summaries is a concern here, which is a very important guideline in this project. However, I must acknowledge the great work you did to some of the articles, so I do not think you deserve an oppose comment. I also do not think that you would misuse the admin tools given to you if you pass this RFA. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I'm uncomfortable with the lack of edit summaries. Anyone who wants to become an admin needs to give clear and frequent feedback to others. This user has done good work. A greater variety of work would be helpful. However, some WP:CANVAS concerns[21][22] bother me with regard to this RfA. I think this person has a lot more to learn. (Surely you could have checked your wording and spelling better on your RfA self-nomination and subsequent remarks.) I'm definitely leaning toward oppose, but would first like to see how this person answers all the questions. Doczilla 19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

   I concede to the lack of edit summaries. I've made adjustments such that all of my edits will be clearly visible for all users to see. I understand your discomfort. As for the Canvasing you referenced, had it been more rampant I could clearly see it being an issue, but two examples is hardly a good case. Besides, I have no idea how those editors would "vote". I just wanted more eyes on the process. As for my spelling, I don't see many mistakes, and even if there are, should this be criteria for whether one should become an administrator? As you've pointed out, I've done "good work" with regards to prose and copy editing. Wisdom89 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral - I'm impressed by Wisdom89's efforts and ability to get an article to FA, as he did in Rush, and I have no doubt he was the guiding force for that, and for maintaining a highly polished article. His civility and ability to use the talk page is strong. His edit summary count isn't important to me, as it can be easily fixed if needed. I am a bit concerned by two things, though. One, he hasn't particularly branched out in terms of subject matter. While unique pages isn't important to me, trying a few areas out can lead to a wider experience in working out problems. Similarly, I see only limited wikipedia space editing, and feel that if he were to hang out at one of the AN, RfC, AfD or some other community input based Wikipedia space area for a few months, he could watch how things are handled more. If he's already been lurking, then perhaps I'd be inclined to move to weak support. All that said, I have found Wisdom89 to be a conscientious editor (if not summarist, lol) and have confidence that sooner or later, he'll be a good admin and asset to the project.ThuranX 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I actually have been visiting those areas and spaces on Wikipedia - been doing some theoretical research if you can get me :) I appreciate the comments though! Wisdom89 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral 38% for major edits and 13% for minor edits is too low of edit summaries for my liking. Other than that, I don't see any problems, so I will only go neutral. Captain panda 02:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Something that I've committed to fixing and not just arbitrarily because of this RfA. I've already adjusted my preferences and employed TW prior to this self nom. Wisdom89 06:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   This is Requests for adminship, not Editor review. While a consistent use of edit summaries is desirable, it does not really influence his ability to be an administrator. Adminship is a few extra buttons, and not a trophy for being a good editor. Melsaran (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Consistent use of edit summaries can indicate how good this person as an admin would be about explaining to people what they've done wrong. I haven't been on the receiving end of this myself, but I've seen way too many times when admins block people, etc., with insufficient explanation as to what the problem is and how things should be done instead. That's an extreme example, but all the less extreme problems add up. Willingness and ability to explain things is imperative. Plus, the more I see of this person's work and how this person answers questions, the less I feel that this person really knows enough about Wikipedia in general to have the knowledge needed to (1) explain enough different things to others and (2) make the right judgment calls as admin at what should be a much higher rate than other people. A better edit summary history would also give us a better idea as to what specific kind of feedback Wisdom would dispense. (Somehow everything I read in Wisdom's defense makes me conscious of how much there is to defend and pushes me more toward oppose instead of neutral.) Doczilla 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Danielfolsom

(23/17/8); ended 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC):

Danielfolsom (talk · contribs) - I'm pleased to present Daniel for your consideration. He has been among us since July, 2006, though it took him some months to get the bug; since then he has been a consistent and diligent contributor. Daniel has over 6000 edits nicely balanced between article, talk and project space. He has an interest in template space, and (for some strange reason) enjoys trawling CAT:CCSD to see if he can help new or inexperienced editors rescue valid articles. He is also a project coordinator at Wikipedia:Spotlight, through which he has demonstrated his commitment to improving the encyclopaedia.

Daniel's considered approach to editing was clear from the start when he sought guidance through WP:ADOPT, where I had the pleasure of mentoring him. Ten months later, I'm confident he both understands and cares about our policies, writes carefully and neutrally, and is a helpful presence in calming disputes. Like all of us Daniel has made mistakes and is still learning — indeed his willingness to seek advice and constructive criticism is among his strongest assets — but I believe he now has the skills, experience, temperament and enthusiasm to serve constructively in an administrative capacity. Rockpocket 07:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept - thanks for the nomination Rockpocket.--danielfolsom 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would probably be most active in the speedy deletion candidates - since, not to be immodest or anything, I think I have a good eye for what can be improved and what should be deleted. That is actually probably one of the biggest reasons I'd like to become an admin - I think I could really help with some of the more tedious tasks.

As most can probably tell, a lot of my time has been spent reverting vandalism quickly - so the rollback feature could really allow me to be more productive given that it involves less time. Also, the fact that I spend time reverting vandalism also shows that I might be able to keep up the quality of some of Wikipedia's lesser known pages, as I'll have time to browse Special:Unwatchedpages and watch AIV and try to give some help there.--danielfolsom 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

A: Well, it's hard to say one contribution as my "best", as most of my contributions are spread out and are influenced so much by other editors. However, if I have to say a few I would probably go with the 2004 NBA Finals (a few diffs from that: 1, 2, 3) and also anything I've done with WP:Spotlight - which I explain here.--danielfolsom 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

A: Yes I've probably been in quite a few editing conflicts where one of us would misread a fairly innocuous comment as an attack, which would obviously have bad consequences - however more recently I think I've been generally more open minded about everything. I will either ask users to clarify or back out of a discussion and let other users resolve it. Obviously this is a trend that I will continue, and I'm proud to say that none of the conflicts of old are ongoing.--danielfolsom 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Jehochman

4. What do you think of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean - however, to give a very general answer, I think groups such as those are great. While I haven't exactly researched this group for an answer - frankly I would say that any club that gets Wikipedia members involved in Wikipedia disputes (with the intention being to mediate the dispute, of course) is great. Feel free to request a more detailed answer if this is not satisfactory. --danielfolsom 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Pedro

5. William Jurgens was recently nominated for speedy deletion, an area you indicate you are keen to work in. I declined it. What are your thoughts on this? (I've deliberately kept this vague.) Pedro :  Chat  09:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Well I mean, personally I probably would have done the same, I'm in a slight rush so I haven't had time to look at why you kept it or what the article was like at the time, but the fact that he's written three books would probably just lead me to tag it up a lot - as beyond a list the books aren't really mentioned, so a stub tag would probably be fitting in addition to a few others.--danielfolsom 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Piotrus

6. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes - being an admin is an honor - not a privilege, thus to assume that you being granted that right once is somehow synonymous to a grant of everlasting rights is ridiculous. An admin is not above the community - they are part of it, no more important than the anonymous IP editor, so an admin can't assume that they are above the communities judgment, so should the community judge that an admin is unfit to continue his or her role, then that admin has an obligation to resign.--danielfolsom 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from User:Dustihowe

7. In the past, you have been in arguements that have gotten pretty serious, in my judgement. Do you feel that you will continue to stand your ground as an Admin, if selected? Or do you feel that you will be more courteous to the community, even though you have admin privilages?— Dustihowe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here - but to go on what I think you mean: it would honestly depend on the situation. I mean if I'm in a dispute with an editor that originated from me and the other editor, then it's my and the other editor's obligation to both stand our ground, but also find compromise. However, if I go in specifically to help end a dispute, then obviously I wouldn't have any ground to stand on - as I wouldn't be arguing either way. Even beyond that though, it's really just situational.--danielfolsom 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Tiptoety

8.How much time do you believe an administrator should put in to contributing to wikipedia, do you believe that an admin should try to contribute everyday, or that they can contribute when they feel like it. How often do you plan on contributing? Tiptoety 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... well, I'll answer your last question first. I've actually been kind of sick this past month - but normally I contribute every day, and I'm on at least 3-4 hours a day. Your first question is more complicated. I would say that ideally, everyone would contribute every day, however that'd be in a perfect world. So ... hmmmm, well I guess I think that admins should contribute whenever they feel like it then - however, should their contribution frequency not satisfy the community (as there are limits), then that admin should face resigning their position. It's really the communities' call.--danielfolsom 01:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Danielfolsom before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support as nominator. Daniel is not going to abuse the tools and will be an asset to the project with them. Rockpocket 01:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Full Support - I know this guy in real life, so if by some weird chance he abused the tools, I could hunt him down and break his legs :P Confident he'll make a great admin. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per nom, answers, overall record. Qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 01:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Nomination is good, a quick check of contributions showed nothing to jump up and down about. Daniel 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I want to review the Kiev incident in detail. Daniel 11:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Support John254 02:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per nomination. Also nice to have User:David Fuchs making sure his legs are intact or broken, as the case may be.  :) --Folic_Acid 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support --Hirohisat ^紅葉 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. An experienced editor. I'd prefer a higher percentage of mainspace edits, but he's done some good work, both in the encyclopedia and in the admin-like areas. He's also quite active, so he'd likely be available if needed. Useight 06:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support This is a very experienced user and I am confident that he will not abuse the tools given to him. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Strong Support This guy looks like he knows what he is talking about and by looking at his history, he looks like he is self confident and will be willing to stand his ground in arguments ( like : this). Dustihowe 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Danielfolsom is clearly an experienced editor and one who has a grasp of what WP:CIVIL is all about. He'll make a good admin. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - enough experience gathered to be a great admin. But please learn from the mistakes that're pointed out below. Lradrama 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    I will definitely try - I do realize that I have made more than a couple mistakes - but what I consider important is really what I have, and really what I'm continuing to learn from those mistakes - so I completely agree with you. Thanks for the suport.--danielfolsom 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

12. Support. Willingness to being open to recall is crucial. Being able to take a stance against experienced editors and not fearing criticizing them shows good backbone. Good luck! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support per nom. Epbr123 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Very cautious support - I'm concerned by a couple of things (like this [23]) for instance, but I can't get past the feeling that Daniel, like many of us, is a good user who's made some bad judgment calls. I strongly encourage Daniel, should this RFA pass, to take a deep breath when he sees criticism and look for the spirit behind it. No one here wants you personally to fail or wants to see bad things happen; we all want the project to succeed with you as a part of it. I'm afraid that you take criticism very personally and sometimes lose sight of the basic kindness and decency of most people on here, who really are some of the most gentle people I've ever met. Criticism is nothing more than someone bringing to your attention something that bothers them, and it takes a lot of courage to go to someone and say "here's an area where I think you can improve". Please take that in the spirit in which it is meant - including with this missive. I also encourage you to cultivate mentors - beyond the ones you already have - because a breadth of opinion is always helpful (there's nothing wrong with the mentors you have, and I respect each of them; I just think "more is better"). Then, listen to your mentors. That said, I support your request for adminship and wish you the very best of luck. - Philippe | Talk 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
15. I'm going to go ahead and give my support, as I've seen you having good interactions with others, notably the particularly annoying user EverybodyHatesChris. Being able to handle an editor like that with a fair bit of coolness is good for an admin. That said, some of the opposers, particularly Bishonen, do bring up valid points that you should heed, regardless of the result of this RFA. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Weak Support. Good editor overall, and some of the opposers' criticisms aren't very fair and/or have been explained away. However, I see one or two valid concerns (particularly those raised by iridescent and Pedro) which push me to a Weak Support. This RfA may well end without consensus, but I urge Daniel to try again in a few months and take the opposers' points under advisement. Walton^One 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - looks okay to me. Deb 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Support I had dealings with the applicant some months ago and was very impressed by the sheer commitment and good faith they showed in some very heated exchanges, which included taking time away to allow tempers to cool. This is a rare case where I know something of the editor, and everything I know makes me believe they would be an asset to Wikipedia in having the tools. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Per Walton, basically. The opposers raise legitimate concerns, but many of them are trivial and not really related to adminship. I believe Daniel is editing with the best interests of the project in mind, and that the net effect of granting him the sysop tools would be a positive one. I'm not sure that this RFA is going to pass, if it doesn't, please take the advice of the opposers to heart, and if you retry in a few months I'm sure you'll pass! Melsaran (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - I like your style and the answer to question 8. Rudget _{Editor Review} 14:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Looks like Siva1979 is supporting everyone's RfA while opposing my RfA! Making me jealous... er, I mean Support per Siva1979. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hehehe, good point! :D But, for the record, I remember Siva opposing other candidates as well, even though it's the exception, not the rule. Nothing necessarily wrong with it. We try to do our best here, that we often come to different conclusions is just a sign of the diversity of WP. Gray62 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

22. Good contributor, good record. Worth handing the tools to. Twenty Years 14:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
23. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'm concerned about the candidates' notion of "assuring that policies are followed on talk pages"[24] by means of interjecting alphabet soup (e. g. WP:CIVIL) into content discussions. It seems rather crude, or even counter-productive. I don't feel happy about the idea of an admin admonishing editors in this manner, with the authority of the block button behind him. On an occasion I noticed, back in August, Daniel gave the experienced editor Irpen a "reminder" of WP:CIV, probably our best-known policy, and one I can't for the life of me see that Irpen had violated. Please make your own judgment of the dialogue here, at Talk:History of Russia. As a way of keeping the peace on a contentious talkpage, which has seen a lot of real incivility, Daniel's intervention seemed to me clumsy at best, and predictably it had no good results. I queried its wisdom at the Editor Review which Daniel had running at the time, but I received prickly and self-righteous answers from him.[25] I'm sorry, but none of this suggests to me that the candidate is ready for adminship. However. If I can see some evidence that his intervention technique, or general interaction with others, has become more mellow and productive since August, I'm prepared to reconsider my opposition. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
2. Oppose per Bishonen. The whole farcical History of Russia "improvement" drive was made worse by Daniel's involvement. For instance, I added two citations from reliable sources (standard English-language histories of Russia) to a statement Daniel was questioning for no good reason - and he still wouldn't accept them. He didn't appear to know what he was talking about but this didn't stop him intervening and making the situation worse. Wouldn't trust him in a position of power. --Folantin 09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose – Ran into you before, my past interaction with you was enough to set of my alarm bells that I should oppose (for example: this). It wouldn't surprise me if you would delete articles because they're "obnoxious". Your mainspace edits are also very worrying (or I should say: lack of).[26] The most shocking thing though is this, since when has "common knowledge" (or I dare say your knowledge) been a reliable source? Matthew 11:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   WP:Cite#When_to_cite_sources - "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." - thus common knowledge does not need to be cited. This is evidenced by the fact that even featured articles do not need to have citations for every sentence. It was pointed out to me on the History of Russia page, where someone had actually gone through and put fact tags on almost every claim - and I was defending it, which I now see as a mistake.--danielfolsom 11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I think you need to carefully read what you just quoted: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." The indication of a fact tag says to me "this sentence has been challenged, provide a source". So what you just quoted to me only serves to support my oppose: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." Ergo you are still (or your "common knowledge") not a reliable source. Wake up! Matthew 12:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, again, I would disagree especially given the History of Russia situation - but I guess we can just agree to disagree here.--danielfolsom 15:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   There is obviously a middle ground here, where some statements of common knowledge should not reasonably be required to be sourced ("California is a US State" for example), irrespective if one has been requested. Of course, if something is such common knowledge it should not be too much of a challenge to find a source. So while common knowledge is most certainly not a reliable source, your question presumes that reasoning is the basis on which Daniel acted. That is a straw man, since a reliable source is not an absolute requirement for every single sentence in every single article. I'm not sure I would have removed that request myself, but I hardly find it a "shocking" edit, especially considering the context in which it was added. Rockpocket 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I remember Daniel primarily as a guy who was "talking privately" with Piotrus about promoting his page to good articles. Given a number of concerns associated with the opaqueness of the GA nomination process, I find private communications between the nominator and the reviewer morally reprehensible. That's just me, though. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I had been taking a while to re-review it after I put it on hold and I was merely explaining that to him, and because a discussion/dispute came up in the middle of everything, that also delayed the final review. However, I later failed it - so it's not as though he and I were conspiring to pass an article, but in fairness - there isn't a policy that dictates that I can't communicate with a nominator, and this was, to my recollection, my first article ever reviewed--danielfolsom 11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Ghirla, I respect your grounds for opposition, but inflammatory wording such as "morally reprehensible" should in my opinion not be used. Newyorkbrad 12:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I was helping out with this review, Daniel was trying to deal with a protracted discussion in which Piotrus was rather uncooperative and he eventually failed the article. I think Daniel dealt well with this conflict and remained impressively polite and calm. Tim Vickers 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose Your recent mainspace history is extremely unimpressive — especially this move, where 10 seconds on Google would have shown you that you were moving it away from the correct name as given on their own website. You say you specifically want the tools for deletion, but have participated in a grand total of one XfD in the past month. You say "I have a good eye for what can be improved and what should be deleted", but a skim through your deleted mainspace edits shows a huge number of edits to articles that went on to be deleted, one successful CSD tag in July, and no other (successful) CSD tagging since March other than a couple of dead redirects. As per Matthew, while it's in the past I'm deeply unimpressed by the arrogant & bitey Template:Obnoxious, and this comment on your user page seems to indicate that you still support the sentiments it expressed & feel you were hard-done-by when it was deleted (for those who can't read deleted edits, the text of {{obnoxious}} was "An editor is concerned that this section may have too many insignificant facts in it, creating an obnoxious look. Please consider shortening this section to an appropriate size, with only noteworthy information") and, like Matthew, I get the strong feeling you'll delete content because you think it looks ugly. — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Is the obnoxious template the only justification you have for this? I mean saying I'll delete things I think are ugly is a fairly major assertion, perhaps if you could provide a few diffs I could better contend that. As to the edits to pages that are to be deleted - that is perfectly explainable actually, User:Danielfolsom#Other (last sentence, 2nd IP): "I usually try to make edits even on ones I'm pretty sure are to be deleted - just in case I'm wrong and they're saved ". and last point: I actually have not editted much at all recently due to a virus that's been going around --danielfolsom 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, and I think it's valid. The fact that you created a template for pages you think are "obnoxious", and are still defending it on your userpage seven months later (despite the 8-1 snowball delete) indicates to me that you haven't grasped just what the problem was. As Iamunknown put it way-back-when, "Some person spent time to research those "insignificant facts" and arrange them in a way that puts off an "obnoxious look"; we could at least do the common courtesy of not marginalizing their work". On a different note, as well as the Russia incident Bish refers to above, there's another prime example of you charging headlong into someone else's argument at Talk:Negroid. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, fair enough I suppose, although to clarify: I'm not defending the template on my userpage. I list every template I've ever created there - and write little things about them. I have admitted that the wording was excessively harsh - as evidenced by the actual discussion. So again, I'm not defending it, I'm merely stating my point of view. Given that I list every template and my take on them, for me to do otherwise would be somewhat strange.--danielfolsom 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose I'm afraid. The obnoxious template was a pretty bad idea. I'm concerned by the History of Russia discussion too. But I really wish you hadn't answered my question with "I'm in a rush", and then echoed that in a response in neutral. Whilst I appreciate your courtesy in trying to reply promptly, rushing is not a good admin trait. Better to have waited and replied with all the facts than to rush a response at your own RfA. It worries me that you would therefore carry that attitude to C:CSD where rushing is right off the agenda. I'm sorry. Pedro :  Chat  12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Alright fair enough - however I will say that I think you'll find that humans in general are at one point or another in their life are in a rush - regardless of admin status, and I would say that rushing to make a comment and giving a quick example is hardly comparable to deleting a page--danielfolsom 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per Bishonen. Interaction with Irpen was counterproductive and indicates a lack of experience. Not what we'd want to see in an admin. Ronnotel 13:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree. What you're describing displays his lack of respect to the Fight Club rule of Thou shalt not criticise a regular. I believe this is an indication of integrity rather than of inexperience; it's a virtue rather than vice. See also WP:TAAR. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   My issue is with the overall approach - e.g. WP:DTTR. In any interaction as an admin, you must take into account to whom you are speaking and tailor your message appropriately. Criticizing a regular is fair game. Treating them like a newbie is unhelpful and demonstrates a lack of experience. Ronnotel 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I tend to agree with Διγυρεν here. Irpen's comment to which Daniel politely responded citing WP:CIV - "do as you please. There is nothing new in that" - was hardly constructive or conducive to promote harmonious editing either. Which appeared to be Daniel's point. That it was made to an experienced editor is neither here nor there, in my opinion. As Daniel's mentor at the time Bishonen contacted me, but I declined to get involved for two reasons. Firstly it was (and remains) a tempest in a teapot, and Daniel was at the stage where he should be able to deal with such things by himself. Secondly, I don't think his actions were anymore or less problematic than those more experienced editors he was interacting with. If that comment was made to an anon who had made Irpen's comment, then no-one would bat an eyelid here. Consequently, I know that Daniel learned a lesson from the fallout from that exchange as I talked to him about it. That lesson may simply be that everyone one is treated equally on Wikipedia, but some are treated more equally than others. It is a principle that many expect their admin candidates to be aware of. Rockpocket 18:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Point taken. However I do still have some reservations that would likely be resolved with some additional experience on the part of this candidate. Ronnotel 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Bishonen, Ronnotel and Pedro. The concerns raised make me feel the user needs to work on being less confrontational. Invoking Civil and the rest of the conversation with Ipren, in which he was an interloper, seemed overly strident. The obnoxious fiasco was a while ago, but viewed in more recent context of the Ipren conversation remains concerning. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Clarification I find Danielfolsom's interjection less troubling because it was directed toward Irpen than a less experienced user. Irpen took it in stride and invited Daniel to take part in the discussion at hand. I'm afraid a new user might only have become frustrated by the civility remark and that it would have inflamed the situation. If an admin is going to assume the burden of dispute resolution, he needs to know when to step in and when not to. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Believe it or not, but after few interactions with the Danielfolsom‎ I've got the impression that I've got to wathlist the then red link [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom]] as it seemed to me that the user is an "admin material" and this is where he was heading. Answers to questions are non-persuasive to say the least. Evasive answer to Q3 is alarming. Q1 and Q2: I see too much interest in policing and too little interest in content writing. That's not an inclinations I like in admins. While some of non-writing admins are actually good ones, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do (bossy attitude). The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Q2: three diffs provided in an answer to the Q2 do not show much, if any, content actually written by an editor. He merely improved and standardized article's referencing. Useful, no doubt, but not very significant. His userpage lists very few articles and mentions History of Russia among his contributions. I was around at the time and also saw no significant edits to the article from the user other than purely formatting ones. Actually, his conduct at talk:History of Russia during this editing period was not very encouraging., to say the least and shows exactly what often happens when the users who don't write get themselves involved as judges in the content disputes. When this was raised at Wikipedia:Editor review/Danielfolsom by Bishonen, the candidate's response was totally unacceptable. In response to a critical review, Danielfolsom removed the comments with the summary that implied the reviewer's bad faith saying: "evidently the editor is less interested in actually resolving a misunderstanding than being able to show off with snide remarks". This is unacceptable for an admin. Additionally, I am alarmed by the user's preference to conduct behind the scenes communications when there is a conflict going on. In addition to Ghirla's example, I remember at least one more and there is no way to know how many more was there. --Irpen 19:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I don't quite follow your comment "it seemed to me that the user is an "admin material", when it appears you don't consider him to be admin material at this time, could you clarify? Rockpocket 20:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Rockpocket, I think Irpen means that s/he (sorry Irpen for not knowing your gender) got the impression from his/her observations that Daniel thinks himself admin material, not that Irpen thinks so. Sorry if that is incorrect, Irpen. I am assuming this because I got the same impression, but I don't have a problem with folks who aspire to adminship, as long as that isn't their entire guiding force, causing them to put on an act until they get the tools (to be clear, I do not believe Daniel has done this). Sarah 13:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

   I see. That does make sense. I think Daniel does aspire to adminship (otherwise, I presume, he wouldn't have accepted the nomination), but I also believe that is because he is keen to contribute. Its obvious Daniel isn't a prolific article writer, but he is a contributor who enjoys the more janitorial aspects of the project. Since admins are the janitors of Wikipedia, it seems entirely unsurprising to me that he would like our janitorial tools to enable him to maximize his contributions. Rockpocket 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose based on the unsatisfying answers to the questions as well as some of the responses to previous opposes. User's contributions are great and there's a lot of good things to be said about this candidate, but there are also some issues to be resolved. Some of the diffs given above and some of the responses seem a little bite-y. A valuable contributor who doesn't seem quite up to par for what I'd expect of a sysop, so I can't support now. Perhaps with some improvement I'd say otherwise next time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose: The distinction between "privilege" and "honor" indicates something borne out in the editor's actions. He appears to view being an admin as a badge rather than a set of duties, and his answers to the questions show that he wants to fix things. We are not broken, and this sets my teeth on edge. A person overtly interested in mandatory "civility" on talk pages using an edit summary that is a frank insult to a user generally viewed as conciliatory? Oh no. In addition to the puzzling behavior on the Russian talk, the private communications, and the concerns raised by Bishonen, this kind of rudeness and inability to comprehend, much less incorporate, the other peoples' perspectives is anathema. Geogre 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose: There are many good things about this editor, but there are a few things that concern me. First and foremost is Daniels answer to one of the questions where s/he was asked how he/she would /does handle conflicts between other users, Daniel stated that at times he backs out and lets other users work it out. If Daniel is to become an admin his role will not be step out of a conflict, but to take hold of it and work it out in a civil manner. Second, i see very few (7 I believe) reports to AIV which makes me wonder if this user has the proper level of knowledge to justifiably block users who abuse Wikipedia. I am also disappointed in the excuse that Daniel makes, stating that he does not have the time and was rushed, that is not a good excuse for making a mistake, and if your are to be an admin you must have the time to make appropriate edits. I believe that this editor needs a few more months, gain more experience performing admin tasks, and then re-nom. Tiptoety 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    Wait - what? I said I was rushed when I was responding to an editor who asked to see a few of my edits- and that was to explain the reason why I only could give one of the edits, and I said I could get more to them later. I don't know how this has turned into a big issue (this part isn't really directed at you - I mean 'big issue' as in a lot of people have brought it up).--danielfolsom 00:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    That comment was made due to your reply to Pedro's comment above. Tiptoety 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Oh I see - well that decision would stand regardless, all that was saying was that I didn't have time to check what the article was like when he reviewed it (which an admin would likely never have to do anyway) - however more recently I have and I've found that it's about the same - I just haven't edited the comment yet.--danielfolsom 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    I would like to state that you have many strong qualities, and one of them is showing right now, you are not afraid to take a stand and defend yourself, which is key. But like i said, i believe you need a little more experience before i will vote support. Tiptoety 01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Well thank you - yeah sorry, I didn't mean for that to go on as long as it did - I was just getting confused by how many editors had mentioned the "rush" thing, thanks for the feedback regardless,--danielfolsom 01:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose, per Bishonen, Iridescent and Irpen. Not enough experience as an editor, and thus, not surprisingly, clearly not a conflict solver (yet). Gray62 00:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Sarah's posting increases my concerns. Jumping in into an aissue, grandstanding with admin tools, not taking the time to understand the controversy, coming to false conclusions and in consequence maybe banning innocent editors is certainly not what we want to see from an admin. This is unacceptable. Gray62 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose sadly. Normally, 3,000 edits is plenty to see if we can trust one with the mop. So Danielfolsom passes the edit count test. I've not run into this editor, yet the more I see, the less I can trust. This user seems not to have learned from Editor review, or from mistakes in the past, as noted above. I love to cite policy at XfD, but it's sort of a pain to do so on talk pages. Please apply in a few more months, when I have more to see. Bearian 14:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Enough edits but we need people who can administrate that knows Wikipedia like the back of their hand. Yes, we all make mistakes but if he is still learning, I think we should keep it on hold for another few months when he has passed the learning stage. Thats my only problem. Otherwise I would support, but another few months maybe. Aflumpire 05:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Passed the learning stage? I would much rather have an administrator who was willing to learn, than one who thought they knew it all. I believe Lillian Smith said "When you stop learning, stop listening, stop looking and asking questions, always new questions, then it is time to die." Rockpocket 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    I would have to agree with Rockpocket here. Tiptoety 18:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose I like Daniel on a personal level but I have observed fairly recent incidents which make me worry what he would get up to if he actually had admin tools behind him, particularly the 'block' button. One fairly recent incident which I observed was when an editor complained on ANI about behaviour on one of the anthropology articles (I think it might have been one of the African anthropology articles where people were disputing textual content and the use of images, but I can't find it right now). I went over there to have a look but Daniel was already there. I appreciate his enthusiasm and I believe wholeheartedly that he has the project at heart, I'm just very concerned about what would happen if he had the tools and could actually follow through on some of his comments that imply or suggest imminent blocks and so forth. On the anthropology page, he really aggravated the situation, said a good faith editor was engaging in "trolling," while he was giving out warnings to others for similar comments (I felt that some warnings implied he had the ability to block, though I don't believe he was deliberately trying to misrepresent himself as an admin) and declaring a so-called "consensus" when there really was quite clearly not one. And then not long after someone questioned his credibility, he vanished without bothering to respond, leaving the page in a state. I got the impression that he would like to sweep into disputes, reprimand people, doll out some blocks and then disappear, his job done (but in reality, with the page in even more of a state and the editors even more worked up and stressed out). I hoped, perhaps, that this was just an off day but I see from the comments and diffs posted above by Bish and others that it wasn't. I do like Daniel, though, and I would like to see him work on the issues raised in this RfA, maybe slow down a bit, and come back again when he is sure that these issues are no more. Sarah 13:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

    Checking Daniel's contribs, I guess you're talking about his postings [27] at talk:Negroid. Yes, I agree, this isn't exactly the display of good judgment we want to see in an admin. :-( Gray62 16:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose: I find Ghirla's comments to be very concerning indeed. Also per Bishonen and several of the other points above. In adition the candidate does not seem to have a particularly strong mainspace history record. Giano 07:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak Neutral I hate to do this, and may change my mind later, but while I realise that Daniel is a great editor with a sustained edit count and that is great; however I would have liked to see a more rounded experience; i.e. more reporting at AIV (currently kate doesn't show any >13 edits to it) and in general more tagging at CSD (I can't seem to find any at all in your contribs) as if you say you plan on participating there but there is not much evidence of actual participation to get a feel of what is suitable or not, you may receive some grief for deleting articles that are borderline as you would be an admin. Also I see there is not much RC patrol going on; and while is is not a prerequisite for adminship, dealing with the conflicts arising from there, would be of use as as admin you would have the blocking capability. Other than that, your article contribution is solid. Phgao 07:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   As a minor clarification, I feel I should point out that I think Daniel's experience with CSD comes from his propensity for helping editors at Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion. My understanding is that he will spend the time trying to work with new editors to improve and source articles that he considers to be salvageable, and not waste time on those that are not. You can get pretty experienced in ascertaining the application of CSD criteria, I would imagine, as when you get it wrong it is your time and effort that gets wasted! Personally, I put more value in that experience than in adding templates and moving on (not that there is anything wrong with that either, of course). However, your points are sensible and valid, and I'm sure Daniel will take them on board. Rockpocket 08:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes I would agree with you there, as doing such work would enable one to ascertain the minor shades between what would be CSD or AfD or even PRODed. I myself like to see as many well sourced articles as possible and it is great that Daniel is helping salvage articles that perhaps normally would be CSDed. Also is it possible to provide some examples of articles that Daniel helped from Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion? Phgao 08:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   Obviously I can find you a bit more - but I'm in a slight hurry right now so I'll give you one of the top of my head - Politicks.--danielfolsom 11:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not sure Politicks is really the example you want to give - it's blatant vanispam & undoubtedly fails WP:N & WP:BAND top-to-bottom. — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I would disagree, per the first requirement (non-trivial works), but regardless, I suppose you plan on nominating that for deletion then, so we can discuss more there.--danielfolsom 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'll wait until after this RFA's finished - it's unfair to ask you to take part in two arguments simultaneously - but I see no way it's salvageable; every source is either a trivial mention "xxxxx did this - Politicks also appeared", straightforward listings, reprinted press releases or invalid sources like IMDB, and I can't see any reliable sources to expand it from. This is a discussion for another time and place, though. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I believe I could have supported, but the issues raised on the opposing side just does not allow me to. Best of luck. Jmlk17 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral The opposing sides issues also are slightly convincing. He has a good amount of edits though, so i will stay neutral. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I've interacted with the candidate at Veganism, where he contributed positively by dealing fairly with a disruptive editor (who shall remain nameless). However, he and another editor engaged in this long and ultimately pointless discussion about the propriety of criticism sections, the content and tone of which leads me to be unable to support his RFA. Skinwalker 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I'm generally happy but I have some small issues. Civility is one, although most of the issues quoted above are tiny things, and the answers to questions are a bit poor. Also have some issues with the confrontational attitude towards opposers. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral I have a strong idea where this nomination is headed, so my !vote really doesn't matter. Two observations I have are: (1) some relatively petty things - IMHO - have been brought up: whether or not the Tour de France is the best-known bike race (or not) is one example; (2) some more important issues have been brought up that led me to be neutral here - I don't think nominees need to be picture perfectly pleasant Doris Day types, but this editor has more than a couple of cited examples of falling below standards of civility I would like to see; (3) a final observation, some editors have equated a willingness to defend a minority position with the willingness to use admin tools to thwart the majority position - editors should be very careful making that leap of illogic. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I think "the regulars" should be templated more often and should have the humility to read the policies they're violating. I don't think citing policies is a bad thing, and this user seems to make good faith efforts to improve articles. That said, some of the other concerns by the opposition resonate with me. User perhaps needs to be a bit more diplomatic. Cool Hand Luke 08:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Want to support and will support you, Danielfolsom, if your intervention style keeps evolving the way it seems to have of very recently. Wishing to mediate in conflict situations is certainly commendable, but it gets tricky when you rush in with the attitude of an arbitrator or judge. I agree with Luke: a bit more diplomatic would strenghten my support, and so might a bit less bossy. Some of the examples given above, specifically surrounding the discussions on Talk:Veganism, Talk:History of Russia, and Talk:Negroid, are a bit too rigid and recent for me to support your candidacy yet. My reservations aren't strong enough to oppose either. Hence neutral. Good luck. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Dfrg.msc

Closed as successful by Cecropia 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) at (91/0/2); Scheduled to end 08:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) - I am here, once again, to nominate Nick for adminship. Those who have been around for a while will recall that I nominated him (in conjunction with PeaceNT and Sr13 (now Singularity)) in May, and there was no consensus to promote. I will not dwell on the past - doing so is one of things that’s holding the project, and especially the RfA procedure, back these days - I will instead attempt to again justify why Nick is more than prepared for adminship, and why his promotion would have a positive impact on the project.

I am sure many editors have heard my views on the relationship, or lack thereof, between significant mainspace contributions and adminship. One of the many flaws of that philosophy, in my eyes, is that it is very easy to write multiple good articles, and achieve multiple DYK listings, without having to partake in, or resolve, any significant conflicts, the kind of conflicts you would have to deal with if you undertook such areas of adminship. As an example, I took Starlight (song) from start class to GA class in a matter of weeks, and in that time its talk page was only edited by me adding {{GAC}}, and by a GA reviewer passing it. I don’t recall the talk page being edited since then. However, if I was to use that article in my Q2 answer in an RfA (not me, my RfAs are never a good precedent, but imagine if a generic candidate did), I would receive much less “mainspace needed” opposition. Especially considering that in my other four good articles, only two of them have actually undergone any serious, content related discussion - in both cases after the article was granted GA status. I could answer Q2 with “5 GAs” and be praised for mainspace work, without ever having actually solved a dispute, dealt with a POV pusher, etc.

Nick is not in the position I allude to above - he has a grand total of 0 GAs, 0 DYKs, and 0 featured items. However, as I just explained, this will have 0 impact on his ability to be an effective administrator. For the record, Nick has gnomed on multiple articles (recently, he’s been doing a bit on Parliament House, Canberra), so he has improved articles and bettered the encyclopaedia (a generic and totally unrelated to adminship standard that several users nonetheless undertake). He has uploaded many images, both to enwiki, and to commons, and has thus bettered the project and its articles through the imagery he has contributed.

Nick is an avid vandalfighter, and has been active in the vandalfighting arena for over a year. One would expect some editors who vandalfight for so long to either burn out, or to improve even more - Nick is surely the latter, and I’m sure there are many articles which are better for his vandalfighting efforts.

I’m sure many people will see the name “Dfrg.msc” and think many things, some relating to immaturity, others relating to a sometimes unorthodox sense of humour, and a few relating to “anti-encyclopaedic behaviour.” I challenge those who think these things to either show proof, or else show how they are a bad thing. How is the project damaged by a sense of humour? If anything, it strengthens it. To give another example, when Wikipedia reached 2,000,000 articles, it was Nick who sent celebratory messages to countless users’ talk pages. I personally was already aware of the upcoming milestone, as it had been promoted on IRC (and as a result, I was newpage watching trying to prevent it :P), but as we are all aware, not everyone uses IRC. I’m sure those that don’t, and thus those who weren’t aware of the milestone, would’ve appreciated Nick’s hilarious message (my favourite element was this image), and thus their moral would have been raised. News flash guys - high moral = positive contributions...and guess whose fault doing the high moral was?

If nothing else in this nomination has given you any reason to support Nick, in your eyes, I at least urge you to consider the fact that we really, really, need more admins willing to edit naked. When the going gets tough, when the vandalism gets strong, when every article has an image of a penis on it, it won’t be some guy in a cape who saves the day. I’ve sat here for about five minutes trying to word the next sentence, but I just can’t do it in a way that won’t get me blocked. I’m sure you know what I’m trying to imply. Vote for Nick. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this (beautiful) nomination. Dfrg.msc 01:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In the time I have been a member of Wikipedia, I feel have a developed a use for admin tools, and enough experience to use them correctly. I hope have earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, and would thank you for giving me a chance to prove it.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I would be privileged to stand among them.

- Dfrg.msc 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Fighting vandalism would be tha primary use. I regularly do RCP and vandalism patrolling. WP:AIAV always seems to be backlogged, and I still look forward to helping there. The use of the blocking function and being able to protect pages (and images) that are under chronic attack, would bring a great advantage to my vandal fighting efforts. I believe that every tool available to combat vandalism should be implemented, compassion and tolerance among them. I participate in *fD debates, and would like to be able to close them, especially TFD. I'd also like to help out with the Administrative backlog. A few users have come to me under the impression that I was a sysop, and it's situations like those that Admin tools would also show their value.

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

A: I have created and built articles like Rone, created and worked hard on every page in the Melbourne graffiti artists category, become coordinator and breathed life into Wikipedia:WikiProject Graffiti and have completely built Portal:Graffiti, and Portal:Warhammer. I've also worked extensively with images with over 100 image uploads and created Image:Wikipedia Editor Review.png and Image:DFRAMA.png (now unused). Although I am proud of these particular edits, reverting sneaky and dangerous vandalism, re-instating whole pages and support my fellow editors can be equally as fulfilling, and just as important for the project.

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

A: Yes. My early behavior led to myself being suspected as a sock puppet of User:Carbine. For the admins here who can see deleted history: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dfrg.msc. Early edits and confusion have dragged me down as have early talk page edits. I accept these edits, I did make them, but I hope they do not reflect on myself in the here and now. Since then, I feel I have proved myself against those reckless few months, to strive to be a force of good. All of the edits were made over a year ago, and I would ask you to consider me for what I am now. I do make mistakes, I'm a human first and a editor second. I make and admit to my mistakes, and learn from them. The more I have worked though, the less conflict I encountered. I learn't that co-operation and compromise are the strongest policies. I was a member of the AMA and closed four cases. I have gained experience though adversity and I know how to deal with, and better, avoid conflict. I have, and will always, apply these skills where necessary.

Completely optional question from CO

4. Do you intend to help with the image backlog on CAT:CSD? If yes, do you have a good understand of image licensing and policy?

A. Truthfully, no, I don't. I made a few mistakes when I was new with image uploads, and there are some pretty tricky elements with image licensing. I don't upload anything anymore unless I made it, but I have a an adequate understanding of the policy, and if I were asked to help out I'm sure I could do so. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Eye of the Mind

5. It seems to via this, that your level of editing has dropped steadily per month since January of this year. This is not a area of concern, but I was curious if there is a particular reason for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye of the Mind (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A. Thanks for the question, it's no problem. Well, from when I really stared editing, my count was about 420 a month, then (because I had some time off) editing really spiked from 2006/11 - 2007/2 and it's just been dropping back to normal, except for 2007/9 (where I was making up for all that "time off" :). Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from Marlith ^T/C

6 What do you dream Wikipedia will be in the future? Will you fight to create a blessed world where the blood of vandals is the wine that we raise in our toasts?

A. For eleven hundred years I have fought and I have seen the darkness of our galaxy... I have seen all the evil the galaxy harbours, and I have slain them. I have seen what you must see, I have fought what you must fight, and I have slain what you must slay... Righteousness is your shield, Faith your armor and Roll-back your weapon. Ours is to be an empire of worlds, not merely of castes or nations, or races or peoples. To simply control the worlds which we claim as our own will not be enough – we must control the paths between them also, or be divided, and so fail. Dfrg.msc 05:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs)

7. What place do you believe humor and sarcasm has on Wikipedia?

A. Well, obviously, there is a time and place (like in the above question), and it's true that work is better when you're smiling. Humor can be uplifting, sarcasm can be constructive. However, there are many matters on Wikipedia that do deserve to be taken very seriously. At first, I was - not so good (see my early edits :), but I believe, that, after more than a year, I can make a distinction. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly optional question from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

8. If you could be invisible, or fly, which would you choose, and why?

A. This is the hardest question. Ok, so "I must confess my love for Wiki-tables _{- DB}"

Task	Invisible	Flying
Fighting Crime	Could be done pretty well, tripping people up, foiling schemes ect.	Combined with some sweet military gear (or Rocks) - the best for upholding justice.
Old Ladies Cross the Street	I'm not sure Invisibility would be used best here. She'd probably have a heart attack.	Maximum Efficiency, quick and easy. Although, she'd probably have a heart attack.
Picking Up Chicks	Nowhere near as good as Flying, better in "Other Areas"	Oh, yeah! "Hey baby, I'll take you higher than you've ever been". Excuse me while I kiss the sky.
"Other Areas"	Ahhhh... yea. Di-Hi knows what I'm talking about...	There's practicality nothing you can't do at 10,000 feet.
Making Money	At a higher risk, you would make far more.	At a lower risk, you would make an adequate amount.
Stopping the Spread of Communism	Stealing their Lunch, thus draining their power	Ride the Bomb - and Live! Ye-haw!
Violating WP:NCR	"There's someone up there!" "Who is it?" "Well.. I don't know"	Why climb when you can fly! Whoosh!

As you can see from this very scientific table, I would choose Flying over invisibility, for the reasons above. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Piotrus

9. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A. Probably not. Once you have become a an administrator it is your responsibility to stay sharp, effective, and not fall into complacency. I would gladly undergo a re-nomination if it was generally felt that it is necessary, but it would be better if someone just told me to pick up my act. Dfrg.msc 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Dfrg.msc
• Requests for adminship/Dfrg.msc 2

• Links for Dfrg.msc: Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• See Dfrg's Admin Coaching

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dfrg.msc before commenting.

Discussion

• I find the argument in the nominating statement to be an unnecessary straw man. For one, Dfrg.msc appears to have done a reasonable amount of article work particularly with his interest in graffiti artists. For two, I've never seen anyone argue something along the lines that writing DYKs demonstrates conflict resolution skills. The purpose of wanting to see evidence of encyclopedia building is to demonstrate understanding that this is an encyclopedia. If you've never seen a hard-working article writer wonked off the project by some bureaucratic-minded "Metapedian" sysop then you're not paying attention. --JayHenry 15:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support- From the start of my editing days right up till my peak and my lows, Nick has supported and helped me along as my wiki-father! He's a very helpful and smart contribution to the Wikipedia Admin team in my opinion! Good Luck Dfrg.Msc! Drizzt Jamo 06:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Per Dihydrogen Monoxide's awesome nomination. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Per Dihydrogen Monoxide's awesome nomination. @pple complain 09:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
5. I was about to oppose... but you're an Aussie so I can't do that... :p --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support A very good user. I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support fine candidate. —Anas ^talk? 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, it is an awesome nomination. Past issues, yes, but a lot to like. Deiz talk 10:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. He has learnt and improved, and you can't say that of everyone. Sam Blacketer 11:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Has done good work. Recurring dreams 11:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support per work on WP:NCR. Neil ム 11:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Seen this user around, no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support i though he was already a admin; still great user give em' the mop -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 12:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I've come across dfrg.msc on multiple occasions, and I see no reason to oppose. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Yay. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - fine candidate. Addhoc 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - review of contribs shows no red flags, overall solid contributor. Ronnotel 14:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. I supported his first one, and I have not seen any problems develop since then. --Mark (Mschel) 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. I've seen this guy's work and it's always been impressive. A dedicated and civil user who knows what he's doing. Useight 14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Strong Support Community trust is a large part of a RfA, and I feel you have obtained through not only your proficient contributions to Wikipedia, but also your significant role in Wikipedia Community. Dfrg.msc deserves the mop by now! Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per Sam Blacketer. --JayHenry 15:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support just like last time. --tennisman 15:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Yep. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Have noticed your edits over the last year or so. An impressive contributor. And I love the example of a mistake in Q3. All in all, a good candidate. --Dweller 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
25. This editor is a good editor. From my personal experiences. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Seems like a good user. Acalamari 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support though I'm not sure what DHMO meant when he talked about Dfrg.msc's name. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
29. the_undertow ^talk 18:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Jmlk17 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
31. I'm quite pleased that you are honest with your answers, and you have improved a lot since your previous RfA. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Seems like a good chap. He should find adminship useful, no doubt. – Aillema 21:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Honest. Carbon Monoxide 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
34. This user has huge amount of community trust, and abuse of admin tools is unforeseeable. Great user all around; support. O₂ (息 • 吹) 22:16, 08 October 2007 (GMT)
35. Support --Hirohisat ^紅葉 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support As per JayHenry and Track is good with nearly 5000 mainspace edits and over 7000 edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - Absolutely. Neranei (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. You've grown, mate. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. In my experience Dfrg.msc is a strong editor. No reason to believe he would abuse the tools. Rockpocket 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support per substantially everything above. Qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support John254 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - No big deal. --Eye of the Mind 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - I trust Dfrg. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Strong Support I'm popping out of semi-wiki-break to post my strong support for Dfrg. He passed all my admin related tests with flying colours during our admin coaching sessions and exhibits a knowledge of policy and maturity to be a fine admin. Like all of us he's not perfect, but can I can say with 100% certainty he can be trusted with the tools. Fine candidate :) Glen 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support trustworthy, experience. No reasons to oppose. Good luck. Carlosguitar 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support {{subst:thoughtyouwereonecliche}}. Pedro :  Chat  07:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Super-ultra-über Tarragon Support ~ Riana ⁂ 07:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Pile on Support In Dfrg.msc we trust. Culverin? 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support, looks ok --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. The candidate appears to be a good, trustworthy contributor. Majoreditor 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Weak support. Unfamiliar with this user until now, but his huge number of edits, vandal-fighting (with scars to prove it), and trustworthy supporters lead me in that direction. Wanting to close debates honestly is one reason I wanted to be a sysop. Bearian 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Support - great candidate. Such a lot has been achieved. Keep up the awesome work! Lradrama 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - Why not? Sounds good to me Dustihowe 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support - will use tools wisely. Carlossuarez46 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
55. Support A good candidate. -Lemonflash_{(O_o)} 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
56. Support Definitely! jonathan (talk — contribs) 22:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
57. Support He has much expierence and can be trusted well with the mop. Marlith ^T/C 00:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
58. Support Quite impressed with your edits, especially to Portal:Graffiti.--WriterListener 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
59. The sensible approach of the candidate towards the real, hidden point of my concerns and his decisive statement to dismiss all doubt convince me. Now I'm certain, 'Nick' can be trusted with a mop, a cigar or whatever. Accordingly, I switch my vote to Support. Congratulations! Gray62 02:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Will not abuse powers. Good luck. --Banana 04:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
61. Will the candidate be celebrating the outcome of this RfA anywhere near the Reichstag? Oh, and I support. Resurgent insurgent 05:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
62. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
63. Support I opposed last time but the reasons I stated then are no longer relevant. So no reason to oppose now. And people in bathrobes can't be very dangerous anyway. I think. - TwoOars (Rev) 09:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
64. Certainly a user who will not abuse the tools, I believe Dfrg.msc should have been a sysop quite a while ago. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
65. Support. Experienced editor. utcursch | talk 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
66. Support and insert witty (and humorous) comment here. - Philippe | Talk 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
67. Support per answers to questions 6 and 7. Lara❤Love 20:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
68. Axolotl 1,230% support. The Rambling Man 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
69. Support because I was absolutely convinced you were an admin already, and because of your answer to question 6. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
70. Support and a poster of Gandalf. Húsönd 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
71. Support — I see no indication this user will use the tools in anything but a mature and intelligent manner. --Haemo 04:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
72. Support - Absolutely. I've been waiting for this nom for a while now -- Dfrg.msc has nothing but great things to offer Wikipedia. Give this man the mop! Tijuana Brass 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
73. Why the hell not? Appears to be a suitable candidate. Concerns raised in the previous RFA have been satisfactorily resolved. Melsaran (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
74. Miranda 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
75. Support — Well duh. —{{mono|[[}}Animum | talk]] 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
76. Pile-on support. east.718 at 03:03, 10/12/2007
77. Strong Support' – as before. — madman bum and angel 03:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
78. Support. As far as I can tell, this editor seems committed to expanding and improving our project (I even like his user page!). Best wishes! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
79. Support. I'm impressed with his answers to the questions. Should do fine. --Kbdank71 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
80. Support. This time it is deserved. i've seen good stuff from this person. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
81. Support per answer to Q.9, and lack of evidence that tools would be abused. LessHeard vanU 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
82. Support Its all been said. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
83. Support. Same reasons as last time. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
84. Support I am exceedingly impressed with Dfrg's work with the various portals, to the point of being in awe of his coding expertise. I personally believe that a sense of humor is a great thing, and while I realize some people may think "fun" and "humor" are not appropriate for Wikipedia, the fact is that as a giant community of editors from all over the world, with different viewpoints and cultures, many conflicts are bound to arise. Humor and fun can both diffuse situations, and also help heal rifts caused by conflict. I don't think that Wikipedia is any worse for those who choose to "whistle while they work", so to speak, and I honestly think that it makes people laugh, which is a great thing when working on a serious project. Nick's use of humor via question 8 is a perfect example of this: While answering what may be seen as a completely nonsensical question that has no bearing on this RfA, Nick shows his special talent in table-making and formatting. Formatting is a big part of many areas on Wikipedia, and without editors such as Nick, awesome portals like the Graffiti portal may not be as eye-catching. On to other areas: I've run into Dfrg many times while doing Recent Changes patrol, and I've always considered him to be a great patroller, using proper warnings, reporting when appropriate, and understanding policy and guidelines. As with all editors, early mistakes have been a learning experience, and I really have no doubt that Nick would use caution in areas he was unfamiliar with, and request assistance from other administrators should the need arise. While I do understand the reservations Piotrus brings up about adding oneself to the recall category, I also think that the community has a pretty good system in place to review questionable actions by administrators, and resolution can be done via these methods. I have no doubt that Dfrg will be a great addition to the current Administration team, and I look forward to congratulating him in a few days. (The preceding comments are brought to you by Ariel Verbosity© ™ ) Ariel♥Gold 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Just Support? That seemed more like a co-Nom... well argued, anyhow. LessHeard vanU 00:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah, wow, I agree. Thankyou, that's pretty amazing! I'll talk to you when this is over. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hee hee, well, I truly believe that just as oppose opinions normally have extended reasoning, the same holds for supports, as they too can benefit from an explanation for the opinion, and nearly always whenever I support or oppose, I give a thorough reasoning for my opinions. I honestly haven't ever spoken with Nick before, just have seen him around, but I still feel it is helpful to explain why I support this request. I think most people know when they see my edit to an RfA, they're in for a long read, lol. Sorry! Ariel♥Gold 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

85. Support. Orane (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
86. Support. Impressive and hard working user. umdrums (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
87. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 09:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
88. Support Surely, superb and mature editor. Very witty, also. PeaceNT 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
89. Support - seems OK. Concerns raised by previous RfA seem to have been addressed. WjBscribe 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
90. Support - Thinks ClueBot is awesome. I think the community will benefit from sysopping Dfrg.msc. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 06:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
91. Last-Minute Support. The candidate looks like they will use the tools with great knowledge and support. — E ^talk_bots 09:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Dfrg.msc nominates a candidate named 'Nick', but afaics 'Nick' never accepted the nomination. I'm only a n00b, but I'm sure there are some rules somewhere that say this is verboten. Also, I'm a very seriously concerned that Wikipedia could be "damaged by a sense of humour"! Gray62 00:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Dfrg.msg is Nick. Nick is Dfrg.msg. There are no rules prohibiting this, considering that it is extremely clear who Nick is. Also note that humour is often considered a breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Help! A.D. needs some rescue breathing! :D Gray62 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[ec] This isn't a self-nom. Nick is Dfrg.msc's real name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really, one and the same? Hmm, then how can this be not a self-nom???Gray62 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke, is it not? Marlith ^T/C 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The nomination? I'm not sure. Nothing against humour, but how am I supposed to know who 'Nick' is???Gray62 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick a.k.a Dfrg.msg was nominated by Dihydrogen Monoxide. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, A.D., of course you're right. Not a self-nom. That 'Nick' constantly mentioned confused me. The joke's on me. Sry! Gray62 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, don't feed the troll. 86.29.44.23 00:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yummy yummy...Gray62 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Creep... 86.29.44.23 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, imho evidence enough that users don't appreciate "a sense of humour". I would be interested in the candidates' opinion on this now! Gray62 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Righty - from what I can discern, (???) Dihydrogen Monoxide nominated me and I accepted the nomination. I am not Dihydrogen Monoxide, I am Nick (Dfrg.msc). I agree a sense of humor has it's place and I'll always try to "lighten the mood", although I am prone to large periods of unwavering seriousness. Is this a serious Oppose?

An I did not engage in sexual intercourse with that woman </Clinton>. Dfrg.msc 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Dfrg.msc - Nick
• 
  = Different

The sensible approach of the candidate towards the real, hidden point of my concerns and his decisive statement to dismiss all doubt convince me. Now I'm certain, 'Nick' can be trusted with a mop, a cigar or whatever. Accordingly, I switch my vote to 'Support'. Congratulations! Gray62 02:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My change to 'Support' (above) somehow got lost in the diting here. Saved it from history. Let all votes be counted! :-) Gray62 10:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Grrr, I really need some holidays. Or new glasses. I checked the diff, and couldn't find the above posting anymore, but now I see some nice guy moved it into the 'Support' section. Sry for messing this up! Note to the brave votecounters: Don't get confused, I only have one vote, of course. Gray62 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New requirement. ALL RFAs must have pictures in order to confirm validity of the identity concerning the user running and his nominee. :-P Miranda 05:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, plus candidates must wear nothing but a dressing gown, a cheesy grin and a thumbs up. :) Dfrg.msc 05:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed to strong support per candidate's meeting my bathrobe criteria. the_undertow ^talk 06:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this the bathrobe cabal? Oh, I so want in! ~ Riana ⁂ 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Heck, The Undertow. It's early in the morning and you make me see that!?!?! I might have to get a bathrobe shot of SonOfPedro (his is Bob The Builder) Can he then join the cabal too.....? 07:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bathrobe Cabal is by no means exclusive, however, you must: #1: Own a Bathrobe (verify with picture), #2: Have your thumb in an upright and locked position. - TRANSMISSION ENDS - Dfrg.msc 08:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure that your apparel qualifies as a bathrobe and is not a Smoking jacket or other inappropriate attire. the_undertow ^talk 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, end it with - TRANSMISSION ENDS - it's much cooler. We're supposed to be a Cabal! :) - TRANSMISSION ENDS - Dfrg.msc 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I got to get in on this. Where's my digital camera? This is probably the coolest RfA ever! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I need an answer to this question: Is this an RfA for dfrg.msc (aka Dihydrogen Monoxide, Alex Nick) or the recruiting place for a semi-nude bathrobe cabal? And please don't say both... <looks at H2O expectantly> --D_arkF_alls ^talk 09:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Both. Pedro :  Chat  09:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Actually, this RfA is 71/0. I think we're allowed to have some fun now. (Also, I still can't find my camera. I wonder how my parents will feel about me posting bathrobe pics) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Twas the season...

Nice indent curve up there. It is both, the undertow is making pamphlets. Yeah, I agree. Why not get a picture of them in their bathrobes? - TRANSMISSION ENDS - Dfrg.msc 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually wake up at 10, so I can't really see them in their bathrobes before they get to work. I could get my dog in a bathrobe. I'll have a bit of a problem with the thumbs up. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your lucky, I wake up at 7:30, I can;'t find my elbow 'till 8;00. You could just "force" you dog into a costume, like I did. Dfrg.msc 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. "I participate in *fD debates, and would like to be able to close them" - upon review of some comments in XfD's made by the candidate around a month ago, I fear that the candidate does not understand the concept of consensus through discussion, and (more concerning) WP:ATA. However, on the whole, I believe that Dfrg.msc could be a good administrator with some more reading and use of caution if/when he is made +sysop, so I won't oppose. Daniel 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   WP:ATA is an essay <aussie>mate</aussie>. I think the benefits outweigh the concerns. Carbon Monoxide 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

   Your point being? It clearly outlines how consensus works in AfD discussions. Daniel 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral. I came here expecting to support but then read this passage in the nomination: "I’m sure many people will see the name “Dfrg.msc” and think many things, some relating to immaturity, others relating to a sometimes unorthodox sense of humour, and a few relating to “anti-encyclopaedic behaviour." Oddly, I think none of those things but the fact the nominator believes one might gives me pause for thought, so I will investigate further before making up my mind. WjBscribe 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   It was a reference to comments (mainly opposition comments) in his previous RfA. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   mmm, OK. WjBscribe 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

2. NeutralOppose. Unfortunate, but I consider willingness to add oneself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and obligatory quality of all administrators. We are servants, and it should be easy to hold us accountable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

   I would gladly undergo a re-nomination or re-confirmation - and be fully accountable to my edits, however, I'm sure that simply adding my name to category does not ensure any accountability, that can only happen within myself. Admins should be held to a higher standard, and treated as such, I just don't see the need for the category. Dfrg.msc 05:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

   Admins don't need a big stick to be waved in their faces if their choices do not go down well with a group of editors, which is what recall is. I support the removal of sysop tools should the community feel that they have been abused (see this discussion), but not for "dissatisfaction". LessHeard vanU 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

   Woah, woah. Isn't the whole point of AOR the fact that it's voluntary? Out of 1000+ sysops we have a little over a hundred in the category - would you have opposed 90% of the current lot? I am in the category but I agree that it doesn't make me feel more accountable for my actions. Involuntary admin recall has been repeatedly shot down by the community, whether for the right reasons or not, but I see no reason to force that on Dfrg here. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

   Switched to neutral. This is not a policy indeed, and considering the overwhelming support by many estabilished editors, I trust dfrg.msc will be a good admin. Nonetheless I strongly believe that recall procedure should be made into a policy for the good of Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Agüeybaná

(34/43/8); ended 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agüeybaná (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Eddie for adminship. I know his username isn’t Eddie, but I’m far too lazy and inept to type it in its entirety, so Eddie he will remain.

Eddie takes somewhat of a leadership role in WikiProject Puerto Rico, and is an excellent advocate for articles related to Puerto Rico. Many prolific editors have a general area of preference, Eddie’s is his homeland. Through his work in the project, he has brought several articles to good status, and has created numerous articles, many of which have gone on to appear on the Main Page through Did You Know? Portal:Puerto Rico, which Eddie has contributed to extensively, is currently a featured portal candidate.

Eddie is knowledgeable in policy, and is a regular participant in articles for deletion debates. He is also a username reporter. I envisage that if granted sysop rights, he would use his tools effectively in those areas, and in multiple others.

It may come as a surprise to some that I am nominating Eddie for adminship, considering that he and I have had several disagreements of late. My response is that one of the most important aspects of the Requests for adminship process, and one that must be agreed on in the current Request for comment for said process, is that “forgiving and forgetting” must become a central element of the process. I am not a religious person, and there is no reason to be one to forgive and forget, so I have chosen to overlook Eddie’s sometimes odd behaviour and occasionally atrocious sense of humour, and instead to see the many good points in this editor’s favour.

I believe that granting Eddie adminship will benefit the project and its ideals, and as such he has my support in this request. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NB. This is Eddie’s second request for adminship. The first, under his old username of Boricuaeddie, can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie. Please note also that Boricuaeddie (talk · contribs) has since been blocked, as it was recreated by a troll after Eddie’s renaming. Further information can be found on Eddie’s talk page or archives, but it should be noted that any edits or account creations logged under Boricuaeddie’s name were not performed by the current candidate. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nomination For me it is a privilege to co-nominiate Agüeybaná for adminship. I have seen Eddie grow in Wikipedia and I'm very impressed with how mature he is despite his age. He is a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire while interacting with others. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. Agüeybaná is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 06:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Co-Nomination I was actually working a nom for Eddie myself [28] so this is just a copy-paste work sorry if it sounds somewhat unusual since it was meant as the first paragraph of the nom Members of the Wikipedia community, I present to you Agüeybaná (more commonly refered to as Eddie) since March 10, 2007 he has been a productive member of our community, gathering more than 7,500 edits in this time period. Among his contribution are helping improve Ramon Emeterio Betances to both Good and Featured status, creating eight articles, successfully nominating 11 articles to DYK, frecuently working with Portal:Puerto Rico (which is currently a Featured Portal Candidate) and creating WikiProject Puerto Rico's Newsletter. He is also a frecuent contributor in several areas of the project icluding: WP:RFA, WP:FAC, WP:FL, WP:AFC and several kinds of deletion discussions. He had a previous RFA which was unsuccessful, but after working with him in several aspects of the project during the last three months and reviewing his contributions, I believe he has worked with the concerns raised in that nomination and several members of the community (including two admins) have agreed with me on this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm Eddie and I approve this message! --Agüeybaná 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I believe I have experience in several admin-related areas, and I would like to work with as many as possible. I think where I would be most active if made an admin would be WP:AIV, C:CSD, and WP:AFD. I am also an active user at the Wikimedia Commons, where I am a trusted user, and have moved more than 25 free images found here there. When the move is done, the image is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#I8. However, most of the time, the image just sits there for weeks waiting to be deleted, so I would like to participated in that area, too. Other areas I would drop by occasionally include other types of deletion debates and WP:ACC, as well as WP:UAA and WP:RFC, although I would probably participate with much caution, as the rules seem to have changed a lot since I last reported a username there.

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

A: I think my best contribs to this encyclopedia would be anything I have done to improve Wikipedia's coverage of my country and its people. Specifically, I think my edits to P:PUR, Ramón Emeterio Betances, Luis Muñoz Marín, and others are my best. I have also uploaded several photos from Flickr to the Commons and have used them to pretty-fy articles. I think those are pretty good, too, even though they're really minor.

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

A: Yes, many. I have found that disengagement is the best answer for me, as it prevents any further nasty discussions and ultimately solves the problem.

4. Optional question from After Midnight: Can you please describe what you did with my input from your prior RFA? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Sure. I'll do it one by one:

"1) Withdraw this RFA" —  Done :-)

"2) Edit" —  Done. I've been editing for 2 more months and have almost twice as much edits, but I don't think edit count should be an important factor in determining one's suitability as an admin.

"3) Get into conflicts" —  Done, sadly. Some recent ones include trying to get GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) to stop edit-warring with other editors on the Ed Trice and Gothic Chess articles, trying to stop Kappa (talk · contribs) from pushing his POV at the Tamao Satō article, and trying to stop Jemmy Button (talk · contribs) from adding unreferenced POVs to the Hogging article (I even got RfCd because of this).

"4) Resolve them" —  Done. See above.

"5) Help other people resolve their conflicts" —  Done. See the Ed Trice thing above.

"6) Contribute to policy" —  Done. I'm not entirely sure what you meant with this, but I did try to get consensus for non-admins to be able to close AfDs at WP:DELPRO.

"7) Understand that Wikipedia is more than a bunch of policies, guidelines and essays." —  Done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a community; I think I got that.

Hope this is satisfying. --Agüeybaná 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Do you still stand by this comment: "... If you're not going to actively use them, then I do not trust you with them. ... --Eddie 17:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)," taken from this RfA? If your opinion has changed regarding this quote, please elaborate on why so. If it hasn't changed, please explain that as well. (As a side note, I consider you an excellent candidate, I won't oppose regardless of the answer.) RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, I do, although certainly not as strongly as when I said that. It is my belief that we give people administrator rights so that they can help maintain the project and make this the best free online encyclopedia ever. People who request adminship knowing that they're not going to use the tools are, in my opinion, power-hungry editors who are just looking for something to show off to their friends. I also endorse a policy used at the Wikimedia Commons that says that admins who do not use their tools in 5 months will have their rights removed, and I think that should be used here, too. Of course, every little thing helps, so I don't use that as a factor when determining a candidate's suitability as an admin any more. --Agüeybaná 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Spebi

6. You confronted a user on their talk page, claiming that their large banner at the top of the page was taken from another user's talk page without attribution. You then claimed in that same diff that it was GFDL violation, and the user must attribute or remove it immediately. Do you still believe today that it was a genuine GFDL violation?

A: Could you rephrase the question? --Agüeybaná 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my wording hasn't been the best lately. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the user originally adding the banner, and here is the diff of the user attributing the other user from which he got the banner from initially. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may be wrong, but, last time I checked, the point of the GFDL is to allow a work to be reproduced, while protecting the original author's rights. CO copied the banner without attribution to the original author (Betacommand). Therefore, unless he had permission, it was a copyright violation. But, that's been resolved, which is what I wanted. To answer your question, yes, I believe it was a violation at that time. --Agüeybaná 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the notice was added on my request. --Agüeybaná 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from CO

7. Do you intend to help with fair use backlog? Last time I checked it was 14 days backlogged, and being trusted on commons means you must have some knowledge of WP:NFCC and licensing in general.

A. Absolutely. If you check my deleted contribs, you'll notice that I've worked many times with fair use images, here as well as commons. I'd be glad to use my licensing knowledge to help out there. --Agüeybaná 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from CO

8. (I wish their were more questions from other editors on RfAs, it is suppose to be a discussion...) This really has nothing to do with your "qualifications" for adminship. However, I'm curiously to know if you think the RfA process is "broken".

A. Well, I don't believe it's the perfect political system, but, really; what system is? I think some changes could be made to make it better, but I don't entirely agree with any of the proposals at the RfA RfC, and I certainly don't think it should be deleted. To answer your question, no, I don't think it's "broken" in its entirety.--Agüeybaná 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by JetLover

9. Can you explain your attitude in some of the diffs, where you have acted very cold towards other editors? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A: That is certainly something I'm not proud of. I'm intelligent, but not wise. I didn't think before acting of what the consequences were going to be. It is very rare for me to be like that, and, when it does happen, it can be pretty nasty, as people have seen from the diffs. That's how I am; a person who sometimes can be an asshole. It's just the way I have been raised; to defend my ideals, but I have to learn that there are other ways of doing that that do not include being mean to fellow editors. I've tried to control myself, but apparently, it hasn't worked. I'm sorry for the way I acted, but, there's nothing I can do about that now, is there? --Agüeybaná 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be an admin, you're going to have to stop. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Piotrus

10. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question from User:Dustihowe

10.In the past, apparently you have been in some nasty arguements, do you feel that if granted adminship, you will be more willing to stand your ground RESPECTFULLY, or will you still act strongly and very closed-minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustihowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — Dustihowe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A: I'll try [to be more cool-headed], whether or not this RfA passes. --Agüeybaná 21:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie
• Requests for adminship/Boricuaeddie2
• Requests for adminship/Agüeybaná

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

---

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

Discussion

• Once again, a stupid amount of co-noms. I don't want to have to read through a huge mass of text just to get to the candidate's statement. 86.137.25.192 15:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no statement from me. You don't have to read the noms; just review the contribs and participate. BTW, who are you, and how did you find this? --Agüeybaná 15:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • (1) Exactly? I'm pretty sure people would rather hear from you than random passers by who decided to drop on the popularity bandwagon. (2) Is that relevant? There's a big link to it on your talkpage. This is a wiki, you know. 86.137.25.192 17:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • If you don't want to read them don't do it, that's a easy solution for it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• When a person has various co-nominators, it is an indication that he/she is held in high esteem by other editors. Participants are not required to read each nomination, that is their option. What I find curious, however is that the anon complaining states "Once again, a stupid amount of co-noms" indicating that he/she has participated in this process before, yet when I checked said editor's contributions I found this: [29]. Strange isn't it? Tony the Marine 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That IP is not a static one. I am familiar with this user, and he does have experience. – Aillema 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  A nomination is to introduce a candidate. What's the purpose of a bunch of nominations? It need not be indicated that the candidate is held in high esteem. Let the RfA participants go through the contributions of the candidate and decide for themselves. We are lazy enough as it is. It's no favor to wikipedia if the RfA participants see 5 noms and say, "wow, all those noms... the candidate must be great!". No need to encourage that kind of thing. Anything that really needs to be said can be said in the discussion section or as part of your support. - TwoOars (Rev) 20:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note: The first two supports were added before the RfA was accepted and transcluded. I'm not going to remove them, as they're the noms. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Completely irrelevant. Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You guys are right. There's no need for so many noms. I have only accepted the ones I believe describe a different aspect of my editing. Thank you for your comments. --Agüeybaná 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I find it a little discourteous to delete positive good-faith comments without further discussion. You could have moved them to the talk page and add a link from this page, or something. Melsaran (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I notified the noms. I think they're OK with it. --Agüeybaná 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
        •  Done. Added a link at the talk page. --Agüeybaná 15:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you, Agüeybaná and Tony, normally treat anons as you did above? --Iamunknown 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think I mistreated the guy. I just stated something and asked the anon a question. And, no, I don't ask all anons questions like this. I work actively at WP:AFC, where I work closely with anons, and I think I treat them pretty well. After all, they're people, too :-) --Agüeybaná 19:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • To be fair, my tone was confrontational too. Just so we're clear, I'm not pissed off by his response. 86.137.25.192 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's a good thing. I am quick to worry that regular editors are putting off new editors ... sorry for jumping to a conclusion. --Iamunknown 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agueybana needs to think his decision to become an administrator through very carefully. Becoming an administrator at such a young age puts you at high risk for some very ugly forms of abuse. You may have the mental maturity to make excellent decisions, but you need the maturity to keep a level head during high-pressure situations and continue playing the administrative chess game. 68.19.77.38 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't assure you that I will remain cool at all times, but I certainly can promise you that I'll try the very best I can to keep my calm during those high-pressure situations. --Agüeybaná 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • This is what I'm talking about, even though you may want to blow the roof, administrators much remain calm and always AGF and give adequate warnings before blocking or taking intervention. Thus, remaining cool, should be a prerequsite for admins, as on Wikipedia and in life, going mad and making personal attacks does not facilitate understanding and compromise between editors. Thus I would not support you. 221.133.196.114 03:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I dont want to support you as I don't think you have addressed concerns raised in your last RfA, you do not AGF, nor do you edit in a calm manner, while getting 'told off' or receiving harsh comments is bad, it is no good to reply is a same hostile manner. 221.133.196.114 01:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No way I just don't like your interactions with other users especially newbies, you BITE often, and are very hostile, please try to AGF and calm down and not take threats made to you seriously, but with a grain of salt. What is it, the religious thing to forgive and forget? You dont seem to do that often enough to justify giving you adminship. <end constructive rant> 221.133.196.114 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing personal, but I would never support someone H2O nominates due to his own flawed Wikipedia understanding. Also, please don't nom, unless you yourself have looked through all the editor's recent edits and found out there are no wrongdoings or hostility, don't just nom, for the sake of nom'ing and if you think he can get adminship, but really can not. 221.133.196.114 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• One more thing, I feel that the time between the adminship requests is too short, and while you may be alright 90% of time, it is the 10% other htat I worry about. I don't think that its your fault that this rfa will fail, I would blame o'er hasty nominators. 221.133.196.114 01:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • • Looking at your comments, I'm assuming you are very experienced. However, your first and last comment are clashing against each other where you first say that you don't want to support because of being bitey, then saying it's not Eddie's fault failing this Rfa. Can you clarify this for me? --Hirohisat ^紅葉 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course one cannot completely blame nominators, and it is up to the editor themselves to demonstrate trustworthiness. I believe that had this RfA been done later it would had succeeded, but as it is now, I sincerly doubt it will. 221.133.196.114 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support Lots of room to grow. Look forward to seeing you as an admin. Love the staunch support of SineBot as well. 69.143.236.33 08:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry, unregistered users are not permitted to comment in the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections. ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Recommend you link your signature to only your user and user talk page. 193.95.165.190 11:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• It appears this candidate has not listened from the comments made here, as he/she recently made this comment. Daniel 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 1.) I'm a "he". 2.) It's called sarcasm. --Agüeybaná 16:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral per No big deal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.38.215 (talk • contribs)
  • IP comments go here. --Agüeybaná 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as co-nominator. Tony the Marine 06:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support - Per my explanation above and great interaction with this user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
3. I would definitely trust this user with the mop. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Support I see no good reason to oppose. So support!RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

4. the_undertow ^talk 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support I've noticed Eddie many, many times here and he's done a great job of spreading his contributions across the namespaces, and truly doing a great job at participating in nearly every part of this project. He's a great help at articles for creation, has has even started some work on the Signpost (see here). And, of course, Eddie's outstanding participation in the mainspace must be noted, doing everything from minor edits, like referencing articles and reverting vandalism, to serious article editing [30] [31]. This, along with his always civil interactions with other users and the fact that Wikipedia would be greatly helped with Eddie in this capacity, leaves me no choice other than to support. Good luck, Eddie! ( arky ) 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Great guy. :) GlassCobra (Review) 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Support --Hirohisat ^紅葉 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Support — The issues from the prior RfA have been resolved, with the immaturity issues definitely being so (as a result of other concerns presented previously having been resolved). —[[Animum | talk]] 17:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Support - I believe Eddie would make a fine administrator. Into The Fray ^T/C 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - I see no reason to oppose. Lara❤Love 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - from my nom - Eddie is an active editor, registering a an impressive 1,700 edits in the Wiki-space alone, participating in deletion debates and diligent reporting at WP:UAA. He has demonstrated a great commitment to the project above and beyond most users. He collaborates, using talk pages to incite users to get active, as evidenced by the WikiProject Puerto Rico newsletter he created and maintains. I'm believe this user will do great with the tools. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Candidate's explanation of previous sentiments is satisfactory. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Hell yeah! Knows the deletion policy, remembers to notify people when their article is tagged for speedy, as well as wikifying and formatting articles, making substantial contributions, and being a good vandal-fighter. He is exactly the kind of editor we need as an administrator. Walton^One 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support I would certainly trust Agüeybaná as an admin. Captain panda 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
13. I supported the last time. All my interactions with Agüeybaná have been positive; listens to and takes advice as well. Acalamari 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support has common sense--Phoenix 15 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Common sense is the least common of the senses :-) --Agüeybaná 20:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

15. Support Have seen good work by this editor around the traps, and believe them to be sensible and intelligent. I think he would do well with the mop Orderinchaos 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Weak support for what it's worth, although I'm still slightly uncomfortable. Carbon Monoxide 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

    Abstain. Carbon Monoxide 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

16. Support - I've seen this user around RfA's quite a lot, so I don't have to worry about him not participating in things such as these. His contribs look worthy of an admin, too. Cheers, Ανέκδοτο 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Seen Eddie around WP and on IRC, been consistently impressed. –Crazytales♥ 01:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support He seems like a good guy for the job. A good knowledge of WikiPolicy (I think I just made that up), and would be a good addition to the admin family. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - Eddie has been a great help to me in revamping List of U2 awards and definitely has the knowledge and experience necessary for adminship. Neranei (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support, I can see that Eddie will be a good admin.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support This user has a good knowledge on policy. I believe that he will make a fine admin as wel. He has also demonstrated a great deal of commitment to this project as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Obviously to be trusted with the tools. VanTucky ^Talk 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Per nom. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support per nom. Epbr123 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Agüeybaná is an experienced editor who, in my opinion, would make a fine administrator! I find him not only to be very knowledgeable about policy, but he demonstrates a willingness to help out other less experienced editors in the improvement of newly created articles. Citizen Dick 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support He works to different standards than me, but I don't think he's wrong. Most of the opposes seem to boil down to "sometimes can be an asshole", but if we desysopped people for that there'd be about two admins left. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hmm, I think this depends on if you have an inside or outside view of a. Well, if you're not an admin, but a 'normal' editor, you might end up in deep, uh, troubles. Wouldn't want to work at an article and hold a different opinion when 'Eddie' is around. And his lazy approach towards blocking is scary.Gray62 03:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    I don't know what I'd do with just one other admin around. the_undertow ^talk 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

27. Support per strong contributions, dedication to the project, and willingness to help out with backlogs in areas where help would be useful. Many of the oppose concerns are legitimate, however, and I hope the candidate will take stock of them, whether or not this RfA is successful. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support per Newyorkbrad et al. Of course much of the criticism is correct. He's somewhat immature (still in school), a complete pain, and un (some nasty Spanish word I learned in the schoolyards of the South Bronx). But he works well with the others, on the whole, and has made some significant contributions to build WP. Even if this RfA does not succeed, I look forward to mentoring him to do better in the future. Bearian 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - what you've achieved here so far is brilliant. Keep up the good work, and try to keep a cool head, although it must be admitted by all that sometimes it gets hard not to. Lradrama 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support lots of experience and won't misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support I believe that he will be a dedicated editor who shan't abuse tools. Marlith ^T/C 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support per nom. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
33. For what it's worth, I trust Agüeybaná to make a good administrator, even at this point. I encourage him to take the advice from the opposing parties and come back in a few months where he will stand a good chance of getting through. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
34. I support. I think the community has enough checks and balances to outweigh anyone's fears.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm not impressed by this. This is too BITEy and confrontational in a prospective admin candidate. I've unfortunately never found Eddie as an exceptionally mature user, but things like BTW, who are you, and how did you find this? are just plain rude. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair, that anon's only contribs are here, is very familiar with the process, and, appears very experienced. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I've been around for 3+ years now so I'm hardly a newbie. 86.137.25.192 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   I was just asking a question. I was curious. I hardly see that as rude. --Agüeybaná 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose Few concerns, such as unhelpful comments like this, and accusing a user of bad faith, which is bad faith on your behalf. I also feel that your admin standards are fairly high. I feel that you group everyone who has few mainspace edits into one group, and don't take time to review what they plan to do when they become an admin. For example, if an admin plans to be active on WP:ANI, yes, mainspace contributions would be much more important because you would have to know relevant polices and communication is extremely important. However if you plan to focus on deleting spam pages, mainspace contributions isn't need so much, it's just a simple matter of deciding if a page is complete crap or not. Carbon Monoxide 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   How ironic. I actually thought I was being too merciful with admin candidates. Well, at least I'm not asking them to have FAs, right? Seriously, though, mainspace contribs shows willfulness to work collaboratively and shows that the user is clear on what we're doing here in Wikipedia. I think it's a perfectly justified reasoning when evaluating a user's suitability as an admin. I understand that you disagree with it, but opposing me because of it isn't going to change the way I evaluate candidates. --Agüeybaná 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I agree with CO that your standards for admin candidates are far too high, and that substantial mainspace edits shouldn't be a pre-requisite for passing RfA. However, that isn't a reason to oppose (this isn't an RfB, after all, and you're entitled to hold different views in good faith). Walton^One 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

2. I have concerns about this user's judgement and temperament. Some examples are the defiant unwillingness to compromise as displayed here and here, where Ag, in response to a personal attack by Kappa, makes the exact same implication in return. Two wrongs don't make a right, and if two editors lose control, it doesn't matter who started it. Also, the "You do not accept that you are wrong, continue to attack me, keep reverting my edits when the article is unprotected, and you get blocked" attitude strikes me as leading to the abuse of admin tools in conflicts. Picaroon (t) 22:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I share the above concerns - I find Eddie quite bitey and needlessly aggressive. He seems to me to have a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Not very good if you're on the wrong end of a bad block. – Aillema 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   Um, I only had that attitude because I was right, according to policy, and I was not the only one to think that. Anyway, your final comment is irrelevant; another admin can unblock if (s)he feels the block was a bad one. --Agüeybaná 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

   This response, minutes after I posted simply proves my point. "Um"; "irrelevant" - words like that sound bad. What are you trying to say? – Aillema 00:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Your attitude here is very concerning, and demonstrative of my oppose reasons. Has it occurred to you that Kappa probably thought he was right and you were wrong? What makes your opinion more important? Dismissing the possibility of bad blocks as unimportant because they can be undone makes me more sure than ever that you will not pay proper attention to the blocking policy and other rules if you become an administrator. So what if I delete the Main Page, it can be restored. No big deal. Picaroon (t) 00:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Now, don't get any ideas, Picaroon.... :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose per your post immediately above ( 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC) ). It seems that you have not changed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Unless you have a suitable response for the disgusting incivility and biteyness shown here,[32], oppose. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per the attitude which has been exposed above by six of my peers, which is undesirable in an administrator. Like Picaroon, a general perception of this user forces my hand. This affirms my beliefs. Daniel 00:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Strong oppose per the 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC) comment, "another admin can unblock if (s)he feels the block was a bad one". Although technically true, I would hope that every single administrator realises what damage a block can do, especially an overturned one. It creates an irreversable mark, and the action is personal on a user (unlike a deletion or protection). Any good administrator candidate would be experienced enough to remember the countless incidents (I won't name names) where bad blocks have been placed, had to be removed per concensus, and the levels of drama and/or leaving are disruptive to the encyclopedia. Daniel 00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Stronger oppose again per User talk:Kappa#Your User Page. That's not really appropriate behaviour for an administrator, and I worry that you may abuse the tools if in a similar situation again. Daniel 03:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose as per Picaroon and DarkFalls. east.718 at 00:18, 10/8/2007
8. Reluctant but firm oppose. I'm normally not one to oppose, but I have significant concerns here. Don't get me wrong here, I think have made many excellent contributions. However, as was exhibited at your last RfA, you seem to have a tendency to become confrontational at the slightest disagreement or criticism. Now, your answer to After Midnight was good and I was tempted to go neutral as a result, despite the fact that only two months have passed in the meantime. The links provided by Picaroon though, and your snappy response to Aillema, really make it seem to me that nothing has changed in that respect. As such, I worry about what would happen as and when you end up in conflicts as an admin, as inevitably will happen at some point. So sorry, but I must oppose. Will (aka Wimt) 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose The attitude shown in some of the examples above shouldn't have a place here, editor or admin. Firm oppose. RxS 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Although I agree that some of Agüeybaná's actions are undesirable from an editing point of view, I think it's a bit over-the-top to suggest that Agüeybaná shouldn't contribute at all. Daniel 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Not saying he should go away, but as you say his attitude is not great and he should probably examine how he interacts with other editors here. It contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere for editing and can be downright disruptive in an admin. RxS 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   He is a fantastic editor. Certainly he's not angelic 100% of the time (who is?), but saying he shouldn't be an editor is completely out of line. Walton^One 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Not saying he should go away, but as you say his attitude is not great and he should probably examine how he interacts with other editors here. It contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere for editing and can be downright disruptive in an admin. RxS 01:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose — I'm sorry, but saying the statement "another admin can unblock if (s)he feels the block was a bad one" doesn't ring well with me. As Daniel pointed out, blocks are not only technical functions but can leave a very real behavioral imprint on a user. Just saying "anyone else can unblock if it's bad" shows a myriad of presumptuousness on your part, and could lead a newbie to leave the site; a newbie that very well may be the next Newyorkbrad. Don't take this oppose personally, because you learn from your mistakes and criticisms, not your achievements and apexes. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose I'm really torn over this. I think for the most part you are on top of your game and you really seem to do a good job at what you do, but I'm highly concerned about your interactions at User talk:207.38.160.124 and your response to User:Aillema above. The latter seems to suggest you don't understand how seriously a block may affect other users. I am concerned about what seems a similar unawareness of the impact of your actions at User talk:207.38.160.124 with User:Jemmy Button. I understand your interpretation of that editor's behavior—at least I think I do, as in providing a third opinion I spent quite a lot of time thinking about it—but his statement to you that "You're violating policies (particularly AGF and 3R) and harming the encyclopedia" seemed heartfelt, and your response "Sue me. (You can't, BTW)" was in my opinion clearly out of line. If you had been able to rise above your emotions in the moment and address him there respectfully and fully, you might have been able to nip that conflict in the bud. I know it's really hard to remain civil when you feel like you're being baited by a vandal, but I personally feel like it's an important quality in an administrator to be able to respond neutrally or to have the forbearance to refuse to get in an argument. I think you are absolutely right that disengagement is the proper response, but in that case you disengaged a little too late, I think. Truly, I see that you do great work for the project. I think you will be a fabulous administrator in time. I have a lot of respect for your contributions. I just feel this is an issue you need to master before taking up the tools. And whether you get the tools this time or not, I really hope you will keep this in mind when you interact with other editors. Your words and your actions can have major impact, and it's a whole lot easier to stop and think carefully before unleashing them than it is to clean up after. :/ --Moonriddengirl 00:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose per User:Wimt, User:Animum, and User:East718. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Being a solid stick is a quality that I never wish to see in an administrator, and that said, there is a possibility of abusing admin tools. Other comments share the same concern as I do, so I am going to have to oppose. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:07, 08 October 2007 (GMT)
14. Oppose I stand by the comments I made on the first RfA and the attitude displayed in his response to criticism on this RfA only strenghtens my feeling. Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose, quite strongly, per Maxim, Daniel and Wimt. Interactions with Kappa are far below the standards of civility and etiquette I would expect to see in any user. Please try disengaging from conflicts instead of ascending them. Quality writing but you need to work on your communication skills, sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    I find it very surprising that you oppose him for incivility, yet you nominated Kelly Martin (who is a thousand times less civil) for adminship. I realise this doesn't negate the validity of your comments (indeed, I agree that civility is very important in an admin), but it's generally better to apply consistent RfA standards IMO. Walton^One 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose per above. Civility is something that all admins need to have. Your responses to peoples' opposes in RfAs is a testament to that. Please keep up your contributions on Wikipedia, but I ask you to be careful in how you interact with other users. It might not be intended, but your attitude can give off the wrong idea to your fellow Wikipedians. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose per issues raised above... Jmlk17 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose for the same reason as the last time, too young. No need to hash out those details again. Personal reasons that Eddie can do nothing to change, just one of two criteria I have. Keegan^talk 04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    Unrelated to my oppose but relevant to those above, it is the utmost principle that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Page protection and blocking are immensely serious actions and are not aribitrary or punitive. Keegan^talk 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose - per Picaroon, and Darkfalls, sorry. Dureo 05:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose per many comments above. Civility and a good, helpful attitude is something I require of admin candidates. Useight 06:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose per many comments above. I think that you can be a very good contributor, but I feel that you currently make too many comments that only inflame tempers rather than diffusing defusing them. I'm also troubled by your attitude regarding blocks... while you rightly point out that unjustified blocks can be reversed by another admin, the block still has an effect on the editor. Others have mentioned that a wrongly given block might drive away a good editor. What hasn't been said is that even unjustified blocks remain on the record of a user (just see who one rogue (not rouge!) admin blocked, as an example). A person who was wrongly blocked will have to explain that block if he or she seeks adminship/bureaucrat/whatever. It's far better to avoid making the mistake in the first place. I'm not trying to tear you down, Eddie, and I hope you understand why I've chosen to oppose your RfA at the present time. What I think you should do is try to read the various comments presented here, read your own interactions with other users, and try to imagine how your words would be taken by someone else. In other words, try to put yourself in someone else's shoes. I don't think you are permanently unsuited for adminship, I just feel that you should improve your civility and communication skills, and rethink your attitude on blocking. Work on those, and perhaps I might be convinced to support you in the future. --Kyoko 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC), fixed spelling of "defusing" 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose I just can't bring myself to support given the comments that have been pointed out above, while you are a good contributor, that does not mean you will act with a level head as an admin, and your actions above do not demonstrate this. Thus, while I value the work in article creation, incivility issues mean I will oppose for the time being. Phgao 09:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Weak Oppose sorry, the comments highlighted above cancel out some promising editing. I don't see any Good or Featured Article involvement, and only 1 DYK - a more concerted effort at 'pedia building may see a support from me in the future. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    Just a small comment: I have worked with other users at WP:PUR to get several articles to GA and FA. I also have more than 10 DYKs (see User:Agüeybaná/DYK and User:Agüeybaná/Creations). --Agüeybaná 21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

24. Strong Oppose per the various confrontational responses cited above ("so sue me", "your final comment is irrelevant", etc.) These display an arrogance and attitude that is entirely unsuitable for the mop. Ronnotel 10:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose - I don't trust Agueybana's judgement with regards blocking and suchlike at this time. However, the error was being rude, bitey and incivil before getting the mop (wrong order, dude). I admire the honesty, at least. Neil ム 11:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Darkfalls. Sorry. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 13:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose as per Picaroon above. Sorry buddy. Scarian^Talk 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose Sorry, Eddie, you are a good editor, but there have been quite a few times in which you have been rude or arrogant to others and left a sour taste in my mouth. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose Don't want to pile on, so I'll keep it short -- my default position on an RfA is, among other things, to support absent a showing that the tools may be abused. I really wanted to support you because you've been a fine editor, but you seem to be just a little too quick to anger in the face of opposition (which you would inevitably face as an admin). I was perfectly willing to write off the exchange above in the discussion section, since it seemed like you were just being baited, but a similarly hot response happened more than once, just on this page. As such, I don't see a choice but to oppose. Ashdog137 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose as per Picaroon. --Folic_Acid 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose: I don't think this is a good idea at this juncture, largely for the reasons raised by Daniel, Picaroon, DarkFalls, and Riana. Editors are usually at peak civility before and during an RfA; it only gets worse after they're sysopped and no longer under the magnifying glass. I think there's a level of hot-headedness and immaturity, and a shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude, that augurs poorly for what he'd do with the bit. The way a user handles conflict is a useful gauge of what they'll do with the tools when things jump off. We need admins who will stay calm and refuse to be baited. Based on what I've seen so far (particularly the exchanges cited by Picaroon above), I don't think Agueybana's in this category. Regarding Kelly Martin's most recent RfA, Agueybana wrote that "I would never support such an uncivil user." Amen - me neither. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose: Agueybana needs to demonstrate a longer history of cool thinking and polite interactions during conflicts before I can support his RfA. One of the rare situations where an intelligent editor in good faith can't reasonably be relied upon not to lose his temper and abuse admin tools. Something he can remedy with consistent effort and attention. Avruch^Talk 19:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose per Daniel and Picaroon. This diff provided by Daniel seems a bit much. I do realize everyone is human and makes mistakes, so I'd be open to supporting in the future if civility improves. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    I was initially provided by DarkFalls, for the record :) Daniel 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

34. Oppose Very concerned about the unexplained change of the username, and the fact that I'm unable to check older contributions. Candidate seems to be a fast decider, but sadly with some problems in judgment. Comments by other users about rude and arrogant behaviour is alarming. The candidates answers here don't really give confidence this has changed. And coming back to RfA after only two months is a bit to fast, imho. Gray62 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose, regretfully. And frankly, I came here intending to support. The answer to question 9, however, saddened me, as did the confrontational attitude in some diffs and comments at the top of this very RFA. I'm sorry, but I have to now say no. I don't oppose often, and this one saddens me. - Philippe | Talk 17:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Oppose Sorry but to be an admin you'll need to cool down a little bit. --Joelster 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose. I'm concerned with your answer to question 9. --Kbdank71 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Oppose. I am also concerned with your efforts to deal reasonably with people at all times. Your response to 9 seems to acknowledge fact that such outbursts may happen in the future, without any attempts to rectify this problem. If you feel this is a personality issue, it should be dealt with outside of Wikipedia before seeking administrator rights.Ckjy 19:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Oppose I hate to do this, but I feel that you are a bit too bitey and aggressive. You need to show that you can effectively handle disputes before becoming an administrator. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose reasons stated by above opposers are too worrisome. -WarthogDemon 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Oppose that diff is too frightening and is far from helping a user, which is one of an admin's jobs. Sorry! jonathan (talk — contribs) 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Oppose Had to change my mind here. Looking at other comments made me look closer at question 9 and in my opinion, if you cant keep your head, you can't be a reasonable admin. Sorry. Aflumpire 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note I was neutral.Aflumpire 10:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hello Aflumpire, in the interest of transparency, would you care to restore your previously neutral opinion, struck through like this? This is done by putting <s> and </s> tags around the content. I don't know how other people feel, but I personally prefer to see how people's thoughts and opinions evolve throughout an RfA, hence this request. Thank you. --Kyoko 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

43. Oppose per above. Yahel Guhan 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral leaning support - I was really expecting to oppose this RFA, but I'm impressed with your response to my question. I'll do some additional research and make a final decision in a couple days. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral Leaning support also, viewing some behavior of the candidate on this RfA may prompt me to change. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. On the fence Miranda 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral I was expecting to support this RFA but the number of opposes as well as the reasons for them worry me. The curt responses Eddie has made to other editors in a "I'm right you're wrong" attitude makes me unable to support at this time. Sorry :( --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Same reason as Hdt83. I would like to really support you, but your recent comments to User:Kappa (although he might be personal-attacky) did not show that you are civil. I really don't want to oppose though, so I'll stay neutral. --Hirohisat ^紅葉 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I'm sorry to say that the uncivility changed my opinion. --Eye of the minD 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
6. The hardest neutral I've always had a pleasant interaction with Eddie and I wish that the missteps reported by the opposers had never happened. Still, due to them, I must stand bitter-neutral for now. I hope that Eddie doesn't feel any discouraged and keep working and improving in order to attain a successful RfA in a few months. He would certainly deserve another chance and I'm sure that the admin tools would then be in great hands. Húsönd 23:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Dead Neutral I'm afraid. Basically per Husond who has eloquently summed up my feelings. I'm sorry Eddie, I truly am. This RfA will not pass. Having interacted with you so much I know that you will keep that positivity and humour that we all like about you. Just take note of the valid comments by opposers, and I look forward to your future RfA when these concerns will have been addressed and you can then get the buttons to further help you in your undoubted commitment to this work. Pedro :  Chat  07:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral your signature [[User:Agüeybaná|<span style="color:Green;">Ag</span>]][[User:Agüeybaná/Puerto Rico|<span style="color:#1E90FF;">ü</span>]][[WP:LOVE|<span style="color:Green;">eybaná</span>]] 2 of the nine letters in your signature goes to your UP the rest just goes to other stuff, your signature is a link for for others when someone trying to find you ending up on meaningless pages is only going to enrage others further when they are already experiencing issues with policy. Gnangarra 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

   Leaning Neutral Im neutral but I am leaning towards support. Lots of ways to support but the big one for me was unblocking if another admin had made a bad one. True in some cases but I don't agree with that. Aflumpire 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflumpire (talk • contribs)

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

---

About RfB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Currently none.

Related requests

• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
• A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship