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 11:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 11:49, 28 August 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.

There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	RfA	Successful	15 Jun 2024	201	0	0	100
Elli	RfA	Successful	7 Jun 2024	207	6	3	97
DreamRimmer	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	31 May 2024	45	43	14	51
Numberguy6	RfA	Closed per WP:SNOW	27 May 2024	5	23	2	18

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 and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.

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.

Current nominations

Add new requests at the top of this section.

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that while there is no hard and fast requirement for nominating, editors with less than 3-6 months experience and 1000-2000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.

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

Current time is 11:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

---

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

brenneman

(110/30/7) ending 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC) [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)|action=edit}} Have your say here]

I've refactored the normal nomination page to my pleasure. This is a good indication of what you could expect from me if promoted. Oppose recommendations based on this refactoring are fair enough, I reckon.

Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs) — (RfA 1) — (ArbCom • Workshop • Withdrawn)

I've been editing since 5 July 2005. My first edit was to a talk page, and not much has changed. I've got circa 7000 edits (plus eleven bad-faith ones)^[1] and about 30% are to talk. I believe in communication, and I think that the only way the community can scale is if we talk a lot.

Re: Sysop chores Rollback would be handy, as I want to avoid RSI when removing spam and bulk vandalism. Page protection is an area that I'd be interested in that I can't do now. I often see a "hands off" approach where a page is simply protected, left for a while, and unprotected. Sometimes this works, but I'd take a more active role in attempting to get the contributors working together. Blocking is something I'd certainly end up doing, but I'd be concerned about anyone who said that they wanted to block users. I close AfDs now, and have in the past closed some other than "unanimous keeps", but would like to be able to close "deletes" as well. I'd be interpreting the closer as having a wide mandate, and eschewing anything resembling vote counting.^[2]

Re: Contributions The work in changing "Vote for Undeletion" into Deletion review was a good one. It involved passionate discussion from people with divergent ideas that resulted in something useful. Very wiki! Forming Notability (websites) was another big one, although I can't claim any credit for the current form,^[3] I worked long and hard to make its predecessor relevant and effective. About a third of my contributions ar to article space. I make stubs sometimes,^[4] do a bit of clean-up,^[5] and I've never had an article featured.^[6]

Re: Conflicts I've had a few users take exception to my stance regarding Citing sources, verifiability, and external links. In most cases I think that I handled it well ^[7] but there's always room for improvement. The most recent example of a "conflict" that gave me any stress was over WP:WEB. I still believe that my approach was appropriate, and that my attempts to head the problems off were in good faith, which is why I had stress over being taken to ArbCom.^[8]

That being said, I've really only had one real conflict, and that one has been public and ongoing. More of a "clash" than a "conflict". I'm doing my best with it, and still suffer occasional lapses of sizzling incivility. It's pretty well contained, and I cannot imagine that I'd abuse my admin powers in relation to it.

Re: Adminship overall Accountability is paramount. If promoted I will open a "Use of administrator privileges" RfC on my three month anniversary and any time after that if five editors requested me to do so. If I'm doing the job right, for every irritated problem user there will be five happy good faith contributors. But if the community loses trust, stepping down should be even less of a big deal than being promoted.

Thanks for taking the time to read all that.
brenneman^(t)(c) 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes

1. ^ See IgnoreAllRules (talk • contribs) and my statement.
2. ^ The easiest way to see what I mean would be examples. If permission from the closing admin is given, I'm happy to say what I would have done and why for any AfD that get placed here:
   • Closed as no consensus
   • Closed as keep
   • Closed as delete
3. ^ I would like to extend Aaron credit for not only inspiring the current form of Notability (websites), but also playing a major part in bringing it to guideline status. The current form would not exist without Aaron's contributions. Hiding talk 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. ^ Some stubs I've created:
   • Operation Amethyst
   • Mainstreams of Modern Art
   • Gardner's Art Through the Ages
   • Archie McPhee
5. ^ Some recent examples of clean-up:
   • Oil paint, clean-up
   • Democracy & Nature, clean-up I'm pretty proud of this one, it stopped a long-running edit war
   • Gouache, clean-up
   • H. Kramer and Company, clean-up
   • Brian Curtin clean-up
6. ^ Here are the articles I'd like to make FAs, though.
   • Bystander effect
   • Oil paint
   • Infantilism
7. ^ Examples of conflicts. Some of these are long, I tend to be prolix.
   • User:OrbitOne (contribs) — Talk:Sissy baby, User talk:OrbitOne
   • User:Davy Blue (contribs) — Talk:ABDL, Talk:Infantilism/Archive 1, User talk:Davy Blue
   • User:Treelovinhippie (contribs) — AFD:Revision3 Studios (2), User talk:Treelovinhippie
8. ^ While I stand by my actions regarding WP:WEB and Snowspinner, my statement regarding the outcome is genuine, as the scope of the Arbitration widened beyond Webcomics.

Questions for the candidate
This section has been converted into the essay at the top, so here's where new questions can be placed.

1. I've been increasingly troubled by admins unblocking themselves because they "shouldn't have been blocked in the first place." If you had admin tools (i.e. unblocking tools), what would you do if you made three content reverts to an article plus one revert of pure vandalism, and another admin mistakenly thought you had broken 3RR and blocked you? What would you do if you were blocked because an admin wrongly attributed a personal attack to you, when in fact the diff showed that the personal attack had been made by another editor? AnnH ^(talk) 12:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A. Oh hey, that's easy. I'd never unblock myself. How much damage is going to be done to the encyclopedia because I'm not around for a short time? The crux of this is that one admin looked at those diffs (using your first example) and saw four reverts. I look and see three, so I unblock myself, but later I notice that it was four... there's another little chip in the trust that the community places in admins. Much better to take it slow, understand that everyone thinks that they are right, and it is possible that I'm the one who's wrong. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Commentary and evidence

Diffs

Comments

Support

1. We started out sparring, but my respect for Aaron has grown immensely. He brings a lot of energy and good ideas to the table and I think he'd make a good admin. (I recently offered to nominate him so I'll skip the commentary for now (I reserve the right to comment later) and go straight to support) ++Lar: t/c 05:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. It is good to have a few admins who think out of the box, and I'm already hawking him with civility issues. He's advised to keep down the drama, but I cannot deny that his heart is in the correct place. I'm pretty sure we can keep those problems in check. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Sarge Baldy 05:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. He rarely does things perfectly. He frequently makes unwanted sexual advances towards women. He kicks puppies occasionally, I'm sure. I'll keep watch on him should he fuck up, but I doubt that he will. Aaron, sail on!--Sean Black (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   He frequently makes unwanted sexual advances towards women. Unlike Sean. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Er, what does that mean exactly? Sean's advances are never unwanted, or never even made? PS, Sean I think you spelt occasionally wrong. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Never, ever unwanted. See for yourself.--Sean Black (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Support. Aaron's brave and smart and funny. In content disputes, he's good at breaking the ice, even-handed, makes intelligent suggestions, and understands the importance of well-timed archiving. ;-) He'll make an innovative and responsible admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Pilatus 06:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support--Duk 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. OMFG don't oppose, are you kidding? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:41, Feb. 2, 2006
9. Support. Absolutely, under any circumstances. howcheng {chat} 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. I take a short repreive from my RfA boycott to support. Give him a chance. El_C 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. I was in the neutral column last time due to the IgnoreAllRules incident, but since then Aaron has matured greatly and is much more patient now than a few months ago. His handling of the Webcomics Arbcom case was calm and ordered. He has made a number of very good contributions to policy discussions. Aaron has a firm understanding of policy, and of the nature of the encyclopedia. I absolutely believe that he is ready to become an administrator now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Aye. —Cryptic (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Aaron's a fine, sensible Wikipedian, who understands Wikipedia like few admin candidates seem to. The timing of his last RFA was unfortunate, but I have no qualms supporting now. I value his judgment, and really belive he shouldn't be denied adminship because of personal or political spats. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Fine wikipedian, with a good sense of humour. He's dedicated and an independent thinker. He appreciates process, but is not a slave to it. He can be a very bold and forthright (an Aussie thing?), but has the neccessary humility to go with it. My only concern is that he has an long-running spat with Tony_Sidaway; but that is two-sided. My support would be stronger if Aaron was willing to pledge never to revert Tony's actions (there plent of others to do that). --Doc ^ask? 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see 10 my remarks to fudd labled "wheel_war" below while I go figure out how to make two footnotes point to the same place. - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Argh, I got the number wrong! - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, if his RfA fails, we're all doomed. Babajobu 11:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Every time I see that brenneman's made a contribution to an issue that I'm interested in, I look forward to reading it. I believe that brenneman has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, more so than editors who always follow every process to the letter but never think about how we could improve. —Cleared as filed. 12:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Support: Aaron can be prickly, but he has been dedicated since arrival to setting up standards by which the controversial matters can be assessed dispassionately. Instead of relying on "IAR" and "experts," he wants to have guidelines (not rules) by which we can agree. For this he has gotten the wrath of people who believe in a divine right of admins. For this, he has the support of this admin, 100%. This is a guy who wants to use administrator tools to help administrators work by the same rules as everyone else. Geogre 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Absolutely. Completely. Unstintingly. Hamster Sandwich 12:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support: Brenneman does what he says and says what he does. Not only is Brennan dedicated to working on Wikipedia as it is now, he also wants to help create a better Wikipedia for the future.

    -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

22. Sigh of relief. I didn't really want to let this RfA go through without supporting. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Support: (after edit conflict) He makes lots of contributions and it's good to have somebody who is sometimes critical and who is passionate. Dr Debug (Talk) 12:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Aaron has grown more in a short period of time than any other editor I know. I have no doubt that this will continue.. Nandesuka 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Supportize. I normally don't make comments to RFA much much but Oof. What a fast learner. I had <THIS HUGE STACK> of objections. Talked with him briefly, and he addressed them all. Oh hmm, that and normally refactoring your RFA page leads to near automatic support from me anyway :-P Kim Bruning 13:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Support - Hahnchen 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, Aaron cares for Wikipedia and seems to have matured from earlier misjudgements. My concern had been interaction with Tony Sidaway, and hopefully that is resolved now, as even Tony is supporting promotion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-02 13:34Z
29. Support. This would be unqualified, but I think he has a Tony-sized hole in his judgment and that sometimes he lets his big mouth get the better of him; I should hope that he will make more of an effort not to let this happen. That said—I've always found him willing to talk about things reasonably afterward, as well as to have a productive chat with when we disagree about something. Most of the work he does is very good, and I'm not worried about him abusing admin powers, so after opposing last time I'm happy this time to support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support does good work here even if he has a big mouth ;). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, as last time. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Alphax ^τεχ 15:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support Absolutely. Extremely. Amazing editor. Xoloz 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. He's got my support. Kusonaga 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Strongest Possible Support I'm surprised I spoke the exact opposite words during his last rfa. Aaron's always in the trenches, an invaluable voice in a sea of tumult. Add to that his knowledge of the Wiki(the footnotes in the formatting here), and we've got a situation here where we're lucky that he wants to be an admin. Karmafist 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. I've seen much that I like from Aaron. I think he is an intelligent, hard working editor, who cares deeply about our encyclopedia. As do others I have concerns about some of his past actions, but I have confidence he will be a good admin. Paul August ☎ 16:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. What can I say?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. He's shown he's willing to work hard for WP. Chick Bowen 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, Aaron is at least as trustworthy of the mop as most admins I know (this may become my new personal guideline for RfA). Also, his ability to work out a compromise with Tony is admirable. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Very Strong Support One of the best Wikipedians there is.--Alhutch 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, generally level-headed and willing to consider the opposite view, and to change his mind if he's wrong. >Radiant< 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Great work on the Wikipedia, and he has a respect for the consensus of the community, which is very important in an administrator. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. One look at who is opposing this nomination says everything. Why is wikipedia scared of an outspoken editor? I fully support his agitation, even if i don't agree with everything he says. Actually, on reflection, I do agree with everything he says. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    What does a 'look at who is opposing' say? Why the need to turn this into some sort of partisan struggle? A quick look at who is supporting tells you that there is no fear of an outspoken editor, and also that there is certainly no cabal at play here. --Doc ^ask? 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

44. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Support: good editor. Jonathunder 18:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. His respect for consensus and process pushes my vote into this category. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - Liberatore(T) 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Is this a request for adminship? If it is, I support it. --TantalumTelluride 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
49. Support pile on.--MONGO 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. What I've seen of him suggested that he was kind and fair. I'm sure he won't abuse the admin tools. AnnH ^(talk) 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Will make a excellent admin --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Support I have some reservations about this user's past conduct, but won't rehash that here. I'm a big believer in personal evolution, and as he stands now, he deserves a fair shake. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
53. Support - He can get hot under the collar from time to time, but he's got a very well-worked out understanding of policy, and takes a narrow view of admin resposibility, and I think he can be trusted not to misuse admin actions, and would make much positive use of them. Plus, he's a nice guy. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
54. Very Strong Support, Aaron will make a good admin, he's open to discussion, engages with issues and people and cares about the project. I would also add I've always found Aaron to treat me civilly, and I've disagreed with him on issues since he first logged into Wikipedia. Hiding talk 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
55. Strong Support FeloniousMonk 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. I'm always a sucker for stories about those that start off on the wrong foot and end up well-loved by all most. Plus he has a cool name, and I'm looking forward to getting tons of admin requests on my talk page that I can't do anything about. --Aaron 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
57. Yes indeed. He seems to actually be against wheel warring and abuse of admin tools. We could use more like him, I think. Friday (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Haukur 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. Tread lightly. -Splash^talk 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Good editor, unlikely to abuse admin tools.Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
61. Strong support. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
62. Support as a good editor, someone very unlikely to abuse admin tools, and impressed by his answer to my questions. Ral315 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. -- Dragonfiend 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
64. Support as good editor/person. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 02:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
65. Support innovation is a good thing. --rogerd 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. Knowledgeable and experienced. There's no reason to deny him admin tools. Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
67. Support - He should change his name legally to Awesome Brenneman. Proto t c 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. — FireFox • T • 14:50, 3 February 2006
69. Support Who does not have a big mouth on wikipedia?? Mjal 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
70. EXTREME WIKIBREAK SUPPORT from the Emerald Isle. I couldn't not vote "aye" on this. Cheers, Aaron, me lad. Blackcap (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
71. Support per Geogre, SlimVirgin. — mark ✎ 18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
72. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. Excellent editor, and has all the qualities to make an equally excellent admin. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
74. Strong support - another cliche moment methinks... --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. Karmafist put it well; WP is fortunate Brenneman wants to be an admin. He is well qualified: a good contributor, he has experience, a knowledge of policy and norms few may claim to equal (even among admins), thoughtfulness, a natural ability to listen and consider other points-of-view (and not, as is too often the case, the better to rebut them, but too actually understand what the other guy really thinks), and the willingness to reach out and try to find solutions or compromises. This has led to many improvements in those areas that he has involved himself. Sees and admits mistakes. Is passionate about the project. His troubles, such as they are, seem to have stemmed in the past (on his part) from a quick temper: I agree with Splash's caution, but also with Sjakkalle's opinion that this is much improved. I do not see a good reason to oppose this request, but much to support it. Regards ENCEPHALON 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
76. All we are saying, is give Aaron a chance. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
77. I'm very disappointed by the factionalism I'm seeing here. It was sort of to be expected, but it's clear how the people piling on supports are those from the faction that, er, oppose the faction opposing. (Karmafist, Geogre, SlimVirgin, et al vs Tony Sidaway, Phil Sandifer, David Gerard, Ambi, et al.) Brenneman can be rough and rude at times, but this is often no worse than some of the things I've consistently seen from Tony and Phil. I think the people from both factions are really great guys, but this RfA just reeks of factionalism to me (though I'm not sure how the lines are drawn -- it's something to do with Kelly Martin or admin actions, I'd presume). Oh, and sorry for hijacking your RfA as a soapbox, brenneman. I'm sure any good you'll do as an admin will outweigh any bads. (And if you start acting like an ass with the mop and bucket, I'll be the first to try to get you desysoped. :p) Johnleemk | Talk 05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing any "factionalizing" here at all. Personally, there isn't anyone you mentioned that I don't like as a person, editor, admin, or anything else, even if I don't always agree with them. Whether or not they like me is something different, though :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Problem is, I've seen many of the people opposing and supporting in the same group when it comes to other divisive things -- the constant Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway "admin abuse" scandals are an excellent example. I'm not ascribing ulterior motives to anyone, but I am quite worried that this RfA indicates cracks in the community (because, really, I think brenneman and Tony/Phil have more in common than anyone might think). We seem to be moving to a more partisan future, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    The factionalism may be in the eye of the beholder in this case. I can think of one recent issue where Geogre and I have expressed views on the same "side," and none where Karmafist and I have done so (not saying there aren't any; just that I can't think of one). I support Aaron because I've had nothing but good experiences with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed too, although a lot of the opposers here are old, experienced wikipedians. which worries me more than slightly. Aaron, what else have you been up to that I've missed? ;-) Kim Bruning 13:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oh I would like to think that this is nonsense--Aaron is a very good editor and fully worthy of the respect of all other editors. I loathe factionalism and would love to support Aaron for a position that I think he could use very well. While I have personal reservations, I can see the point of the many, many people who have decided to entrust Aaron with the mop and broom. I am not aware of being a member of any faction, and if anyone has voted "opppose" out of some misplaced sense of loyalty to myself or to some faction that they imagine I represent, or for any other factional reason unrelated to the undeniably deep disagreements between Aaron and myself, I urge them to think for themselves and evaluate this excellent editor for themselves. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

78. Support Aaron is one of those users that inspires strong feelings, largely because in turn he's passionate himself. Sometimes he could stand to temper his comments, but then who couldn't? Regardless, I hope he'll take this particular critique to heart -- administrating is no easy task, and pushing an administrator button usually causes a large target to appear on one's backside. But the bottom line is that Aaron has been a tireless contributor who cares about Wikipedia. Does he hold some views that are heretical to some in the establishment (deletion comes to mind)? Probably. But opinions are no crime. The only question that's left, then, his dedication clearly established, is whether he'll act properly in regards to his new buttons. I have no reason to think he won't be responsible with his new privileges. That he's clashed with other people is no reason to deny such a serious and long-time contributor, when we routinely hand the keys over to people because they're good vandal fighters. I have no doubt he'll be a good addition. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, because I honestly thought he was one already. Mo0[talk] 08:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
80. Brilliant Support --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 13:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
81. Support per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
82. Support I find his acknowledgement of his own mistakes and his desire to improve both mature and admirable. No one is perfect, but few are those who are willing to grow in spite of that. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
83. Support -- seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 21:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
84. Support, with a hope that this will hit WP:100. Stifle 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
85. Support --Ugur Basak 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
86. Support.Dannycas 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
87. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
88. Support. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
90. Support. That he doesn't bother with faux niceities isn't necessarily a bad thing. -R. fiend 08:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
91. Support ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
92. Support as above Smallbones 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
93. Support as above Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
94. support I think his adminship will be a good thing for the wiki. Brokenfrog 15:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
95. support per arbitration comments. Very classy. --SarekOfVulcan 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
96. w00t have fun writing the thank you notes... Sasquatch t|c 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
97. Support. -Will Beback 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
98. Support I'll be the first I haven't always agreed with him but I think he'd make a good administrator. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
99. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
100. Support Aaron Brenneman is ready for adminshipTim | meep in my general direction 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

     It's WP:100 time!!!--Alhutch 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

101. Support. PJM 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
102. Support. Sure, helpful editor; would make a good resource as an admin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
103. Support. No big deal. James James 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
104. Support Ready to be an admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
105. Support I see no major problem.--Jusjih 08:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
106. Support. Fuck politeness, lets concentrate on writing the damn encyclopedia! jni 09:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
107. Support. --Fang Aili 15:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
108. Support. I think he's ready. -Ravedave 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
109. Support Funny how the list of those who oppose this nomination is mostly filled with the names of those who I would vote to step into a pit filled with an extremely sticky substance and lots of broken glass. Hmmm - wonder what that means? Denni ☯ 00:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
110. Support May the power be with you! --FloNight 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Absolutely not, under any circumstances. Phil Sandifer 05:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fine editor, but a bit too unpredictable. — Dan | talk 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Not as yet. Gets too bogged down in clashing with others' personalities. Overly concerned with process. Hasn't worked out yet that on Wikipedia, gritting your teeth and working productively with people you consider idiots is not optional (c.f. his clashes with Tony Sidaway) — this is absolutely mandatory for an admin. Doing much better than last time though - David Gerard 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   • ^[9] - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
     • WP:ANI#RFC_against_Tony_Sidayway is a spectacular example. Can you get along with Tony if you have to? - David Gerard 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
       • Clearly I don't understand what you mean by "get along". I stand 100% behind every statement I made in that thread. When an editor refuses to stop doing something despite being asked not to be several others, what options are open? I'm also still puzzled by your "lynching" comments. Please see User talk:Aaron Brenneman/RfC draft. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
       • I think comments such as "I think that it's a total waste of time as RfC has no teeth" and "Enough is simply enough, and if it takes two weeks to put together a complete and concise history I think that would be time well spent" make it sound as if you're attempting to assemble some kind of prosecution case, rather than communicate with someone--with an editor, moreover, who had only a couple of days before made a patient and conciliatory response to your complaints on WP:AN/I, but asked that you refrain from couching such complaints as personal attacks [10], and to whom you had replied, curtly and rudely requesting that he "desist" from placing material on your talk page [11]. There is a large gap between your self-perception and reality. You could have taken up the dialog that I initiated at that time, but you refused. Perhaps it is I who should have started the RfC, for it is I who was attempting to communicate with you, and you who were refusing to respond with anything except public yelping. barking. and growling of the type that I quoted in my edit on your talk page. In such cases, as you are aware if you have read the dispute resolution process, a possible next step would be to write up an RfC. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose-Civilty is lacking. Good chap, seems to know the ins and outs of wikipdia, but needs to work on the behavior aspect. Shows too much annoyance and impatience at opposing parties on the side of a debate, and not easliy approchable. Communication is an important aspct of the admistrative process.-Zero^Talk 12:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   I switched to strong oppose now as I just don't think Aaron gets it. Comments such as "Oh, and while I'm here, do you really think that raising an RfC for JJay will do any good?" and componding it with "Sigh. No wikistalking, eh? That means I'll have to do something useful like write an article or something crazy like that." are extremely provacative and unbecoming of our coummunity's admins. Also the canidate's failure to duscuss the aspects of his behavior before the rfa instead of during its course depict he hasn't learned anything. -Zero^Talk 17:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Rdsmith4. Also, why'd you call that reference note "Idiots"? Are you calling us idiots for opposing you? That proves lack of civility even more. Sorry. WikiFanatic 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   • 'Proves'? How? I don't know why he'd called it that, but since the endnote refers to me and I'm managing to assume good faith, perhaps you could try too. --Doc ^ask? 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
     • Ohhh, embarrasing. It's David's comment that "idiots" point to, and I simply chose a low-frequency word he'd used. I've changed it to "grit_teeth" to avoid further unintentional offence. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Seen some subtle and some overt signs that this isn't a good idea just yet. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. You're a good guy and editor, but I don't think just yet, a bit too hot-headed at times. NSLE _(T+C) 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose-Occasional incivility [12] and pedantry are a problem. Seems to have enormous difficulty accepting opposing viewpoints. His obsession with countering Tony Sidaway looks like compulsion to me and does nothing but divide the community. On a personal note, I didn’t appreciate his appearance on my user page to offer unsolicited advice/analysis of my contributions [13]. I have to assume this was motivated by differences in AfD discussions. Nevertheless, his goal here was intimidation and he then proceeded to shadow my AfD participation culminating in a « fake edit » [14] that he knew would show up on my watchlist. At the same time, tried to drum up support for a combination stalk campaign/rfc against me [15], [16]. Maybe Tony was away at the time, but this behaviour strikes me as bizarre and unbecoming of a prospective admin. -- JJay 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. As per David. I'm thoroughly disappointed that this is bound to pass anyway, but I have to show at least some concern. Ambi 09:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
10. On reviewing the evidence of obsessive behavior provided by User:JJay, which is new to me, I can no longer support this candidate. He is a good editor, but his bullying of other editors is a cause for serious concern. He openly talks of using the RfC, not as a means of communication, but as a means of intimidation of other editors of whose behavior (though apparently blemishless, at leaast in JJay's case) he disapproves. . --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • ^[17] - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Fine editor, but trying too hard to squash the objecting votes by preparing a detailed, and naturally biased, rebuttal against all criticism of him. While this shows he wants the mop badly, it also shows he might be a bit too eager to settle some old scores if given admin rights. I hope people think seriously about whether Aaron wants to be an admin to improve Wikipedia or prove a point to his haters. Harro5 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See, I saw that and said "Wow, there's someone who is taking concerns expressed by others seriously, and responding to them in a comprehensive, thoughtful, and civil manner." Nandesuka 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    A user will be on his best behavior in the middle of an rfa, despite his past demeanor of feelings. "...Taking concerns expressed by others seriously, and responding to them in a comprehensive, thoughtful, and civil manner" indeed! -Zero^Talk 00:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose - Sorry, but some of your past actions trouble me. While I appreciate that you've apologized and hopefully seen the error of your ways, I would prefer to see more time without incident before applying. While we should forgive and forget, this is a bit soon, in my opinion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I'm troubled by his behavior since the Webcomics rfar, which suggests to me poor conflict resolution and difficulty in getting over past conflicts with other editors. I have full faith he's working to improve these skills all the time, I'm just not convinced he's ready for admin responsibilities just yet. InkSplotch^(talk) 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Obsessive and annoying busybody behavior is bad enough; obsessive and annoying busybody behavior enabled by admin tools? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose - I have a nagging bad feeling about this candidate. Too often, his personality has struck me as agressive or abrassive. His user page contains a box of "nervous" users linked to occult, and at least some of these editors Aaron has evidently had significant conflicts with. The findings in the Webcomics RFAr, especially [18], are too negative and too recent for my taste. Looking at his recent contributions, I don't have any smoking guns, but there is still a lot of what I percieve as veiled hostility towards some users, e.g. Tony, and apparent frustrations with the culture of Wikipedia. Aaron also seems to have a strong tendency to do things his own way. In the distant past that manifested as unannounced changes to deletion policy, and more recently by applying his own style to RFA and RFC. This isn't necessarily bad, but I worry that he hasn't matured as an editor to the point that he would avoid being disruptive in the process. Altogether, I can't really say that he won't be a good admin, and I certainly do believe his heart is in the right place, but I can't shake my sense of uneasiness about this nom, so I am opposing. In many ways, I think this is a shame because there are a number of times where I can recall agreeing with comments and opinions Aaron has offered in the past. Sadly, the last time I felt like this, the RFA succeeded anyway and a few months later sysophood was revoked by ArbCom. If this succeeds, and it certainly looks like it might, I certainly hope that Aaron manages to control his behavior and avoids a similar fate. If this fails, I would be happy to reconsider given several more months of good behavior. Dragons flight 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. There have been too many valid concerns raised by oppose voters. I just get a bad feeling that this would be an ArbCom case waiting to happen. Perhaps I could support in a few months, if the level of conflict died down. Carbonite | Talk 18:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose It is my policy to vote in opposition when a candidate speaks so vociferously in his/her favor during his/her RfA on his/her RfA page or any talk page. --M@thwiz2020 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose per all of the above, especially the Webcomics thing. And while that was some time ago, I didn't have to go back far at all (Feb. 1st!) to find this, which, while redacted quickly, shows a major failure to grasp WP:CIVIL. Admins should be a role model to other Wikpedians, IMO, and Aaron is not quite there yet. I did like the answers to the questions he gave however, and commend him for those. Turnstep 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    If this were a crappy TV show about a murder trial, that diff would be the moment where the gallery rocks back with a collectivel, "Oh!!!!" That is the biggest mark against the candidate presented in this RfA, and it was a couple of days ago. Harro5 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Odd, then, how Kim supported. Johnleemk | Talk 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    That's one for the wikipedia outtakes and bloopers section. If you *really* search through peoples edit histories, you'll be horrified to see much more of that ;-). What I actually saw ,however, after [19][20], was [21]. At which point I made a civil reply. Kim Bruning 18:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. Handling such "bloopers" gracefully (which Aaron generally does) is a good administrator skill. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Switching to nuetral for now. See below. Turnstep 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose strongly for reasons of incivility toward others. Silensor 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose. Aaron would rather throw his weight around any any questionable article rather than dealing with it in a gentle manner. He's right of course, or he would abstain. So, when he's sure that our policies will back him up well then he goes for the jugular. His insensitivity is not lacking, his nurturing however is lacking maturity. I believe that our Admins should be more than "traffic cops". I believe that they should provide guidance to the well-meaning users that cross their path. I also believe that Aaron will be promoted in this round, my comments are designed to capture his attention in an area that could be improved. hydnjo talk 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) - Changing my vote from oppose to Neutral. hydnjo talk 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

19. Oppose Aaron has civility issues... perhaps if he could manage to calm down a bit maybe then i'd support in the future... but per everyone else here I dont think thats going to happen.  ALKIVAR™ 15:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. The edits I've seen have generally been of very high quality. However, since brenneman was so recently admonished by the ArbCom for not respecting consensus, and for acting uncivilly under pressure, I cannot support at this time. I would gladly support a future nomination once the impact of this RFAR is not so recent. --bainer (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. An ArbCom admonishment asking the candidate to be "respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy" isn't the best way to encourage people to trust him with adminship. I also think Dragons flight's assessment above is right on the money in regard to other issues that affect Brenneman's suitability for being an admin at this point in time. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I fear brenneman is a loose cannon, and while he could be very very good as an admin, he could also be a lot of trouble.-gadfium 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose.Diversify.Pschemp | ^Talk 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Change to neutral.

    Relatively weak oppose based on civility issues. I've only had one serious disagreement with Aaron before and managed to avoid a fight over it, but, while I agree with Aaron about 56.442% (roughly) vis à vis the whole Tony Sidaway issue, I can't condone his conduct during the course of their far-reaching dispute (which has, on more than one occasion, resulted in disruption of the Project). On a relatively unrelated issue, while I don't mind refactoring pages, especially not when you let people know up front, this refactoring doesn't work so well, since when you try to click on one of Aaron's responses (reference #17 as of this writing), it goes to the bottom of the page, and gives no indication as to which note at the bottom of the page you're being directed to.  :-p Tomer^talk 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC) going neutral for now, pending outcome of bright light in discussion regarding resolution to the Tony thing. Tomer^talk 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose. Absolutely not.--Nicodemus75 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Note This vote should probably be discounted. Nicodemus has left the project and only seems to have returned to vote [22]. When I welcomed him back, I was met only with a nasty personal attack on myself and Brenneman [23]. --Doc ^ask? 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    MARMOT voted on RfAs before being banned, and his opposes/supports were counted. WikiFanatic 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not going to argue - if one vote matters, the 'crat can make the call. --Doc ^ask? 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

24. Oppose. No. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose due to unreconcilable differences with this candidate's philosophy. — Phil Welch 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose, not suitable for adminship. Bahn Mi 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose too controversial -lethe ^{talk +} 06:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Incivility issues concern me. I would support a future nomination if the candidate is able to show improvement in this area. —Wayward ^Talk 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Argumentative and needlessly condescending. Rhobite 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Slight oppose, too much potential for trouble. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely an excellent chap to be having a drink with, but still oppose after reading thru this page. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Äh, scrap that. Neutral. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I like Aaron, and think he's done a hell of a lot of Wikipedia, and will continue to do a lot, especially if this RfA passes. However, he has from time-to-time had the occasional lapse of judgement (and, fair play to him, he admits them). There is a possibility that the unpleasantness with Tony will escalate if they both have admin powers, and I'd like to see an undertaking that Aaron will not undo any admin action of Tony Sidaway, regardless of how boneheaded that action may be. It'd be nice to get the same from Tony, but then only one of them is up for RfA :P fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   • ^[24] - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Great growth curve, however I do not think it is necesary to hand over admin tools just yet. I do not see any sign of RC patroling and other "admin chores". --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   • ^[25] - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now, hopefully the Tony squabble sorts itself out by the deadline... Tomer^talk 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I see hope in Tony's comments above. Pschemp | ^Talk 19:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral, --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I have stricken my oppose vote in favor of this position. hydnjo talk 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Nuetral. While I still have concerns over civility, I have been very impressed with some of this user's recent actions and discussions, and feel they would overall be a positive to Wikipedia. Turnstep 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 66 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Aaron Brenneman's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Just something I ran across that summarizes why I support those who oppose the liberal interpretation of "IAR": "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt the Younger. (Forgot to sign. That was from me. Geogre 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
• DYK that <ref> might help with your numbering of footnotes?... -Splash^talk 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Responses

• ^ I'd prefer that this not be a re-hashing of the entire history of Tony Sidaway and brenneman, but I suppose it is un-avoidable. To respond to charges that I've engaged in a "vendetta", I can only refer to the talk page of the recent pseudo-RfC I initated. Other than that I'd prefer not to respond to any of Tony's comments. - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• ^ David - If you could provide diffs where I've had personality clashes with people other than Tony, or where I've chosen process over outcome, that would help. I'm happy to provide diffs where I've gone orthogonal to process. This RfA, for example. - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  I thought the Tony one was bad enough. You don't have to like people, but you do have to be able to work with them - David Gerard 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• ^ I've created a spot where this can be discussed: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)#JJay. I've also asked a mediator to briefly examine my conduct.
• ^ fuddlemark/Doc - I'm afraid that I cannot promise that I won't undo any admin actions of Tony's. If promoted, I'd treat any actions he takes as an admin exactly as I would any other: Respectfully. This means that I'd attempt where practical to use the talk page or IRC first, than avenues such as WP:DRV or WP:ANI. I can categorically promise to never reverse any action by any admin more than once. Just as in any other edit, there are enough people around that if someone else doesn't make the reversal for you, it's time to reconsider if you're doing the right thing. - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, let's put a time limit on it. And some Designated Intermediaries. Doc_glasgow and I have spoken, and we both think it'd be a good idea if you and Tony stayed at arm's length. So, my proposal's this: if Aaron feels that a Sidaway admin action is wrong and needs to be undone, he takes it to Doc or myself and we'll review it and take the appropriate action (and the appropriate blame). After ANZAC Day, he's on his own to do whatever he wishes (think of it as going from P plates to a full licence). How's that? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, if you'll stipulate that you mean ANZAC Day this year, that's fine by me. ^_^ Most of the time I think that we're in too big a rush anyway, and the delay while I talk it over isn't going to hurt anything, plus you might convince my that Tony did the right thing. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  Not fair! I don't know when ANZAC day is! Needless to say I would never reverse one of Aaron's administrator actions; his animosity towards me is such that I could not credibly claim to be making a judgement on the actions rather than the man. I suggest thar Aaron (and all admins) follow my practice of placing blocks up for review on WP:AN. This gives administrators the opportunity to check that a block has not been made in error or poor judgement, and to reduce or reverse it. Since blocks are very personal things, it also spreads the responsibility and ensures that the blocked person is aware that the block has community support. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  There's this really NEAT website called Wikipedia that can supply info like when ANZAC day is, perhaps you've heard of it? ... it tells us that ANZAC day is April 25. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• ^ Cool Cat - I'm not sure how to respond to that. The three most commonly used links I have are Newbie Anon  and New. I place stubs on new pages, talk to new people about what they could do better, and place pages that cannot be saved on AfD. I revert vandalism, remove spam, close AfDs. Are you saying that I don't do enough of those things? - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  You do a good job of all of these, but there is another side, and it's something you should be aware of. Here the arbitration committee found that you had "used inflammatory language in attempts to warn new contributors about participating in AfD", that you told one published author and respected commentator on webcomics that he had participated in "the mugging of an AfD" and referred to participants in webcomics deletion decissions as "foaming at the mouth". You need to curb this. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  Lar is correct, no one wants to hear this, and this isn't the place for it. I'm sorry for the clutter, content has been moved to "Moved from main page". - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:21, 3 February 2006 (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.

Gene Poole

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gene Poole|action=edit}} Vote here] (16/24/7) ending 04:34 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gene Poole (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure and my honor to nominate one of the hardest working individuals on Wikipedia for a long-overdue adminship. He is a tireless vandal fighter, an expert and passionate micronationalist, has contributed to a number of featured articles and has valiantly fought off the frequent returns of Wik. His is one of the keenest intellects I have ever encountered on the Internet and to top it off, he's a fellow broadcaster! Please give this gentleman the tools he needs to continue his fight to improve Wikipedia. This site will be improved several fold with his successful nomination. - Lucky 6.9 06:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am delighted and honoured to accept Lucky 6.9's nomination. --Gene_poole 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominee. - Lucky 6.9 06:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Gene poole is the nominee, not you, Lucky! :P NSLE _(T+C) 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Oops...wrong suffix (blush)! Can I re-nominate myself anyway?  :)) - Lucky 6.9 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

2. I trust Lucky's judgment. NSLE _(T+C) 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - Good balance of contribs, and I too respect the nominator. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Despite some disagreements on micronation article policy, I believe Gene's a good admin candidate, keeps Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and is someone I trust to work to protect and improve WP. Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. It's about time. Sarge Baldy 06:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, dedicated, knowledgable and passionate, but not unreasonable.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support as non-nominee.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   • Oh, shut up.  :) I have a sneaking suspicion that I won't be living this down anytme soon... - Lucky 6.9 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. A very familiar name that I trust. --Merovingian {T C @} 08:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Support [[user:Mjal 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]] clear credentials make this one a no brainer

    Support, See no potential for abuse of the tools here, Hiding talk 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Changed to neutral (see below) Hiding talk 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Prove he has a sockpuppet. If you can't prove it, whammo, you're failing to assume good faith. Plus it's no big deal, anyway. Proto t c 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral (see below) Proto||type 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

13. Strong Support. I have worked with GP on vandalism issues and he has been a great help to the Wikipedia Community. The sockpuppet allegation are non-sense and unproven folklore. Davidpdx 14:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
14. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Jusjih 08:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Give him a chance. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Samboy 07:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gene_Poole_vs._Samboy. This user also has a suspected sockpuppet.
2. Oppose. I think it is commendable that you've improved your editing enough that the above editors approve of. But I've seen a long enough history of incivility and edit warring that I don't have faith in your ability not to abuse admin tools. So keep up the good work, but I have to oppose. I do also find the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling. - Taxman ^Talk 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose, none of the chores he anticipates helping with actually require adminship, and he has a severe lack of experience with WikiProcess (indeed, hardly any edits to Wikispace that aren't AFD votes). >Radiant< 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose: due to conduct in a very long history of edit wars and other battles, I don't think this is wise. I'm sorry. Jonathunder 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Radiant! --pgk^(talk) 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I'm afraid that it is still my opinion that, largely through the dogged efforts of Gene Poole, Wikipedia's micronation content consists of a festering morass of Through-the-Looking-Glass woo-woo peppered with misleading statements. Poole's aggressive evangelization for his "chosen" micronations and mobilization against his disfavored ones results in coverage that is not even reliably over-credulous, but rather informed only by "Emperor Cruickshank"'s prejudices. If his judgement permits him to continue to edit in this way despite the resulting degradation of Wikipedia's content, I don't feel it can be trusted in other matters. - Nunh-huh 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Considering his lengthy and problematic history, not somebody I would consider beneficial to have as an administrator. --Michael Snow 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Radiant. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Radiant's comments and problematic history. --NormanEinstein 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak Oppose per Radiant. Once he gets more WikiSpace experience, I'll have no problem supporting. --Aaron 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Gamaliel 08:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Michael Snow put it well, and I'm amazed he's been nominated at all. Ambi 09:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Past record just shows too many strikes against the user. Alleged sockpuppetry is also problematic. --Madchester 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose I'm concerned about POV, sock puppet allegations, and the micronation issue. I've been wading through some of this stuff after seeing it mentioned here, and after stumbling into it from the Radio Caroline article, and it ain't pretty, folks. --kingboyk 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose any micronation enthusiast. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per unresolved sockpuppetry issue. FCYTravis 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Strong Oppose. Per Nunh-huh. Net minus as an editor, unsuitable to be an admin. Abrasive, and the obvious sockpuppetry (here) and attempts to deny it (attempt to hide slip one minute later) leads to the obvious question of whether he can be trusted with admin powers. Attitude in comments says, "no way". --Calton | Talk 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per the two three seventeen votes above mine. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:13, Feb. 4, 2006
19. Oppose per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. I don't like making oppose votes here, since adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but I don't want to be giving the mop to someone who might use it as a weapon, and the comments above make me fear that this might happen. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Radiant and lingering sockpuppet worries. Turnstep 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose Upon further review, I have changed my vote to oppose, per Calton's evidence. Also, canidate solicited me to vote for his adminship via email, which seems underhanded. Brokenfrog 04:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose, I do not see how this user would warrent the admistrative tools and afd voting as the only wikipedia space participation is very troubling. -Zero^Talk 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Campaigning for adminship using email in which he makes some extremely divisive statements about other editors. This guy should never be an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • For my post-RFA addendum, see talk page. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong Oppose, per above. I ask the editor to withdraw this RfA. ComputerJoe 08:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Strong Oppose, very rude and destructive. Poole has a history of vandalism and personal attacks. My perception is that he is a bitter induvidual prone to snapping, chiding and insulting other users. His remarks below in the Neutral section are a fine example. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Geogre 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The huge (and I mean huge) VfD explosion over micronations of 18 months go was horrible, and Gene was sort of a featured player. I haven't seen that bush war repeat since then, and so I haven't seen Gene's edits since then. I cannot support or oppose (i.e. I really, really didn't like "some micronations are good" and the vicious fights that followed).
2. WikidSmaht (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I would like to support, as I trust in the judgement of Lucky and several of the veteran contributors above, but I am concerned about POV, as well as the allegations of sockpuppetry. This is pretty damning( although it does make a good point in that the Arbitration Committee did not find any reason to take action). On the other hand, the nominee's contributions have decidedly increased the scope and quality of the Wikipedia. Egyptian pyramids is something to be proud of, indeed. If Gene were to make a written statement admitting to being Centauri( and apologizing for lying), and promise to avoid POV and sockpuppetry, I would be inclined to change my vote, but for now I can neither support nor oppose.

   Sorry, but from an ethical perspective I simply cannot oblige you - or anyone else - with that request. It remains a false allegation, and that is all there is to it. --Gene_poole 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   OK, well, the two of you have a explanation for that edit, then? If so, let me know in the comments section. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Why bother? The opposition campaign seems pretty tied up in promoting their own bad faith prejudices rather than checking mere facts. --Gene_poole 12:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   Why bother? I dunno -- basic intellectual honesty? I mean, if they are "mere facts". --Calton | Talk 08:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   When I see some "basic intellectual honesty" rather than the "Gene is a stinky-pants ogre who eats small children and probably has a stash of WMD's hidden in his basement" level of discussion that this RFA has devolved into I'll be happy to respond in kind. --Gene_poole 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   Well, "basic intellectual honesty" includes not making up ever-more-desperate excuses to avoid answering simple questions. Not hard, is it? --Calton | Talk 06:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

3. I am not sure yet. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. I haven't seen enough for an oppose but, in light of the concerns raised about your obtaining adminship, I cannot support your adminship. Especially considering I have little knowledge of you. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 13:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. As above. Pschemp | ^Talk 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Changed to neutral. Calton's evidence is pretty damning, and Gene's being a bit uncivil in his responses. Proto||type 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Also changing to neutral given the sockpuppet evidence and the user's attitude. Also concerned by Tony's allegation. If that is proven, am minded to oppose. Hiding talk 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 97% for major edits and 41% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Gene Poole's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• There was a controversy a while ago suggesting that Gene Poole was using a sockpuppet to make double "votes" on AFD. I do not know if this allegation was true or not, but I would like to know how this was addressed and if it was cleared up. Radiant_>|< 16:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're referring to the allegation that Gene Poole = Centauri. While I've never made any secret of the fact that I've met Centauri on numerous occasions to assist his researches on the subject of Australian micronations, the notion that we were the same person was a red herring promoted largely by Wik, who had circumvented several Arbcom bans and was involved in a number of editing disputes with me at the time. Since Wik's disappearance this "issue" has also disappeared. --Gene_poole 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wik is not the only one who thinks Centauri is your sockpuppet. See this and this. This edit is also strong evidence. Samboy 08:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence was pretty compelling. I don't know that I can dig it up but just too many circumstantial things line up. Also quite difficult to get Gene to concede many points on his strong POV on micronations. To the point it was quite concerning. I don't think there's many user's that have edited Sealand or related articles that doubt Gene Poole and Centauri are the same editors. Check the evidence for yourself. The story of "oh, I uh, knew him, and he uh, edited from my computer while I was logged in" only came out after the evidence was presented and is hard to swallow. - Taxman ^Talk 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My position on micronations has always been that if they are verifiable in documentary sources, then it's proper that Wikipedia have articles about them. I'm opposed to the inclusion of articles about unverifiable micronations for this reason. These views seem to constitute the current Wikipedia consensus on this subject, and are shared by many editors apart from myself--Gene_poole 05:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to POV on inclusion, but an inability to separate your POV from your edits in articles. - Taxman ^Talk 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to give some examples of where I have promoted a "POV" that is at variance with the POV of a consensus of other editors? --Gene_poole 21:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have suspected that Gene Poole has been using a sockpuppet since 2004 Samboy 07:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Long comments moved to talk page, please also have a look there. NSLE _(T+C) 08:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Apart from general cleanup work I anticipate focusing on articles outside my specific fields of interest that need to be wikified, merged, split or expanded, or for which references are required. --Gene_poole 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

A. I'm particularly proud of my work in creating Egyptian pyramids, which has since evolved, thanks to the work of many editors, into an article I'm confident will eventually become a featured article. The way this article has developed is a wonderful example of all that is best in Wikipedia. I'm also proud of Freak wave for similar reasons. Finally, I'm proud to have managed to help turn the majority of articles in the micronations category into decent, factual, NPOV articles, one of which, Sealand has become a featured article. --Gene_poole 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

A. I've been involved in several disputes, but they have on the whole been educative experiences, and my manner of resolving them is, I feel, indicative of my maturity:

• In the case of Wik (aka Gzornenplatz, aka Nopuzzlestranger) I quickly determined that I was dealing with a troll with no desire to reform, and decided the best policy was to prevent him disrupting Wikipedia to the best of my ability. Currently this means notifying admins whenever I become aware of him creating new sockpuppets to try to circumvent his 3 permanent bans.
• In the case of Samboy I now avoid him wherever possible, and allow other editors to show him that his opinions on the topics on which we disagree do not constitute consensus.
• In the case of Lucky 6.9 - who has nominated me for admin - I acknowledged that I was wrong and unreservedly apologised. We've since become Wiki-friends and have co-operated on a number of matters. --Gene_poole 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Quarl

final (81/3/3) ending 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Quarl (talk · contribs) – Quarl has been a registered user since April 2004 and has been an active editor since August 2005. He has almost 9000 edits, and has been very active in AfD and RfA. But that is not all, Quarl is a fantastic programmer and has created (and upgraded) quite a few wikipedia scripts that is used by different users. He has been very actively working and improving the scripts on a daily basis. It's hard to describe how useful his work has been, you have to try it yourself. —This user has left wikipedia 19:16 2006-02-01

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I welcome scrutiny to find out whether I've been doing anything wrong. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 23:27Z

Support

1. Support ~ Per nominator —This user has left wikipedia 19:46 2006-02-01
2. Support ~ I have thought for some time that Quarl would be a great addition as an admin. Pattersonc(Talk) 3:04 PM, Wednesday; February 1 2006 (EST)
3. Support - a very intelligent user who'd make a fine admin. PJM 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Also hereby nominate user for sainthood. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, one of the good guys. I am confident Quarl will make good use of admin tools. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Very Strong Support I wanted to nominate him soon, good lord yes Excellent work in AFD's --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - A good editor. Mushroom (Talk) 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Solid contrbiutor. No Guru 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. While he has only been really active since December (how can one possibly make 6610 edits in just one month?! amazing!) and has had relatively little interaction with other users at Talk and User talk pages, his efforts make him a clear case of quality of his contributions over quantity of time. Happy to say yay! to quality. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Good judgement. Dlyons493 Talk 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, looks good. —Kirill Lokshin 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, solid contributer, good editor. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Trustworthy editor, who has done everything right as far as I see. Good show! Xoloz 02:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I'm a bit concerned about burnout (99% of his 6.5k edits in under 2 months...) but observing his behavior in AfD a bit he seems sensible and has knowledge of process, seems to make good contributions, so he should make a good mop bearer. --W.marsh 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support --Jusjih 04:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support If he can tell me what the character before and after his edit summary is because my computer shows an unknown character ;) j/k Dr Debug (Talk) 04:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
19. NSLE _(T+C) 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Good editor. Grutness...wha? 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Hard to participate in AfD without running into him, and even harder to argue with his judgement or logic. Will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, very valuable contributor at AfD (useful comments), deserves admin tools. Kusma (討論) 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Merovingian {T C @} 08:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. --*drew 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, great editor. Very active participant in AFDs. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Support — fantastic all-around editor. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support : A great editor and all-around helpful Wikipedian. -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - Liberatore(T) 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Level-headed, active. Ifnord 14:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support This is obvious [[User:Mjal 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]
33. Support. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Good editor --rogerd 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Support per above. --tomf688^{talk} 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
37. A no-brainer. And I don't mean Quarl has no brain, I mean that the decision requires no brain to make. But that does not imply that those who do not vote support have no brains, and ... I .. oh, fuck it. Strong support. Proto t c 11:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support anyone who makes life easier for editors. youngamerican (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Squarl. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 19:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Good qualifications, valued user. Highly unlikely to abuse admin tools.--Dakota ~ ε 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, good editor. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - Coders rock! Always need more of them around. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Am surprised he isn't one, frankly. Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Support --kingboyk 05:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Ok. ENCEPHALON 07:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Strong editor, excellent technical contributions, no evidence of abuse. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. Punkmorten 18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Support --M@thwiz2020 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
53. Support -- seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
54. Support: I awarded Quarl a Barnstar and I think adminship is reasonable too. Stifle 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
55. Support--Ugur Basak 02:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
56. Support His monobook is really cool. ~MDD4696 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Good editor. Sophy's Duckling 04:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Solid editor plus those scripts as an admin could be a good combination. NoSeptember ^talk 12:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, I see no potential for abuse. Hiding talk 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
60. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
61. Who cares about the superbowl, I watch for the ads! Support (I love wireless networks!) Quarl has expressed doubts about whether his nom was too soon. With 9000 edits! We need admins who are good editors and toolsmiths, as having a variety of perspectives is important, not all admins should be policy wonks and nothing else! ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. Valuable contributions at AFD and elsewhere across Wikipedia. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
63. Support per nom. Quarl is a great contributor to Wikipedia. --Rory096 05:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
64. Support, I'm amazed he isn't already an admin. I wonder how many times I've seen "Merge per Quarl" on the AfD pages -- a fine editor, and if 9000 edits is not enough, I don't know what is (I feel like a seasoned veteran with about 330...) Grandmasterka 09:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Jonathunder 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
66. Support, He's a great editor and his scripts are doubleplusgood! --Dragon695 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
67. Support, would make a nice sysop. — TheKMan^talk 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
68. Support --AySz88^-^ 06:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Would be a good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}13:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
70. Support. Pilatus 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Nothing wrong with this editor! Joke 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Good judgement, polite, industrious. An excellent choice. Avi 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, should make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
74. Support Seen his good work around. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
75. Support naturally. ComputerJoe 19:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Monicasdude 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
77. Support Pschemp | ^Talk 01:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
78. Support Quarl has what it takes to be a good administrator. -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, and welcome aboard. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
80. Support --Myles Long/cDc 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
81. Support --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose, user seems to be well-versed in AFD but shows little experience with other processes. Or if he does, please point out where. >Radiant< 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Quarl has been active here in RfA, working on templates and discussing templates, wikifying, & programming. ~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 20:19 2006-02-02

   Some other processes in which I've participated: proposed guidelines such as WP:SOFT WP:SOFTWARE, WP:RFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:PNT, WP:AIAV, WP:VIP, WP:DRV, WP:VP. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 04:04Z

   • Sorry, but looking over your last month of contribs doesn't give any indication of that, nor does the history of WP:SOFT. But judging by your contribs you'd probably learn quickly at need, and it seems your nom will succeed, so good luck. >Radiant< 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
     • Oops, wrong shortcut -- I meant WP:SOFTWARE, not WP:SOFT. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-05 21:24Z

2. Oppose for now. Main activity in December and January, would prefer to have waited a month or two longer. --pgk^(talk) 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I note the candidacy statement says active since August, but 15 and 18 edits in October and November doesn't strike me as active. --pgk^(talk) 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Correct statem should be: registered user since April 2004 and has been an active editor during August 2005 - September 2005 and December 2005 - Present. ~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 20:19 2006-02-02

   It's not a big problem, but is misleading. Regarding Quarl's technical competence that really isn't a question here, the question is would Quarl make a good admin, there doesn't seem to be any connection between the two to me. I prefer a bit of patience (not a lot more) and consistent activity over a slightly longer time. --pgk^(talk) 07:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Radiant!, not enough active time to fully understand all policies. Also, good at scripts != qualified for adminship.--Alhutch 20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Majority of edits coming only in the past few months, so technically, he/she has been active for only 2 months.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. as above. good god man, 6000+ edits in a month? I hope you don't burn out. Or that you use a bot. or something
3. Neutral. I came across his "location canonicalization", changing [[City, State]] to [[City, State|City]], [[State]], and it immediately struck me as fucking useless. I have no idea how and if this would affect his actions as an admin. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect, the change by Quarl alters one link for the city into two links for the city and its state. It's a minimal change and something most editors wouldn't even bother with but it's that attention to detail that, IMO, helps make for a good Admin. Pattersonc(Talk) 9:37 AM, Tuesday; February 7 2006 (EST)
  • SPUI, thanks for your concern over this content dispute and bringing attention to the issue. As you can see at AN/I#"Location canonicalization", five of the six admins that replied to your post think my changes are useful. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format, although I am the only one active at the moment because I just revived it yesterday. I would be interested in getting MoS consensus for or against these changes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 19:50Z

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Quarl's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would contribute to closing AFDs and speedy deleting. I have lurked on WP:AN and would participate more actively. I would welcome access to protect pages; I have some strong ideas regarding security problems with the way user scripts are currently hot-linked. I expect to do the obvious tasks like blocking vandals. I do a lot of chores that don't require sysop status (e.g. cleaning up or AFDing deadend pages) and would continue doing them. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 23:27Z

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

A. I am particularly pleased with various "synthesis" articles I have created or merged together. I believe Wikipedia should be organized top-down, i.e. big articles that have sub-sections splitting into "main articles" as necessary, rather than a bunch of stubs that all overlap each other. You can view the articles to which I have contributed the most via Interiot's tool's display of my Article-space edits. Market trends is an article I synthesized recently. I enjoy contributing to Computer Science articles and am excited that Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science has recently been revived. I am also pleased with my user scripts, for example User:Quarl/auto_summary.js is quite useful. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 23:27Z

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

A. The hairiest conflict with which I was actively involved was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunk Land. I (and some other people) said some things which were insensitive, and things got a little personal. It was becoming a revert war but things were resolved peacefully and everyone seemed to walk away satisfied [26]. I learned a lot in that episode, and WP:Hoax was one of the results. I haven't been in many editorial disputes, usually I have resolved disagreements via Talk pages. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 23:27Z

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

---

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

Femto

final (13/6/7) ending 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Femto (talk · contribs) – Femto has been a dedicated Wikipedian over the past year and 6 months, with over 3000 edits and lots of anti-vandalism work. His user page is very short, but from his talk page, it seems that he is able to avoid getting into revert warring. --unforgettableid | talk to me 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm honored and accept the nomination. Femto 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as per the nomination statement I wrote above. --unforgettableid | talk to me 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. — Wackymacs 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support as a fellow male European, erm, I mean, looks OK given account age and contributions. JIP | Talk 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Juppiter 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Intelligent and willing to edit articles that most Wikipedians want no part in.
5. Support see rational. --Edivorce 14:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support 3000 edits a definite dedicated user [[User:Mjal 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]

   Wish I'd be. My first edit was mid-2004, the 6 months only refer probably to the fact that I'm well beyond the nomination threshold. You'll have to reconsider that vote. Femto 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

7. Support, Experience should not be a bar to gaining adminship. All a user needs to do is earn the trust of the community. As I see no votes which actually call into question whether that trust should be given, I support. Adminship is no big deal, therefore experience of Wikiprocess is noreason to dismiss somone. Hiding talk 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, we've had candidates with less experience, so why not? WikiFanatic 05:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, no big deal. Proto t c 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, no ethical problems with the user and has a committment. "Not enough experience" stuff is smth I never understood in such cases. Obviously not a newbie. As such, ethics and committment is all that matters. --Irpen 06:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
11. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support A good user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, lack of experienc with WikiProcess. >Radiant< 15:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Radiant, who has gorgeous new signature! Incidentally, I'm sure Femto will make a terrific admin soon -- just wish for a little more learning time. Xoloz 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Radiant. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   Clarification I'm not concerned about the amount of time spent here, but with only 60 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, I'm concerned that you are not very familiar with Wikipedia policy. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Needs more edits in wiki namespace, sorry --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Xoloz. Just too soon. --Aaron 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Important comment: Three of you have voted "Oppose" because of an error I made. I wrote "over the past 6 months" in my nomination, but I made a mistake and should have written "over the past year and 6 months". Femto, I have corrected the error and wikimessaged the three people who opposed on time basis. I apologize for my mistake and hope it does not ruin this nomination for adminship. --unforgettableid | talk to me 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose not enough participation in WP space yet, but will likely support a future nomination with more experience there. Jonathunder 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral until more project/process experience (56 edits to project namespace). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:35Z
2. Neutral Editing project pages more often will be better.--Jusjih 04:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Would like to see more Project related editing. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Not sure yet. --Merovingian {T C @} 08:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral lean toward oppose, as per the oppose votes limited activity in the project namespace, otherwise all seems in order. --pgk^(talk) 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral per above (due to lack of project namespace edits).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutralrepeat abovePschemp | ^Talk 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Not going to vote against you but see Radiant's oppose comment. haz (user talk) 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 15:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Femto's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

I don't expect many changes from my usual routine: browse the watchlist in the morning until the dog demands its rightful attention, then come back whenever there's time and do what I feel like doing until the theobromine and caffeine run out. Only that it then would also include pages like Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism with which I'm familiar so far. Or do a page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion now and then. — Your typical back row backup and maintenance admin who is good to have around. There were several occasions where I thought "That account has to be blocked now, why can't I do it?". Femto 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The chemical elements data references for Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, which previously relied upon single, not-easy-to-check datapoints copied from external websites. Also the set of isotope pages (example isotopes of uranium). Other than those and some little things, I think I'm better at judging the edits of others and weed out the bad ones, rather than creating brilliant prose myself. Femto 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

If a dispute is about factual content, when I'm right, I'm right. I can and will prove it with cites that will outlast my opinions. If a dispute is about opinions, in increasing order of probability: I hold out debating until I run out of arguments, receive support from someone else, or step back and find something better to do with my time, since I'm not the fastest writer of English content. Following that pattern, one recent content dispute of mine was talk:group 3 element, shouldn't get worse than that. If I seriously irritated anybody else, sorry, I don't even remember it as that bad right now :). Femto 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

MatthewUND

Final (21/9/10) ending 09:08 8 February 2006 (UTC)

MatthewUND (talk · contribs) – Significant contributor with 3290 edits so far. Opes 22:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See his edit count here

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I gratefully accept the nomination and hope to serve the Wikipedia community further in the future. --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support. - Major contributor. Along with Alexwcovington, they both have contributed to the majority of articles in ND, and western MN. (Opes 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC))
2. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 09:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support All in 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, the distribution of a user's edits should not be a bar to adminship. Let's address the liklihood of the user abusing the trust of the community. Hiding talk 14:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support--Edivorce 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. This person will not abuse the admin tools. — Wackymacs 18:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I looked through MatthewUND's contributions and I found them to be very good. He is always nice, especially to newbies, calmly explaining policy to them, on user talk pages. He has participated in AfD, albeit, not very much, and I think he has the necessary understanding of Wikipedia to be a good admin. And he's actually been here longer than me :-).--Alhutch 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. I checked his edits and it seems like he uses talk pages when appropriate. The vast bulk of his topics and edits are non-controversial. There is no need for chatting just for the sake of chatting. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Very high percentage of trivial cleanup type changes which do not require discussion. Not everybody needs to be an all-rounder. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support. MatthewUND's cooperation and dedication to articles on North Dakota is invaluable. He has done an absolutely stellar job from the moment I saw him on the scene. I can't name another user I'd support more for adminship. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support With this much experience this user should have been given the job a long time ago [[User:Mjal 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]
12. For all his good work on articles relating to NoDak, Oz, and other fantastic places, strong friend of Dorothy support. Jonathunder 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. No big deal. Proto t c 11:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. He does what Wikipedia editors should do: writes good articles. David | Talk 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, no compelling basis for opposition, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
16. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Level-headed editor. Hermione1980 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
18. support: Certainly dedicated to building an encyclopedia. Ombudsman 05:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Would be a good admin. Siva1979 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support: seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 02:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support: Would make a great admin, has helped me really get started. He has been very friendly and welcomed me into Wikipedia as a fellow North Dakotan. --Driken 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose based on lack of talk, user talk and Wikipedia edits - not enough interaction with others. Consensus and other policies may not be fully understood. NSLE _(T+C) 09:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per NSLE. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per NSLE, but good answers to questions. Try again in two months. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per NSLE. I agree editor will make a fine admin in a few months. Xoloz 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per NSLE. Generally looks good, but interaction and policy are obviously important areas for an admin, --pgk^(talk) 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per NSLE, maybe later --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per NSLE, looks like a great contributor; get some experience in other areas of Wikipedia and you'll have my support 100% next time. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose only 44 edits to project space. Difficult to believe he has sufficient familiarity with administrative processes, though I'm sure Matthew is a good writer. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:59, Feb. 4, 2006
9. Oppose. Low talk, user-talk, project and project-talk namespace edits, indicating lack of community participation, and infamilarity with Wikipedia processes.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I may change my vote later on. Sadly, I can't support you as per NSLE. You have many article edits which is good. Try again when you have more project, project talk, talk and user talk edits. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral until more project/process experience. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:33Z
3. Neutral; good editor, but very few Project edits, low edit summaries on minor edits. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral; good, well rounded user with an attitude I really admire. I just can't get over the fact that he has very few Wikipedia namespace edits. (Scratches burning editcountitis itch) -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. More experiences with project pages like this one will be better.--Jusjih 03:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Would like to see more edits in Project space, hard to get a feeling for how you would deal with these areas. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral, per NLSE. Getting more involved with the community always acquaints you with many different policies, et al.. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Not sure yet. --Merovingian {T C @} 08:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral, perhaps later. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. NeutralPschemp | ^Talk 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 30% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 09:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• See MatthewUND's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I just thought I should address a few things that have come up. As far as my not having participated on too many talk pages, I realize that I should be a little more outgoing perhaps, but I don't really think that this is a major problem in my case. As of late, I have been trying to use talk pages more and more. In the past, I have had a habit of using the edit summary to discuss changes that I, or others, have made to an article instead of using the talk pages as much as I should. If you look through my contributions, you will notice that my edit summararies are often much longer than a usual edit summary so I have had a lot of communication with other users through the summaries. I realize that it would probably be better for me to use talk pages more and I will be happy to do so. I also have recently been welcoming newbies on a pretty frequent basis. It might be helpful for me to mention the fact that I probably haven't spent as much time interacting with others on talk pages because I have spent most of my free time working on articles. Also, it could be argued that, the fact that I haven't had a great deal of comments on my user talk page shows that few Wikipedians have had a problem with me or my edits. As far as WP policy goes, I disagree with the arguement that I am unfamiliar with the process. I have been a member for over a year and I feel that I know the policies of Wikipedia quite well. A new administrator should always take a "refresher course" in policy anyways. I assure you that I have, and will continue to, study WP policy. --MatthewUND^(talk) 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I would be willing to help with any chores in which the community sees a need. I can see myself certainly working with the backlog. I check out what's going on with my own personal watchlist and the community as a whole many times throughout the day so I would be likely to help out in the area of routine monitoring of the community - maybe checking new pages, speedy deletions, or watching for vandalism. Above and beyond any sysop chores that I would participate in, I would hope to keep up my level of working on individual articles - either creating new ones or revising/expanding existing ones. I feel that if I became an administrator, I would not really have "special powers" or "control" over other Wikipedians, but instead I would consider my new role to be as someone who has always wanted to help Wikipedia grow and prosper and now has some new capabilities and a renewed desire to do just that.

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

A. Of all of the articles that I have worked on, I am most pleased with what has been done to the main article about my hometown: Grand Forks, North Dakota. When I first started about a year ago, this article was very short and certainly not a comprehensive description of the community. Now, although certainly not perfect or 100% complete, I feel the depth and quality of information presented has been improved many times over. I have also worked extensively on numerous articles relating to both Grand Forks, North Dakota, and other communities and institutions in the region. I would hope to make Wikipedia the preeminent online source of information about the state of North Dakota because, in my opinion, Wikipedia should (and is fast becoming) the preeminent online source of information on countless topics.

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

A. I can't say that I remember being intimately involved in any major conflicts during my time here. I'm sure we have all come across minor disagreements and we have probably all once or twice hit the "Save page" button a little too fast. If I ever realize that I have made a mistake, I try to apologize in the appropriate manner. If I were to encounter stress in the future from another user, I would take a few deep breaths and try to see the disagreement from their perspective. I know that being an administrator would give me an even greater desire to be respectful of other users and a willingness to try to peacefully end any conflicts that I come across. I really do respect the role that administrators have in being good examples of sportsmanship. I wouldn't take the responsibility lightly.

Just my two cents: I really like that attitude. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

4, Is MathewUND (completely) human?

I assure you that I, MatthewUND, am fully human! (oops...forgot to sign this earlier...it's by me...--MatthewUND^(talk))

No bot assisted edits? If not, you type very quickly. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, no bot assisted edits. For the longest time I wasn't even sure what a "bot" was so I certainly wasn't using anything like that. I do type very quickly. However, I'm guessing I know why it looks like some of the edits come so close together. I use Firefox which enables me to simply use the middle button on the mouse to open a link in a new tab. I often have a couple dozen tabs going at the same time! I have a dial-up connection, so if I'm doing something minor to a group of articles (like adding a category to all of the articles) I sometimes find it faster to open up all of the articles at the same time, and then make the changes I want to all the articles, and then go back and save all of the articles. Maybe it is an odd way to do edits but I find it works for someone like me with a slow connection who doesn't want to have to wait to load a page, make the changes, save it, wait to load the next page...and so on and so on. It can be faster to just go ahead and open all of the pages, make the changes (usually the same minor edit to all of the articles), and then go back and save all the pages at the same time. Anyways, no "bot" here. I wouldn't know how to find, construct, or use one. --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks!

5. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

Well, I would use {{test1}} to {{test4}} to increasingly warn a confused (or sinister) new user who kept using Wikipedia as their own personal sandbox. The first warning is gentle...the fourth warning is (and should be) much harsher. If a user was blatantly vandalizing a page (in a manner that was "extreme or obscene"), I would consider using {{bv}}. Everyone should realize that blatant vandalism is never welcome in such a project. {{bv}} and {{test4}} are actually quite similar. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

I guess it depends on just how much beyond 24 hours the fourth revert happens. As with many things on Wikipedia, it would be important to use an ounce of your own personal judgement. However, I would probably feel that I wouldn't really have the right to block someone if the fourth edit happens even just slightly beyond the 24 hour period. If the same user repeatedly abused the system by making a fouth revert just outside of the 24 hour limit, he/she should be subject to the Arbitration Committee. --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

7. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

8. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

9. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

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

---

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

Bbatsell

final (52/1/2) ending 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bbatsell (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure and honor to nominate Bbatsell for Adminship. I have worked with him on a few articles and I find his edits to be of the highest quality, and his interactions with others to be helpful and courteous. He has been editing on Wikipedia for one year, and he has over 3,000 edits. In addition to contributing to articles, he takes an extremely active roll in figting vandalism. He is a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit and spends a huge amount of time on RC Patrol. In fact, as far as I can tell from looking at his edit history by time of day, he rarely sleeps. He follows policy meticulously, right down to 100% Edit Summary usage for his most recent 1,000+ edits. He does also have his e-mail set, for those of you like myself who feel this is important. The sooner we give him the tools of adminship, the better for the project. Johntex\^talk 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept John's nomination. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 04:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme I-beat-the-nominator! support. Despite being a proud member of the CVU. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Suport --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support.Looks Good. And a fellow Texan. Pschemp | Talk 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. I-also-beat-the-nominator Support. Despite being a Texan. (and also all-around excellent work on WP and good answers here) (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Looks good. Hook 'em! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support as a Texan, Longhorn, and (most importantly) good editor and good admin candidate. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
7. NSLE _(T+C) 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, seems like a good candidate. JIP | Talk 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - looks like he's been a very good RC patroller. --Whouk (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Proto t c 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 13:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Support All in 14:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support: --Bhadani 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support — Scm83x ^talk 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support -- as nominator. Johntex\^talk 19:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support -- Fantastic user, very helpful in CVU IRC, and has helped me once or twice with specific problems (I really thought he was an admin). --lightdarkness 19:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, should make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, so he can go block vandals himself instead of bugging me :p--Shanel 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, despite it looks like I'm a lonely Sooner among this Longhorn gang! - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support--Ugur Basak 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Support--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Support--Jusjih 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, give him the mop and the flamethrower already. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Support looks good to me.--MONGO 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Merovingian {T C @} 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support -- Samuel Wantman 10:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
33. support to oppose this would be crazy, excellent admin materialBenon 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support We need more quality writters on wikipedia User:Mjal
35. Support Will make a great administrator Dr Debug (Talk) 05:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Have seen Bbatsell in action recently regarding some vandalism on Coldplay and he/she acted in a swift an efficient manner. --Madchester 07:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Support (thumbs Up)looks good from here too--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Sure. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Support RexNL 13:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Support I've only been impressed with what I've seen of bbatsell's contributions. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Georgewilliamherbert 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Seems like the right person to have admin powers Ikh (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Good editor + (100% summary use / last 1000 edits) = Support. Jonathunder 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Good edit history and should make a good trustworthy admin and not at all swayed because he's a fellow Texan.--Dakota ~ ε 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, good vandal fighter. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. --Myles Long/cDc 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. —A 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Support -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
49. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
50. Support, a fine candidate for adminship. Hall Monitor 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
51. Support We need more admins. The percentage of admins in Wikipedia is very, very, low and insignificant. If this goes on, admins in the future would have a very hard time maintaining Wikipedia from vandals. All the best! One with Her 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Support Keep it up! Krashlandon (e) 13:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Needs more project and project talk edits.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - could use more project-space experience. From what I can tell, most of those edits are vandal-reversions. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:13Z
2. Neutral per Quarl, I'm generally quite positive about this editor otherwise I'd have been leaning more towards oppose. --pgk^(talk) 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Bbatsell's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I don't anticipate jumping into anything right away that I'm not completely familiar with, so I imagine right away my main focus will be towards RC patrol and vandal-fighting, a process with which I've become intimately familiar over the past several months. I also anticipate helping out with speedy deletions, closing AfDs, helping users with requests for page protection and any other administrative requests once I feel comfortable that I can do a good job fulfilling these roles. I do intend on familiarizing myself with most (if not all) of the processes that administrators are responsible for or have a role in; I've already read all of the administrator materials, but again, I like to make sure I know something backwards and forwards before jumping into it, especially with such high responsibilities as those afforded me by adminship.

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

A. I'm more of a janitor and copyeditor than a write-an-article-from-scratch type of editor, although I have created and expanded several articles, most having to do with either music or sports, particularly those of my Texas Longhorns. I created such articles as Dave Matthews & Friends, Jeff Coffin, and Wideawake, and have helped to expand the Texas Longhorn Athletics and related articles with John and my contemporaries.

With that said, I'm pleased with my efforts as a janitor. A lot of times I see such editors held in lower regard, but I feel that they are as necessary to an encyclopedia as are those prolific writers who can bring an article up to featured status in zero to sixty seconds. I feel that I have given this effort my all, and will continue to do so far into the future.

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

A. To be honest, nothing major comes to mind. There have been a few incidents arising from misunderstandings with suspected vandalism, but in my opinion, these have been worked out quickly and to the benefit of all parties. However, I have always been fascinated with Wikipedia's "self-governing" nature and find myself spending significant amounts of time simply reading through Requests for comment and Arbitration hearings. While I don't often participate, I feel that I would be able to effectively should the need arise in the future simply because I've read all about every aspect of dispute resolution.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! -- Johntex\^talk 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A. When it comes to suspected vandalism, I tend to err on the side of caution. If it's not at all clear that the suspected vandal intends disruption, then I generally assume good faith and start with {{test1}}. If, however, the user in question has a history of vandalism, or his/her edits are clearly meant only to disrupt and could in no way be interpreted as "tests", then I will utilize {{bv}}.

The bottom line in this department for me is that I have no desire to scare off any potential helpful editors. If it were my first time visiting a site such as Wikipedia, and I had no idea what I was doing, I could certainly see myself editing a page to include what could be construed as vandalism simply because I did not know what I was doing. I don't want to bite someone's head off, or to scare them away from this fantastic project, just because they edited in something disruptive to an article — they may know better, or they may not. I like to assume the latter is true until the former is proven.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. If the user does not have a history of such flirtation with Wikipedia policies, then I would most certainly simply bring the issue up to them on their talk page — ensure that they are familiar with the 3RR policy and to encourage them to pursue consensus through talk pages instead of engaging in endless revert wars. If, however, the user does have a history of breaking the spirit of the law, then I would have to examine each incident on a case-by-case basis. At this point in time, I would certainly ask for other administrators' input as to how to deal with the user. However, if I felt that the user in question posed a threat to further disrupt Wikipedia, I would have no qualms in issuing short blocks to prevent such action (not to punish the user).

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

A. I would encourage discussion rather than straw polls. It's easy to simply type ~~~~ after twenty other editors have done the same; it's harder to spell out the reasons you feel a certain way, but it's the "good" type of harder. It's the type of harder that fosters growth in the community and facilitates consensus. I'm not claiming to be innocent of going along with the crowd, but if I were able to change one thing, I would change the level of discussion that goes on on a daily basis. It would help us reach more sound decisions a lot of the time.

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

---

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

Superm401

final (45/0/3) ending 03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Superm401 (talk · contribs) – I first met Superm401 more than 6 months ago while volunteering on the reference desk. Since that time, I have come to know Superm401 as one of the most flexible Wikipedians around. Even without the admin tools, he can still help out a lot! Since his first edit in April 2004, he has accumulated edits literally all over the place - even in the MediaWiki talk namespace! He participates regularly in various admin related pages, and I think it would greatly benefit Wikipedia if this user was given the go-ahead for some more autonomy so he can help out with say, taking care of some maintenance pages. How does the community feel about this? --HappyCamper 06:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept, and await the community's consideration. Superm401 - Talk 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. --HappyCamper 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes please. —Cryptic (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Sure, seen him around and seems to make good contributions and has good sense. Frequent partial blanking of his talk page without archiving is a bit odd, but to each his own I guess. --W.marsh 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. I see I'm already late to the support party. I tend not to vote at all unless I've measured the candidate's contributions personally. Superm401 has demonstrated the ability to rise above the contention of the moment and to point the way towards harmonious resolution. That is what all of our Admins should be able to do. I'm lending my support to a candidate that has demonstrated that ability to my satisfaction. Superm401 (I've wondered what that means) will be an excellent Administrator, fair to a fault and a calming influence where there is disharmony. We need more Superm.... hydnjo talk 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. --TantalumTelluride 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Trustworthy editor with well-rounded wiki-career. Xoloz 04:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, we need more good admins, has a good history of positive contributions, and we always need more AcaDeca Admins. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, edits in widespread namespaces; trusted editor, will make a trusted admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Spport, let's see if anyone finds the crap joke I just made. JIP | Talk 09:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - looks to be a good egg. --Whouk (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, looks well-experienced to me, good choice to join the mop mob. >Radiant< 12:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong support, I've mainly seen this user in Harry Potter-related articles, where he shows plenty of good sense and a level head. Also displays a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix 12:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Proto t c 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 13:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support All in 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. A very good understanding of WP, and close involvement with the community. Owen× ☎ 14:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Support: --Bhadani 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, good contribution history. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:15Z
21. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Made a good impression at WP:RD. —Ruud 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Good contributions. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Support: Great work! —This user has left wikipedia 18:06 2006-02-01
25. Support, looks great to me. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Support--Ugur Basak 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support --Jusjih 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support BlueGoose 07:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Merovingian {T C @} 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. --*drew 10:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
36. He's not one already? Support. JYolkowski // talk 20:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. --Myles Long/cDc 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. —A 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
39. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. - Bobet 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
41. support. I would like to see a lot more edits in the main namespace. However, I am quite pleased with your edits as I see them. aa v ^ 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
42. support impressed by his work at the Help Desk abakharev 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Super Super Super Support! Nobody helped WP:MF more than this guy! -- WB 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Would make a good admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Has done good work on WP:IFD, and watching for copyright vios. As an admin, would be better able to deal with such problems. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral Holy lack of edits in the main namspace Batman! (I mean as opposed to the total) Other than that, great. Pschemp | Talk 05:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Relative lack of edits in main namespace (articles). However, nobody can complain of lack of community participation.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral as above. While it's great to see an editor so devoted to the Wikipedia's operation, contributions to actual articles are the only way it can grow and improve. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 72% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Superm401's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I don't really see the need to create explicit archives when the MediaWiki software does it for us. However, I have just placed links to the versions prior to each clear for easier transparency. Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to critisize. There's no real way you are supposed to handle your talk page organization, I just get used to everyone doing it the same way. --W.marsh 04:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I will help monitor the admin backlogs, such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Category:Images with unknown source. I can clean out the speedy deletion category. I will continue to occasionally monitor Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages and use speedy deletion and blocks when appropriate. I feel it's important for admins to stay in touch with users, so I'll respond to Wikipedia:administrator's noticeboard and make sure pages don't stay protected (especially semi-protected) too long. I will also edit protected pages when no one else objects to an edit I propose (which happens often now). Superm401 - Talk

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

A. I helped to create Wikipedia:Where to ask a question which has become heavily used, albeit controversial. I played a part in reorganizing the reference desk, where I continue to answer questions. I heavily tag images and work through Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. I have created a couple of useful (though in tight circumstances) templates. My major creative article contributions are somewhat disappointing though I am active in many ways, like verification (lest we forget) and wikification. Of my most significant article work, I'm especially proud of golden angle and keeping Bruce Harris from being hideously biased. Superm401 - Talk 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

A. I haven't let any conflicts escalate too much, though I do get annoyed like most people. For example, I had a disagreement with User:Jerzy about the need for List of people by name. In that case, he reminded me that Wikipedia is not paper and I accepted the need for the page. In other cases, things haven't resolved to my satisfaction but that doesn't bother me too much because I remember WP:OWN and to assume good faith. Superm401 - Talk 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Ish_ishwar

final (40/8/5) ending 04:52 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ish_ishwar (talk · contribs) – I believe that Ish ishwar will make an excellent administrator for Wikipedia. He has over 10000 edits, and the talk page shows that he is quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia. With this, I nominate Ish ishwar to be the next Wikipedia administrator. Thistheman 06:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Thistheman

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: hi. i accept the nomination. – ishwar  (speak) 17:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. beating-nominator-to-the-draw support. Ish is one of the most credible editors I've seen around- diligent, considerate, non-aggressive, with demonstrated grasp of policy. Peace!--cjllw | TALK 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. i got beat Support. Of course I support him!; I did nominate him, after all. Interesting how I got beat to the vote. Thistheman 04:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. A serious contributor with valuable specialist knowledge on lingustics. --Doric Loon 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Merovingian {T C E} 06:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support as above.Blnguyen 07:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, never mind about the edit summaries. An advice to Ish ishwar, use more edit summaries from now on. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support more edit summaries is desirable, but it seems a trivial matter. This user shows little risk of abusing powers. Pete.Hurd 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support -- and watch the edit sums. John Reid 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, even though edit summary usage is quite low.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Latinus 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Edit summary usage excluded, I think Ish Ishwar would make a good admin - any disagreements? --M@thwiz2020 23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

    No, not from me. I am simply unable to separate edit summary usage away from my "good enough for admin" package. - BanyanTree 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Moved to support. - BanyanTree 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

13. Support--Ugur Basak 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
14. I'm a fan of arbitrary criteria just as much as the next guy, but edit summaries are a joke. Edit summaries are the current fad simply because someone bothered to make a script to calculate it. --BRIAN0918 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. I don't think edit summaries are important enough for this. --Khoikhoi 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Great, great editor, friendly on the few occasions we've talked. I couldn't possibly oppose on edit summary grounds since I'm pretty dismal about summaries myself, and anyway I think their importance is being overstated a bit. They are nice, definitely, but let's not exclude a good candidate on those grounds. Everyking 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Lack of edit summaries is a petty and nitpickery reason to justify an excellent editor being excluded given the mop. As long as he promises to try and use them from now on, I don't see a problem. Proto t c 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Support I agree with Brian0918's comment on edit summaries. All in 14:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, although edit summaries are useful, they shouldn't be a preclusion to adminship. Hiding talk 14:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Candidate has addressed the edit summary issue very well, and elaborated on their thoughts on edit summaries. I see no reason not to support. I also encourage people who voted oppose based on edit summaries to read the extra question number 4 and the response recently posted by Ish ishwar (and change their votes).--Alhutch 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Switched from neutral. Ish ishwar has answered below and has altered his monobook to force edit summaries, which is a more than reasonable response to the concerns raised. - BanyanTree 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong support. Knowledgeable, reasonable, peaceful, authorative, and contributing high quality content in high quantities: this is the kind of admin we need. Although I do think that edit summaries are quite important, I note that Ish already used them in the most crucial cases (interaction with other editors); his thoughtful and honest response below shows that he is willing to extend his use of them. — mark ✎ 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Strong support. Ish makes collaborating a pleasure. Courteous, considerate, intelligent, even-tempered. If people find his lack of summaries objectionable, why not leave a note on his talk page? Ish is the kind of person who takes our suggestions seriously. Personally, I don't see much reason for summaries on each of dozens of copy edit revisions on articles that wouldn't even exist without him; when the page history shows nothing but his name, and we can compare before/after, does it matter which part of the edit was done when? That time can be better spent on creating more articles on underrepresented languages. And I believe Ish does summarize when he's not the primary contributor. kwami 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Strong support. Ish has never been anything but polite and reasonable, he's made fantastic contributions to linguistics and Amerindian language articles, and he always goes out of his way to address problems or difficulties. He's also said he will "make use of edit summaries more in the future." --Whimemsz 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, good editor. And I think he's gotten the POINT about edit summaries by now. Guettarda 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support seems to be addressing edit summaries issue productively, no other reason to object that I can find. --W.marsh 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. support: Strong contributor. Ombudsman 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support see rational--Edivorce 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support --Irpen 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Mjal 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Pretty strong aupport. BD2412 T 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Using edit summary now. --FloNight 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
36. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Support as good editor. NoSeptember ^talk 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, great editor, and now that he was self-imposed the necessity of using edit summaries, I'm sure he'll do great with the mop in his hand. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, good editor, based on his answers won't be doing anything stupid with admin tools, and uses edit summaries more now. If he doesn't object to being an admin, I don't se why he shouldn't be made one - Bobet 23:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, seems to be a good hardworking editor abakharev 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Edit summary issues. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Per NSLE. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I am also a big fan of edit summaries. If you are interested in increasing your edit summary usage, there is a force edit summary script available. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Edit summary usage is quite low. Xoloz 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose for now, subject to change. Edit summaries are not trivial. They make life easier for your fellow contributors. Not using them makes other people have to check your edits to see what you changed.--Alhutch 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Switched to neutral.--Alhutch 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

5. I do oppose nominations where edit summaries are this low, but I may support a future one after that has improved for a time. Jonathunder 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I started to read the long statement on edit summaries below, but without any use of upper case, it is difficult to follow. Using standard mixed case is a courtesy to readers; long text without it comes across as someone who didn't want to bother to communicate clearly. Jonathunder 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   As for the latter issue, I fixed that for you. — mark ✎ 08:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose per NSLE --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Major edits need sumaries, a higher rate is not that much to expect from an admin.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose. I'm sorry if it seems like a pile-on. Edit summaries are a Very Good Thing to see when tracking recent changes or looking through a page history or user contributions to look for one specific diff. I think that all editors should use them in all of their edits (or - at minimum - all of their major edits), and admins should ideally lead the way in doing that. I would like to support in a few months, especially since this editor's doing a good job with underrepresented topics, but this should be taken care of first. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral now; see below. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Having too many edits without summaries increases others' burden to find what exactly you have edited. I wonder if this habit will show up here when deleting pages with no reasons left while I know a very persuasive administrator at Chinese Wikipedia deleting too many things with no reasons. Even though I am also an administrator there (but not here), I am getting tired of his persuasive actions. This is why I oppose you here.--Jusjih 03:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. As far as being able to tell what someone edits from their edit summaries. Nothing prevents an editor from using false summaries, so the burden of finding out what has been edited is about the same whether edit summaries are present or not.

   Jusjih, are you aware that the candidate has added a javascript function that forces edit summaries?--Alhutch 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - As others, I'm concerned about edit summaries as there are an important part of communicating with other editors. Although from his contribs he looks like a fine editor, he seems to have relatively few edits in the User Talk and Project namespaces. --Whouk (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. Originally leaned towards support for a user I've seen around for a long time making valuable additions to content in places where Wikipedia is thin on the ground with editors. However, the low use of edit summaries (below 25% for major edits) gives me pause. I consider this non-trivial as it simplifies the task of figuring out article development without checking every diff and tells other users when something is happening to an article that they may be interested in, and when they shouldn't bother. Extrapolating out a bit, the habit of writing edit summaries is even more important for accountability when doing admin-ish things like speedy deletions, as it is often the only evidence non-sysops have of the rationale for the action. Again, I'm not happy that I am unable to support this user right now. - BanyanTree 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Switched to support. - BanyanTree 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral.Along the same lines of the above comment. Use more edit summaries and I will support. Pschemp | Talk 05:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral Seems like a very good candidate for adminship. If the edit summary issue is adressed, I will gladly switch to support.--Alhutch 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   switched to support.--Alhutch 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Outstanding amount of article namespace contributions but I would like to see more experience in the project namespace (250 edits, 1%). Also I prefer properly copy-edited comments. As for edit summaries, now is a good time to plug my new user script: User:Quarl/auto_summary.js —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:22Z
4. Neutral I agree with Quarl, maybe next time --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. (I had been opposing.) I like the fact that he's using more edit summaries now, with the aid of the script that he's been using. I'd like to see him continue to do that, i.e. for a few months longer than just an RfA period - make it a habit. The edit summary issue and the project namespace edits (addressed by Quarl) were the only concerns I had, so if he takes care of those two things, I'll probably support next time. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 22% for major edits and 31% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Ish_ishwar's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Would the candidate care to say why they don't use edit summaries, or what their position on edit summaries is?--Alhutch 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Would comparative lack of edit summaries be considered a serious-enough breach to de-admin someone? Repeated acts of incivility, blinkered POV-pushing and argumentativeness, constant edit-warring, history of dubious or deleterious contributions and general craziness presumably are, and have been, good enough reasons; this candidate has no evidence whatsoever of those, however. Attentiveness to summaries is something which can very easily be addressed, unlike most other disbarring attributes. Were it not for automated summaries generated by rollbacks and the like, I'd wager that not a few practising admins have a less-than-perfect summary record. My 2cm, FWIW. --cjllw | TALK 01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

you're right, lots of people don't use them. That doesn't mean they're not important. I'm for edit summaries 100 percent of the time, whether the edit is minor or major. I'd be open to changing my vote if Ish ishwar would respond to people's concerns about edit summaries.--Alhutch 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A.

looking at the the Wikipedia Backlog, i think that an easy task is the situation of Encyclopedia images having duplicates in the Commons. i would be happy to help with this.

as is readily apparent, i have not been very active in such things as voting for deleting articles. this is because (1) i am more concerned about the inclusion/coverage of underrepresented topics (e.g. the hundreds of ethnic groups not mentioned in Wikipedia — not even merely by name), (2) no one has really invited me to participate, so i assume that there is already a base of active voters sufficient enough to address these articles. likewise, my non-participation in other areas of Wikipedia is due to my interest in adding the underrepresented topics. thus, my role to date has been primarily an editor. obviously, adminship may require a change in my distribution of energies.

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

A.

i guess my map of American languages is ok (although still in progress): Image:Langs N.Amer.png. Why?: there isnt really a map as detailed as this in cyberspace. (hopefully, someone will be inspired to make a better map.)

i've been trying to improve the Indigenous languages of the Americas article for some time, but this is, understandably, just an enormous topic. Why?: concerning a record of known languages & their genealogical classification, there isn't any site that is terribly comprehensive, with perhaps the exception of Promotora Española de Lingüística (Ethnologue generally does not include extinct languages).

as for articles written mostly be me, there is both Evidentiality and Apophony. i tried to get some approval for/improvement of Evidentially, but, evidently, no one is too interested (even though i find rather interesting!). an unfinished technical article (it'll probably never be complete) which i've spent considerable time on is Vietnamese phonology. maybe my magnum opus will be Southern Athabaskan languages, but it's currently not in a particulary exemplary state. (there's also the non-linguistically-oriented Indian Shaker Church.) Why?: well, hopefully, these are ok introductions to these topics. (if not, please suggest/make improvements.) i havent found any in-depth writings on any Navajo or other Apachean languages, except for linguistic articles (which are probably not understandable to laymen) and a web version of Harry Hoijer's Chiricahua and Mescalero Texts. much internet stuff on Vietnamese pronunciation is unclear and confusing (or not written in English).

otherwise, i've made minor contributions to various linguistic things (e.g., Reduplication: Form, Ao language, Neutralization, archiphoneme, underspecification, Chilcotin phonological processes). Why?: minority languages like Ao and Chilcotin need to be better represented in Wikipedia (plus isnt vowel flattening cool?). although many editors have heard of phonemes, none of these editors seemed to aware of Trubetzkoy's neutralized oppositions or modern underspecification theories (yes, i know the current section is hardly exhaustive or even representative).

i like bibliographies, so i add references/further reading to many articles.

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

A.

i dont think i've been in anything that could be called a proper conflict. i will list what are the closest things:

• disagreement with User:Doric Loon over the appropriate names (and their scopes) for the phenomenon termed variously ablaut, apophony, etc. this user held that ablaut refers to primarily the phenomenon is the Indo-European language family, while i felt the term refers equally to all languages (regardless of genealogical affiliation). the respective discussion is at Talk:Ablaut. my "dealing with it" involved attempting to state and support my reasons for disagreement and asking 3 other users their opinions on the matter. this was the closest thing to a conflict, i think — so, we should probably ask this user's opinion about my behaviour.

Answer from Doric Loon: Well as far as I'm concerned, that was not a conflict, though at one point we did come close to three reverts. I found Ishwar to be... tenacious. But courteous. I wouldn't call it aggro, and we found a compromise. --Doric Loon 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Talk:Tonto Apache: i thought that the Tontos should be called Dilzhe’e as there was a recent movement for name change in one of their communities. however, since the name Tonto is still used in the official name of one the federally recognized communities and the name Tonto is by far the more common name in academic and non-academic writings of Whites both currently and historically, i do concede with User:Node ue's position.
• User talk:ish ishwar#"not phonetic": User:Antaeus Feldspar was unhappy with a name i choose. i apologized & asked for some suggestions. (i guess this wasnt interesting enough to reply? apparently this user is unfortunately ill now.)
• i put some constructed languages up for deletion a while ago. this apparently annoyed several people. is this conflict?, i dont know.

future conflict resolution may be benefit from a Peace Treaty developed by Thích Nhất Hạnh. Wikipedia may be better if i introduce this. (this may have been first translated into English in his book titled Touching Peace, but perhaps i'm wrong.)

4. Why dont you use edit summaries? What is your "position on edit summaries"? Are you ever going edit summaries in the future?

Hi (Tuesday is my "day off"). I see that edit summaries are apparently a concern for many people here, although they were never really a concern of mine. Obviously, since I seem to have annoyed or offended several editors and/or wasted their time, I should probably try not to be so inconsiderate. So, I apologize to all. I do not wish to annoy/offend/waste peoples' lives. I will make an effort change my ways (regardless of the outcome here).

Why don’t I use edit summaries? Well, I guess I will reply that I do use and do not use edit summaries. The factors determining this include several different things. I will list some, although I do not mean for the following to be a justification for not using edit summaries — I am just letting you know my (previous) thinking.

• (1) Some articles have me as the sole contributor (or practically the only contributor). I simply assumed that no one was really watching these articles, thus my edit summarizing would be read primarily by me. I know some people may be watching, but I didn’t think typing these up was worth the type.
• (2) I often don’t type edit summaries on "minor" edits.
• (3) My editing style usually finds me making small snippets or adjustments instead of waiting to collect all of my snippets into one large edit. Perhaps this aspect of my editing is already annoying to some. I just often change and re-change my mind when typing. So, I probably hit the "save page" button too often. Since I do editing in this particular way, I either forget write the edit summary (sometimes even forgetting to identify minor edits) or I am too tired/careless/lazy to write them. This is probably me at my most grievous.
• (4) I usually write summaries when it seems (to me) that what I have changed is particularly important. this include things such as, correcting someone's error, editing a page I usually don’t edit, when involved in disagreements, "major" changes, etc. Note that if so pressed, one could probably find me making exceptions here along the lines of number (3) above.
• (5) I haven’t been writing edit summaries for redirects or the creation of new articles. These seemed to be "minor" edits, although perhaps some may not agree.
• (6) If an (usually anonymous) editor makes a "vandalistic" change without an edit summary, I likewise make a revert without an edit summary. I don’t have any excuse for this, and the vandal probably doesn’t either.

My position on edit summaries. I guess my position will be something this: I will make use of edit summaries more in the future. If anybody seems to not be aware of edit summaries, I will (gently) point this out to the editor. I will not penalize or think bad of anyone for not writing edit summaries, unless a user seems to be doing so in order to deceive and/or injure others. I hope that this is clear and not too objectionable. Of course, one could persuade me to change/reevaluate my position (and anyone is welcome to).

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks!

5. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

This question means use #1 over #4? or how to progress from #1 to #4? This is explained at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warning templates, no? This page outlines the general procedure for this. If you are asking how lenient or how forcefully I punish, then I am very lenient & not very forceful. I dont need to skip test3, and I dont see why not to give more than one test1. Blatantvandal, I hadnt read before. This one is amusing: A kind initial welcome with a stop sign, of course this explained after "however". I probably wouldnt use this. As above, I am not so forceful as this. Actually, I prefer to type personal messages.

6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

I would not penalize the editor. The rule was obeyed after all. Talking about such things is ideal here. There must be a reason for these strong feelings leading to the reverts: let's find it out.

7. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

This could perhaps be written a little better (the linked page, not the question). This is so much a personal question. What is remarkable to me may not be remarkable to another. It seems like there should be some control for content within an encyclopedia, but it is not obvious to me what Wikipedia is doing here. Apparently, the control is voting to delete articles; however, much of this seems to be bickering. I would rather spend time doing something more useful, such as doing my usual light research into interesting things. I would probably ask someone else for their thoughts, as I couldnt necessarily be sure of my action. Isnt this just a vague noncommittal reply? Yes, it is, which is why I think perhaps the two sentences could be written a little better.

8. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

Firstly, readings. And not only what is written in Wikipedia. If it is so controversial, to do it well you need to listen a lot to others. Inviting others to help is helpful. I interpret Neutral point of view as mindfulness — there is a lot written on this topic. I dont know if you can remove bias, but I think that you can report it.

9. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

I dont have great frustrations here, which is I why continue to add the pages. Any frustrations with Wikipedia are the same as elsewhere, more or less. Perhaps I wish more editors would research the topics, but such is the internet.

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

---

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

Joke137

final (34/5/7) ending 4:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke137 (talk · contribs) – Joke137 is a subject matter expert in physics and cosmology and has been producing a steady stream of quality edits since he joined Wikipedia nearly a year ago. In my interactions and observations of him, I have found him to be a model of civility and good sense, despite being crazy enough to devote some of his time to ensure that fringe theories (e.g. Plasma cosmology and Tired light) remain sensible and fair. In my opinion, we need to promote more users, like Joke137, that combine both deep technical expertise and an ability to work well with others. Dragons flight 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes, thank you! –Joke 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator, of course. Dragons flight 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian {T C E} 06:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Seems logical, feet on the ground, broad minded, knowledgeable. 1453 edits may not be oodles of experience, but stupid he ain't. The fact that he's been able to resolve disputes renders a low number of project and user talk edits rather moot. If he has more disputes maybe he talks more. :) Guapovia 12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. support having read through his past participation re: resolving conflicts I trust him with expanded powers. Pete.Hurd 14:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Is it about edit count or edit quality? John Reid 15:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Good work with the encyclopedia and seems to handle dsiputes fairly well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Contributions to articles are very helpful and he does use talk pages appropriately and solve disputes. David | Talk 15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per John Reid.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
9. strong support: sensible and thoughtful William M. Connolley 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support looks good to me--MONGO 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Latinus 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, strong candidate, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. I've seen Joke around on the physics pages and he has impressed me with how he handled some of the disputed I came across. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Solid, serious editor that understands the principals at work here. An expert in his field who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. A quality editor. Rx StrangeLove 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Looks like a very dedicated, thoughtful editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I liked his edits on Big Bang which popped up on my watchlist from time to time. —Ruud 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Quality of edits and dialogue more than overrides any numerical concerns, at least for me (good point made below re editcount not reflecting on the effort put in)--cjllw | TALK 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - Quality outweighs quantity when the quality is this good. Doesn't seem likely to dive in and abuse something he doesn't understand. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Slow and steady wins the race. Pschemp | Talk 05:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Experience should not be a bar to adminship, which is no big deal. The issue is whether we trust the user in question, and experience does not affect that trust. Experience is something we all lack, and gain daily, and where is the harm in learning as you go? Unless Radiant is suggesting Joke137 is unlikely to seek advice on how to act, I fail to see how experience should count against. Hiding talk 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - editors who devote themselves to content get my vote. Charles Matthews 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
22. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Support although more useful edits at project pages like this one will be much better.--Jusjih 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Support as per Charles Matthews. At a glance at this page, seems likely to be a good admin who stays focused on the task of keeping the often controversial cosmology articles NPOV and scientifically accurate. Joke's recent stub on Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism is a good start and I liked the fact that references were provided.---CH 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. support: Per Charles Matthews. Ombudsman 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. A solid contributor. Besides, we shouldn't judge level-headedness by editcounts. -- Fropuff 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Very Strong Support ~ Looking back and some of his edits whoa. That's fantastic hard work and dedication. Oddly enough I was pushed to vote by some of the negative comments, please dont equal random vandal-reverting or discussion with quality edits. How much cognition does it take to revert silly edits? Can you really compare that to quality information? Consider which one benefits wikipedia the most, we are here to BUILD an encyclopedia, and J137 is doing just that. —This user has left wikipedia 08:29 2006-02-02
28. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support good candidate --rogerd 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, No Joke, indeed a good candidate:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - looks good. Guettarda 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Good edits. Should have the tools. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Very solid editor, good community member.--ragesoss 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
34. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Needs more experience, especially in the project and user talk namespaces. --TantalumTelluride 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, lack of experience with project and process. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per TantalumTelluride --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose 75 WP space edits would be enough... if only Joke137 had at least 2000 total edits. 1500 will not make the cut - sorry! --M@thwiz2020 23:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Radiant.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Radiant. Xoloz 04:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Good editor but needs more edits. Please try again in two months if this doesn't go well.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I don't want to dispute your vote, but I thought this issue might come up so I'll make a brief comment. Although my edit count is lower than many new administrators, I make a lot of large edits such as [27] which may take an hour or more to prepare. I also make minor edits [28], but for better or for worse I concentrate more on the former. Wikipedia counts both kinds of edits alike, though, even though one takes much longer than the other! –Joke 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the comment. I don't have a problem with your article edits and you are a good editor but I think you need some more edits to the spaces that were mentioned above. I am sure that if you try again for adminship in two months you will have no problem. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Neural same issue, however, I cannot justify an opposition agasint you becasue I do the exact same thing regarding articles [29], which is why my edit count is lower than say, a category lister. However, there's still the issue of lack of talk namespace. -Zero^Talk 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Enough edits in general, especially considering the quality, but a lack of involvement in Wikipedia internal processes. If this improves somewhat (doubling it wouldn't take particularly long) I would be happy to support. Proto t c 12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral until more project/process experience. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:29Z
5. Changing vote to neutral. I agree that the quality of edits is more important than the quantity, but I still think Joke needs more experience in project space. --TantalumTelluride 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I'm on the fence. Total edit counts are enough for me, but like above, I want to see more project space contributions. Your usage of edit summaries is commendable though. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral, leaning to support, but I have to agree with the need of more project space edits. Most likely this will pass, and I'm happy it will, so I suppose this will serve more as a suggestion for the future than an actual vote. Happy editing! Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 93% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Joke137's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I see my primary contributions still being the same: trying to expand, verify, reference and integrate the various articles relating to cosmology, to revert vandalism, and trying to reconcile the concerns of the various editors in a reasonable fashion. Sometimes that feels like an infinite reservoir of work. With that said, I've lately been trying to branch out into doing more general editing and working on other articles, which is a welcome break. One thing that interests me is trying to informally mediate NPOV disputes in other fields. One thing that editing the cosmology articles has taught me is that there is often a depth to these disputes that is impossible to resolve without cooler heads lending a hand. I would also start hanging out on the administrators noticeboard. –Joke 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

A. Nothing stands out. I have made major contributions to most of the cosmology articles, sometimes rewriting them almost from scratch (cosmic microwave background, false vacuum, cosmic inflation, dark energy, timeline of the big bang, Lambda-CDM model, etc...). An example of an editing dispute that resulted in a particularly pleasing, collaborative outcome is the equivalence principle article. Sometimes there is nothing more pleasing that finding a missing article and writing a nice stub: Robinson-Schensted algorithm, string theory landscape, Manhattanville. Finally, I recently carefully redid the list of dog breeds by country. –Joke 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

A. The first really problematic edit conflict I can recall being involved in was over the Cosmology article (see the talk page), where an anonymous editor was accusing me of pursuing a creationist bias. See the failed RfA. That was more a nuisance than anything. The recent real conflict I have been in was the plasma cosmology and Big Bang (see talk archive four) dispute involving, principally, Reddi and Eric Lerner. See the relevant talk pages, Elerner RfC, Reddi RfC and Reddi RfA. I've learned some lessons from this. I made this reversion without an adequate talk page comment, which wasn't too bright, but mainly I regret having let the whole thing get me so wound up I had to take a break. A lot of disputes on Wikipedia – in addition to this, some recent disputes on the cold fusion page come to mind – aren't well dealt with by bludgeoning people with the NPOV policy. These problems can only be solved by calm, rational discussion and a genuine search for consensus. –Joke 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, since I've seen it come up a few times recently on Wikipedia, I'd like to say that I wouldn't ever use administrator powers on an article I am deeply involved with editing, except to deal with simple vandals. –Joke 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Why is your user page blank? --TantalumTelluride 04:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure really. I suppose there are two reasons. One was an experiment: I was interested to see who would edit it and what they would write. Answer: few and not much. The other reason is that I don't really believe anything about me matters except that I do my best to make quality contributions. I'm not much interested in arguments from authority. It's sort of the ideal science is based on, even if it isn't true in practice. It's true to a much better approximation on Wikipedia, which can be both a blessing and a curse. –Joke 04:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Cantthinkofagoodname

final (58/0/1) ending 23:50 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cantthinkofagoodname (talk · contribs) – CTOAGN has been a registered user for about six months now, and has spent that time well, writing two FAs, becoming the Wikipedia equivalent of a household name in the football (soccer)-article-writing subsection of the community, assisting newish users in learning the Way of Wikipedia, and just generally being a top bloke, and doing it all while supporting the wrong football team. He's already a great asset as an editor, and I'd like to see him become a great asset as an admin as well. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme nominator support. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support No problems with me. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
3. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Goal eh Support Dr Debug 02:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Extremely long username support. (KTHXGOAL) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
7. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
8. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. --TantalumTelluride 06:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Merovingian {T C E} 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --Whouk (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Would be strong support, if only he didn't support the Manure Man U. Grutness...wha? 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Agnte 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
16. F.C. Vote of Support. Qwghlm 14:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Good contrib's, no problems. Marskell 15:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Support unlikely to abuse powers, but share some of Grutness' reservations about the editor's support for the Manchester Marlins Pete.Hurd 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Support John Reid 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Goooooooooooooooooooooal! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Good experience with the user, especially with regard to David Beckham.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
22. If-I've-ever-given-a-support-vote Support One of the most responsible, level-headed, intelligent editors I have come across. -Aabha (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Oldelpaso 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Back of the net support! howcheng {chat} 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Support No reason to oppose! --M@thwiz2020 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Should make an excellent administrator. Hall Monitor 00:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support--Ugur Basak 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Surewhynot? Pschemp | Talk 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, fantastic work on the history of Manchester United pages. Be very careful about whacking people with the blocking stick as soon as you gain admin privs, though. Proto t c 12:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. I have been very impressed by CTOAGN's dedication to Wikipedia. I have absolutely no reason to believe that he would be anything but a level-headed admin. Rje 14:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support: --Bhadani 15:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:37Z
36. Support Wohoo! Let's get a Featured Article on soccer during the Superbowl (Superball?) —This user has left wikipedia 16:39 2006-02-01
37. Support. Welcome aboard, Cant. Can I call you Cant? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 00:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Support --Jusjih 03:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Support cantseeareasontonotsupport.--MONGO 06:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
43. Definitive Support. Without a doubt, CTOAGN (who incidentally does NOT support the "wrong team" - at least in my humble opinion) is a fair and honest editor, who has developed poorly written pages (mine especially) and would be a very good Administrator (again, humble opinions abide).DAAdshead 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Support All in 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Hope you enjoy the maintenance chores... haz (user talk) 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Mjal 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Excellent editor, give him the mop and the flamethrower already. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Great editor, a valuable contributor within the Wikipedian community - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
50. Support without making any comment whatsoever about why, exactly, I'm supporting, because it's so durn obvious after all. BD2412 T 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
51. Cantthinkofagoodreasontooppose. >Radiant< 11:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. --Myles Long/cDc 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
53. Support, after edit conflict. Silensor 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. —A 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. I thought he already was one! WikiFanatic 00:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
56. Support I've worked with CTOAGN on several articles and he is a very good and trusted Wikipedian. Essexmutant 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
57. Support, not like you really need it, but I didn't want to miss the chance of voicing it. Congrats! Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Jonathunder 23:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. While I appreciate your "I am primarily interested in editing" stance, the eagerness to use the revert button and to chase down vandals concerns me. Please see WP:ANOT. Please also be aware that one does not require administrative privileges to revert. Avriette 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   For the record, ANOT is not policy or guidline, and was created last week. And while one does not need admin privelages to revert, it really really helps especially with frequent vandalism - and one does need adminship to block said vandals. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   However, it was forked from WP:GRFA where it had been living for quite a while. howcheng {chat} 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Cantthinkofagoodname's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I'd better correct a couple of things that fuddlemark wrote:
  • I was only the major contributor on one of those FAs - Denis Law. I did a good few hours work on Arsenal F.C. to get the article featured, but Qwghlm deserves the credit for that one.
  • I've been here for 9-10 months.
  • I do not support the wrong football team. :-) File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to be very busy for the next day or two, so might not be able to answer questions as quickly as I'd like (UK tax return deadline is tomorrow). I'll answer any that come up as quickly as I can. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'll set up an email address during this RFA and notify you when it's done. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. CTOAGN (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove that image from your sig and I'll support you. Please. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. CTOAGN (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I've seen new admins have problems getting into situations that need someone with a little more experience, so I'll start slowly. I'll make use of the revert button straight away, of course, and I'll block persistent vandals that I spot instead of listing them on AIV. Once I've got some experience of that without any complaints that I'll watch AIV occasionally and block vandals that are on there. I won't use sysop powers in any areas that I don't have reasonable experience in, so I won't, for example, close AFDs unless I get more involved in that area and have a good idea of how it's done. I'd have liked to help with writing SQL querites (I've got 5 years' experience as a professional SQL developer) but it doesn't look like Asksql is coming back.

I'm much more into editing than cleanup, but would find the tools useful now and again. I think I've been around long enough and done enough work on here to show that I'm not going to use them maliciously, but I'm not going to use them as often as other admins. I don't see this as a problem myself, but I know there are those that don't agree.

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

A. The contribution that I'm most pleased with was taking Denis Law from little more than a stub to an FA before reaching 1000 edits. I'm also the major contributor to F.C. United of Manchester, Manchester United F.C. and David Beckham. FC United is especially pleasing as the club is very new so I've been writing about its history as it's been happening, and the article regularly gets praise on the club's messageboard. It's also attracted a lot of good edits from anons.

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

A. Nothing major. I think my edits have been reverted a total of about 5 or 6 times.

Some time ago, an anon added some POV edits and complained on WP:3O when I reverted them. [30] He/she also re-reverted some of the changes but was quickly reverted again by User:Sam Vimes. I decided just to ignore the listing on 3O unless/until someone offered a third opinion, and it was eventually removed by another user. I gave a third opinion on Talk:Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) regarding whether Annabel Chong should have been listed as an alumnus. There were fairly strong feelings on both sides of the debate but it seems to have died out.

There was a discussion on Talk:Ronaldinho about whether a sentence along the lines of "Ronaldinho is the best footballer in the world" was acceptable for an article, and recently I've been in a debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive#Renominating articles.

None of that has caused me significant stress. I find it more annoying when I do something like getting Manchester United's 125 year history down into a few short paragraphs and then seeing a newbie adding two paragraphs on the non-notable events of the previous month, but I have to remember that I was new once and my early edits weren't as good as they are now. I think I've always managed to stay polite in these circumstances and don't see that changing.

4. How do you rationalize the use of a copyrighted image (Image:Fcunitedbadgepic.gif) on your user page? Have you considered removing it to avoid copyright problems? --TantalumTelluride 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: BorgHunter (talk · contribs) removed that image from CTOAGN's user page per WP:UP and WP:FU at 2:42. 31 January 2006 (UTC) [31] —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed, but I feel like I should answer the question, even though doing so is unlikely to help the nomination (just the opposite if anything). I didn't have any ethical problem with the use of the image on my talk page and there was never any danger of the club taking offence at it being there (if I hadn't have been certain of that I would never have put it there). That said, WP:UP is clear enough and I don't mind it being taken off there. CTOAGN (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 00:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a busy day, as I said above, but I hope to have time to answer these this evening (UTC). CTOAGN (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

5. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A. Test1 etc. for "silly" vandalism such as writing "hello" or "look I can edit wikipedia!!!!", bv for more serious vandalism (profanity, "sneaky" vandalism such as making what looks like a good edit and changing a couple of dates) or users who've been blocked before (especially if more than once), as long as I'm sure it's not a dynamic IP address.

6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. It depends on what they've reverted and why. If they were reverting obvious vandalism, there'd be no problem (the 3RR rightly doesn't apply to vandalism reversions), so I'd just add the page to my watchlist and possibly watch their user page in case they reverted again and were wrongly blocked.

It's much more likely that you're referring to an edit war though, in which case I'd suggest the users discussed their differences on the talk page and tried to come to a consensus. If the article was on a subject I understand, I'd offer my opinion. I'd also ask both parties to cite a source for what they were writing. I would be very reluctant to block someone for this unless they were being disruptive in some other way.

7. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. This isn't an area that I plan to work on for the time being, but I'd have to be certain that the subject of the article wasn't notable and that few other people would consider them notable. If there was any doubt at all, I'd use AFD.

8. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. I'd find some credible sources to cite for what I was writing. If I know who wrote something that I think is POV, I like to discuss it on their talk page first, but when I don't do this (sometimes it's so obvious that I make the edits straight away) I often leave a message on the article's talk page.

9. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. The babysitting can be quite tedious. We have a few immature (not necessarily young - I'm well aware that we have some great contributors who are still at school) contributors who are constantly seeking attention and think that getting a consensus means whining on talk pages until they get their own way. I find the best thing to do is ignore them, but it's not always possible and it's sad to see people who can make good contributions to Wikipedia having to waste time arguing with them.

This doesn't affect me personally, but the system where logged in users can't use a machine if its IP is blocked is crazy. I realise IP blocking is needed now and again, but don't understand why the software can't make exceptions when a non-blocked user tries to log in on that IP. Maybe it's done that way to prevent vandals creating accounts and continuing to vandalise, but surely there's some way we can ensure that user accounts that have more than a certain number of edits and haven't been blocked can log in? Not perfect, but it would be a major improvement on what we have now. CTOAGN (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

10 What's the policy trifecta, why do people think it's important, do you agree with it, and how should an admin apply it?

A. It's the three well-known rules WP:NPOV, m:DICK and WP:IAR, which some people say summarise the other rules on Wikipedia. I agree to some extent - if you're not breaking any of these rules you're unlikely to be doing anything too wrong. 'Ignore all rules' is slightly too much of a generalisation to be taken literally though - I've seen people use it to excuse breaking the other two trifecta rules which kind of misses the point.

Admins (and everyone else) should apply these rules with common sense. 'Ignore all rules' is a fairly good approach when dealing with new users - we encourage people to start editing pages as soon as they find Wikipedia and it's unrealistic to think that everyone will go through the MoS and all the policies, so it's sensible to give them a bit of leeway if they use the wrong type of section heading or put the wrong tag on an image and fix their errors for them or explain what is wrong while welcoming them rather than get upset because someone did something wrong. Applyjng the others seems straightforward to me - the policies for dealing with disputes relating to neutrality and incivilty are well documented. CTOAGN (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Ec5618

Final (15/11/5) ending 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ec5618 (talk · contribs) – My first edit was near the end of 2003, and I have made many more since. I know the rules, I know some people. And I'd like to be able to edit protected pages/templates. Ec5618 18:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. I accept.

Support

1. Support - I do not know this user, but I cannot think of any reason to oppose. Latinus 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Ec5618 has been around here a long time. He or she is not likely to abuse privileges. --Mb1000 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

   Support At least the guy's honest!!! BlueGoose 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Strong Support - my interactions with Ec have been excellent; he's a great guy. I have been impressed in his willingness to enter conversation with thoroughly unpleasant people and remain civil. I've considered nominatin him for adminship before. I see no reason to believe tht he would abuse the admin tools. Guettarda 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Support They just don't get any more neutral than Ec5618. He's certainly earned it. FeloniousMonk 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support The reversions are unusual and being taken out of context, IMHO. Ec is a great editor, with sense and respect for others. I concur absolutely with Guettarda about his ability to remain civil when faced with truly unpleasant, not to say obnoxious, people. They don't come any better than Ec. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support this guy knows what he's talking bout. — Dunc|☺ 08:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support EC has what it takes to be a good Admin. Jim62sch 09:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Yea you seem dedicated and a frequent "wiki". good luck User:Ncrown23334
9. Support EC has appeared (mostly) cool and levelheaded in the midst of possibly infuriating encounters with people who edit with strongly held opinions, perseverance, and little/no appropriate references. Dan Watts 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I'd trust him as an admin.; I avoid controversial pages partly because I don't think that I'd behave as well as Ec5618. --Phronima 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support excellent credentials [[user:Mjal 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]
12. Strong support! as per this discussion. --M@thwiz2020 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. I've seen Ec around on some of the most controversial pages and he manages to maintain NPOV; I trust him to use the admin tools fairly and responsibly.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Nominee has given what I feel to be well-thought out answers to the objections raised (in particular per Mathwiz2020 above), has an extensive talk page with good interactions and has been around a while in a lot of spaces. He was good-humored and accepting of the block here. From what I can tell, he spends a lot of time formatting and would like to do so in protected pages as well. This is slightly unusual, as most "sole reason" nominees tend to imply that they want to salt the ground of deleted non-notable articles with the blood of vandals, but is a perfectly valid reason to desire adminship. - BanyanTree 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Support, very well-considered answers on this page. I don't know what one can do about the adminship paradox that integrity in standing up to POV warriors is just what an admin needs, but it will tend to garner a candidate more opposition than support ("more" in the sense that each Oppose "weighs" a lot more than each Support). Nothing, other than vote support in such cases, I guess. (And extra points for the selfnom!) Bishonen | talk 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC). OK, the user's defence of Carnildo's indefinite blocks has changed my opinion. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

15. Support Would make a good editor. Athough he made a few mistakes in the past, this can easily be rectified. No one is a perfect user of Wikipedia! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - The nominee refers to the 3RR below. That's a concern, but the reverting isn't isolated. Nominee changed another user's talk page to contain links to an archive [32], was reverted by the user in question [33], and then reverted the user's talk page to contain the archive links again [34]. Yes, you are "permitted to voice concerns" about another user, but you don't do it by getting into revert wars. I'm concerned about the combative attitude expressed in these revert episodes, and as yet no acceptance of any fault. Advice: modify your behavior, accept your role in these events, and try again in a few months. --Durin 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose - the 3RR block is too recent for me, especially where one of the major motivations for seeking adminship is to be able to "edit protected pages". (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Please see below. -- Ec5618 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per ESkog. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

   oppose. How can anyone put I'd like to be able to edit protected pages on their RFA!?! William M. Connolley 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC). Please see below. -- Ec5618 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC) OK, I'm prepared to believe that I've misinterpreted you; however (and please don't think that I'm making up a whole series of excuses) I find your edits to Bensaccount talk page [35] unacceptable, as per Durin. I know no-one *owns* their own pages, but effectively they have special priviledges there: repeatedly re-inserting stuff is impolite. William M. Connolley 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC). Changing to Neutral. William M. Connolley 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

4. Oppose, recent 3RR block and bizarre approach to editing protected pages, per WMC. -Splash^talk 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose I apologize. This shouldn't be a joking matter. BlueGoose 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

   • Comment Based on answers, nominee does not understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or the fact that we respect all dialects of English on Wikipedia. BlueGoose 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Moved vote to neutral. BlueGoose 07:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
     • Please see below. -- Ec5618 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. I don't feel that one should request adminship to edit protected articles. Avriette 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Could you explain why not? It's a fairly common request - people who want to make corrections to the front page or to DYK or things like that. "Editing protected pages" doesn't mean "revert a page back to my preferred version after it has been locked because of an edit war". It's actually a very legitimate request. Guettarda 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. I see an edit war which was childish and your behavior on that page where somebody complained about bullying is close to bullying. If a user is that distressed that he makes a poll then you shouldn't kick him when he is down, since it is not the kind of behavior you want see for an administrator. Dr Debug 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Nevermind that the author of the petition in question has been blocked 4 times from contributing to Wikipedia for personal attacks alone [36]. Ec5618 acted professionally and responsibly toward that editor in all instances. FeloniousMonk 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   The contents of User:Benapgar/Bullying and the edit history is totally unacceptable behavior, because it shows you and Ec5618 ganging upon Benapar and the history of Ec5618 shows more aggression towards this user. I'm sorry but you two have played a major role in the role which lead to the petition and what drove him to get mad at the two of you.

   From the page: "Perhaps you get bullied, because people don't like your attitude. Perhaps you get bullied, because people don't like your attitude. Note that I didn't attack you in my previous post" That's extreme verbal aggression from Ec5618 and the whole page is very aggresive. Dr Debug 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   No offense, but I sincerely question the level of awareness of the history of Benapgar, his behaviour on various sites, his abusive nature, and the motives behind his petition. It might be a good idea to look into said behaviour before casting aspersions at EC and others. Additionally, citing one purportedly negative instance, and ignoring the hundreds of positive instances of EC's involvement on Wikipedia seems just a tad unfair and antithetical to what one guesses is the spirit behind the umbrage taken at what has been (mis)perceived to be kicking "him when he is down". In essense there is a seeming willingness to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Jim62sch 09:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   I didn't like what I saw on the page and it wasn't one-sided. Also he seems to have the habit of going around requesting everybody to change their opinion if they voted against him. Dr Debug 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   What page and he who? Ambiguity bites. Jim62sch 01:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   Page as listed above: User:Benapgar/Bullying. He as in EC. Then there are all the other opposes which are about a variety of recent subjects as well. Is there still something not clear about Opposing the RfA of your friend? Dr Debug 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   I suppose Ben can take heart that someone feels pity for him, but then I suppose everyone has at least one apologist. Jim62sch 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   Let's not carry this on. Dr Debug has made up his mind, as is his right. Yes, Bensaccount is difficult, and his behaviour at least as uncivil as mine, but I should have let it go, or have sought arbitration. I know now that Bensaccount would never have become an Administrator, and that is a comforting though at least. -- Ec5618 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   I think Ec meant Benapgar here, not Bensaccount. FeloniousMonk 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose, at least for now. The editor reinserted uncited challenged material, despite the fact that the request for a citation regarding the challenged material was made over a month ago (after which the challenged material was removed for lack of a citation and a small revert war ensued) and that the issue has been through an RfC. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk FeloniousMonk 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

   To see the discussion, click here --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose I've seen Durin around RfA enough to learn to trust his comments, and I agree with him now completely. --M@thwiz2020 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (changed to support)

   Well I'd certainly trust someone who states that they will not work on "Any other "low hanging fruit" type of work; there are plenty of people to do this kind of work." There are the masters and there are the serfs? Please. Jim62sch 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

8. I oppose this candidacy for Adminship. An immature tendency towards escalation of conflict rather than a more mature approach of calming a dispute tells of a personality that very quickly becomes vested in his own point of view. Even on matters (as documented by Durin) in which he has no other purpose other than to have "his" POV prevail. C'mon back after a couple of months of demonstrated more mature behavior. You have much to contribute to this project and you should do so with a greater camaraderie with your fellow Wikipedians. I'm confident that you will become an Admin, (with my support) within the next several months if you deal with some of the criticism here in a constructive way. I commend your courage in self-nominating, always it seems a risky approach towards adminship. hydnjo talk 05:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Being blocked recently for 3RR violation is a very black mark.--Jusjih 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Good editor, but worried about how he handles disputes. Ashibaka tock 03:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Handling disputes is a very integral part of being an administrator. Unfortunately, we have seen in the past few weeks how administrators who get emotional in their enforcement roles can escalate the situation even further. Thus, I must oppose. BlueGoose 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not sure yet. --Merovingian {T C E} 06:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Switched from oppose; still considering William M. Connolley 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC).
3. Neutral. Good editor, but block too recent.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 'Neutral Comments are strange. Pschemp | Talk 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Really want to support, as I think his intentions are good, but getting into edit wars is not clever. I won't oppose, though, as I think he acted in good faith, but with poor judgement. Proto t c 12:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral Will move to support or oppose by the close of voting. BlueGoose 07:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Perhaps I should clarify my position, as it seems a lot of my statement below is being taken out of context. I desire to be an Admin. I understand that Adminship is 'no big deal', so I didn't spend days preparing a written statement, and it seems I being penalised for that. I desire to be an admin, and part of that is the ability to edit protected pages. See for example Template:Protected, where I was forced to impose on another editor's time to make a simple formatting change. I do not desire to edit protected pages haphazardly, and firmly believe that all such edits must be discussed and easily reversible.
• I did not mean to imply, below, that I find Wikipedia too large, or that I would like to standardise spelling. In fact, I find it boggles the mind, and I marvelled at the fact that standardised spelling was impossible (and undesirable, as this is an international project). However, at times, the sheer size of the project is frustrating, as it seems impossible to keep up with policy, software changes, new editors, vandalism, etc.
• Yes, I was recently blocked. See User talk:Ec5618/Block where I have previously tried to explain the matter. The whole thing was silly, and quite a learning experience. As can be read below, I plan to block people who violate 3RR, as I find it one of the more reasonable rules.
• The edits Durin refers to are true but one sidedly portrayed. I objected to a user's behaviour (and use of offensive language), at which point this user, Bensaccount, blanked his Talk page. Perhaps I was wrong to pursue the matter in this way, but I did not agree with him trying to give of the impression that he had no history. Honestly, I itched to block this person for incivility, though in retrospect I know I wouldn't have and shouldn't have.
• Frankly, I am surprised by the way in which my comments are taken out of context by the majority of voters above. It seems that any of them could have asked for clarification before voting. Yes, my statement is a bit vague, but please assume good faith. This is not a joke, thank you. -- Ec5618 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 86% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Ec5618's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

Mainly, I like to stroll, and help out where I can. I like to fix formatting, for example, which hardly requires Adminship. Still, I've recently begun to encounter issues in which Adminship would help me to solve problems directly, instead of having to continually ask others for help. Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests is one example.

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

None really come to mind. I've been active at intelligent design, and related articles, but my edits there are no such much impressive per see as they were repetitive. I like templates, and organising things. I've tried to clean up WP:BUG recently, for example, and am trying to make sense of the Reference Desk.

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

Bensaccount and Benapgar were both editors of the intelligent design articles, and were quite unwilling to accept community consensus. The later has even taken the regular editors of that article to mock-court: User:Benapgar/Bullying, and it appears I've been mentioned on wikipediareview.

When I edited Template:User Aspie, I encountered firm resistance, and was eventually blocked for 3RR violation. See User talk:Ec5618/Block.

More recently I hit a wall with Philwelch, an Admin who edited a protected template, against the wishes of the other contributors to that template. He then simply refused to talk to me, asked me to never contact him again, and refused to revert his changes. I had to ask for help at the Administrators noticeboard.

Stress can get to me, and I probably respond to certain people when I shouldn't. Still, I don't like defamation at all, which seems to get me every time.

Addendum: I also greatly dislike editors who whitewash their past, for example by removing criticism from their Talk page. A user's Talk page is not strictly theirs, and should contain hints of a user's history -- Ec5618 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

To be honest, I can't imagine using any of these templates. While I wouldn't mind being alerted to vandalism, and would be willing to block an editor eventually, I imagine I'll always use a personalised message, detailing, perhaps, some obvious missteps. I will block a person for 3RR, as I find it to be a fair and elegant system. Any editor must be aware that ve is toeing a line when he reverts too often. In my book, any editor that reverts an article more than three times, especially when consensus is against ver, should be banned. The editor can cool down, and realise that the world can survive without this crucial edit.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

If I were aware of the reversions as they happened, I would warn the editor, referring to 3RR. But if an editor specifically reverts 'as often as possible', I will block that person, even if strictly speaking no violation occurred.

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

In my experience, there are a lot of nonnotable people in this world. Nevertheless, I don't think there's any need for me to delete articles about such people, personally. I will delete a specific redirect I accidentally created a while ago when I mistyped.

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

When I first came to Wikipedia other editors could not discern my personal beliefs regarding creationism. I prided myself on NPOV, in everything. More recently, my personal feelings became more clear, when I became disgusted with what I still perceive to be blatant lies told by 'creation science' proponents and intelligent design proponents. Surprisingly, I have found that it is possible to maintain NPOV when others know your stance.

No editor that turns away from Wikipedia because ve feels ver voice is unheard, will help spread good word of mouth about Wikipedia. NPOV is the only way in which we can make sure the reputation of Wikipedia grows.

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

Its size. There are thousands of articles, categories, templates and users. To mentally build a clear picture of Wikipedia is impossible. Have you seen the list of lists related to the presidents of the U.S.?

Maintaining uniformity in templates, in wording, or in spelling is impossible.

9. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)? Hermione1980 00:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of reasons for another Admin to revert my changes. I suppose it would depend on the issue. With admin powers comes the possibility that I might inadvertently break something. If I edit a template, even with consensus on the Talk page, it is possible that an unforeseen consequence must be rectified by another editor.

I don't imagine blocking people often, nor deleting content personally. I may consider (semi-)protecting articles and templates (though for one I can think of no instance in the past in which I had wanted to do so, and for another I oppose overprotection), but I would not object to another editor removing such protection. I imagine that an Admin who removes valid blocks is not doing verself a favour.

I mainly plan to continue editing in the same way I do now, and on occasion editing protected pages directly, instead of through proxy. If an editor were to revert such an edit, I would be extremely careful about reverting (it may be necessary when the original reversion breaks something related), and would Talk to the editor in question. -- Ec5618 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Final (42/22/6) - withdrawn by candidate 17:47 4 February 2006, original ending date 08:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk · contribs) – A great editor (cliché I know...), with a great percentage of edits on actual articles, rather than on user & talk like mine. R.D.H. always has a good vibe & personality about him & will probably make a great admin. He's always ready to help & is extremely sensible (at least more than I am...). Please vote for him.... Spawn Man 03:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

(DAMMIT I'VE BEEN DRAFTED!;) I hesitantly, reluctantly and adverbaly accept.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC) The candid candidate withdraws--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I nominated him didn't I? Spawn Man 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support clearly an experienced and able user. KI 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, happy to give a loud "yes!" for one of the best members of the Military history project ever. - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 05:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Drafted? I just hope thst you do not become inactive for a very long time.--Jusjih 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Infectiously enthusiastic about Wikipedia, knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects and a great contributor. Leithp 08:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Friendly, good-humoured and hard working! Demonstrates a great deal of knowledge on WikiPolicy not by debating them over endlessly (as some of us are prone to do), but by actually putting them into practice. Would no doubt excel as an admin, especially in tough stuff like mediating NPOV disputes where his WP:COOL is needed. - The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support - no problems here. Latinus 09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, diligent and dedicated. —Kirill Lokshin 09:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - No problems here. A very dedicated user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Support fine editor and will be a great admin.Gator (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Contributions are just fine.--MONGO 17:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Support  Grue  20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
15. support per Ghirla. Clearly deserves to join The Police. William M. Connolley 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC).
16. Support. A good editor and will be a good admin. Rhion 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Suppoer, I'm liking the answers, and I'm very impressed with quality of contributions.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Support Hell yea. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
19. Support (he is not an admin yet? type).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Not informed, thus grrrr late support SoLando (Talk) 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

    Support, with one slight reservation. Keep your sense of humor in check, okay? The comments Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) provided did give me pause, though I understood them to be in good spirit. Keep in mind that others may not take it the same way. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Moved to oppose. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

21. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, will be a great help in dealing with problem editors in a nice way. Kusma (討論) 04:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
23. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Merovingian {T C E} 06:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Need I add a cliché here.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. I've seen this user's edits/efforts in the past and he has the credentials to be a good admin. --Madchester 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Helpful, knowledgable, and pleasant to work with. --Robth^Talk 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support--Ugur Basak 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

    Support (see oppose section for why). The diffs Ghirla provides are clearly out of context; in context, they're not something that I'd say but are clearly meant humorously. And, frankly, having User:Ghirlandajo getting upset with one over nothing is not necessarily a stain on one's character these days. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

    Mark, please keep your temper in check and avoid personal attacks. --Ghirla | talk 18:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    Fiddlesticks. I've seen you get mad inappropriately, and I won't be using it as a reason to oppose anyone. As it happens, though, I've found my own reasons ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

30. Support. good efforts, just watch the jokes. Pschemp | Talk 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong support - quick, let's crucify another poor SOB for having a sense of humour. Yeesh. Awesome editor. Proto t c 13:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Absolutely, nothing but positive interactions/opinions of the Ghost. Karmafist 13:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

    Support per Proto. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

    Changing to neutral per questions raised. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

33. Support: --Bhadani 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Welcome aboard, Mr. Ghost. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Noting the apology to Chirla, I offer the support I wanted to offer from the beginning. Marskell 08:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Support, Pro Ghost,Amico carissimo suffargium Filippus dat --Philx 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Thought he already was one; I was going to nominate him, but thought he already was an admin. WikiFanatic 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Support We need aggressive administrators User:Mjal 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    Note: User has a total of 42 edits. Geogre 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

39. Support good editor, fellow military history buff --rogerd 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Support alx-pl D 11:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. BD2412 T 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong support. the wub "?!" 15:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Strong oppose, of course. My experience of communication with this guy was so disgusting that I cannot rightly tell if he was sober at that time. During our first encounter, he referred to Russians in general and me in particular as Vodka Pissers and Russki Sons-A-Bitches. Another comment from a would-be admin aimed at an editor who he had never conversed with before: "The Vodka must make him paranoid too". Perhaps the user finds abuse of ethnic slurs funny, but I don't. Really, I don't want an admin who would call me names taken from the List of ethnic slurs. Although I edit controversial topics for a long time, I don't recall worse examples of boorishness. Talk about problem admins then... --Ghirla | talk 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (Striking my vote upon receiving good-natured apologies from the candidate)

Thank you, Sir --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record this comment relates to this particularly venomous RFA and this RFC, if anyone wants to know the background. Leithp 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. IIRC the incident happened after the RFA and before Halibutt brought his ridiculous crusade to the RFC, where it died an ignominious death. What particularly strikes me is that the candidate's comments came out of nowhere, as I had had no prior experience with him before that point. --Ghirla | talk 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For further clarification, Here was my response--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I am not seeing the "good vibe" evinced above. Avriette 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. To see this person described as "...always ready to help & is extremely sensible" just defies belief. This editor would find in completely impossible to act within the patterns of required and accepted behaviour of an admin. I have been involved with this editor twice. the first time in a dispute over a failed RFA when his erratic and insulting comments had to be removed, and a second time with in the last month over an objection at FAC, when attempting to prove his point he dragged up again the RFA. If he has one scrap of decency he will withdraw his name now, in order to prevent the whole sorry business being dragged up again, because the third party in all this is trying, successfully, to put it behind him and get on with editing which he does so well. I see, with amazement, he has been asked to mediate in a dispute. I have reached an uneasy truce with another editor - is in spite of this candidate's unhelpful stirring from the sidelines. No doubt people will want "diffs" to substantiate this, so I hope he withdraws but sadly in my dealings with this candidate I have often seriously wondered if he is unwell. Giano | talk 08:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, if you feel so strongly that this issue is important enough to oppose his RFA, perhaps you should post some diffs. To be honest, im not sure i understand why you havent in the first place. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   HERE is my response.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Perhaps Giano will take issue with me doing so, but I dug up some of the edits I think he's talking about. They do seem to show someone with a nasty temperment, not averse to making PAs. [37] [38] [39] [40] —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Are you referring to Giano or myself? Because that statement could apply equally well to either. The main diff is, I have attempted to apologize and make amens.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Another rather significant difference, an interesting one to overlook, is that Giano is not requesting adminship; you are. I'd like to see two to three months of good behavior. You have perhaps one month, with apologies made during the course of this RfA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not requesting adminship, I was drafted. Also I find THIS rather interesting. Apparently I'm not the only one here in need of a "Time out" for good behaviour.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Oh don't be so dramatic you are not being drafted anywhere, there are no glorious heros in Adminland, and how pompous of you to use such a term. You have merely allowed yourself to be nominated to be an admin (remember no big deal) because you wanted to attend a "Vandal Thrwacking party at SoL's place" [41] which rather bears out Geogre's observations listed below. Regarding your latest link I've told Bunch of Grapes my views on his talk page - any one interested can find their own way there. Giano | talk 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not the drama-llama here, Giano. You are now trying to make the casual banter between two friends somehow sound like an insidious conspiracy. ONCE AGAIN, I offer you the olive branch .--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   I wouldn't mind being subsumed into a little cabal/conspiracy, but they seem to be awfully elusive ;-) Now Giano, Ghost, just come on. Reconcile your differences. We're all trying to build an encyclopaedia here, lets not have conflict hinder that. It doesn't matter if you support Ghost's RFA,, Giano, but I'd like to see the conflict between you two consigned to (edit) history. Wikipedia doesn't need animosity. Shake hands? SoLando (Talk) 19:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   (Looks over at SoL, sees SoL nod, Squits at Giano) BANZAI! (Extends hand;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Geogre 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC) My first encounter was a disappointment. It was on WP:FAC, and the user had made a comment indicating that there were good people to make suggestions and bad people to make suggestions. When I went to urge him to be more mature about things, I saw that there was a Wiki-friends and Not-friends set up. All of that is as may be, but what struck me instantly from that, and what has been borne out since, is that the editor has been looking for chums at least as much as looking for encyclopedic content, and we have enough instances right now of judgment blinded by friendship and in-group actions. I have not seen evidence yet where he has stood up to support his least favorite people or where he has embraced valid objections from people he dislikes or who aren't in a circle of buddies. This is, indeed, a bad vibe for admin-ship, although the user is a fine article writer and editor.

   THIS is the FA discussion to which you are referring Geogre. But that, at least in Wiki terms, is archeology. Here is my more recent response.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose per my above diffs and comments. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   You may also want to check THIS OUT.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   For a person so interested in armies, you do have an unfortunate knack of shooting yourself through the foot. The link you mention above was in fact prompted by the conversation here. [42] Giano | talk 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Well my foot may be hurting, but my poor old eyes tell me, it looks like you are actively campaigning against me by trying to manipulate Ghirlandajo to reject my apology and change his vote to oppose again. And making some progress too.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Oh for heaven's sake this whole charade is just a bunch of kids mucking about. [43] Call a a halt to it now. Giano | talk 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose - I have seen quite a lot of incivility and aggressiveness from R.D.H., a good example being the insertion of the image just above. Worldtraveller 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   So I take it you don't find the comments to which that image is a response to be at all incivil or aggressive? Please explain? By the way, perhaps it is because you are too busy travelling the world, but I don't recall us ever directly interacting before now.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   How may I ask is the above image aggressive? It's a wikipedia supported image which basically says not to feed arguments. People can't have arguments if one party isn't talking. What are they going to do? Fight with themselves like gollum? To me it shows that he's responsible & doesn't want to engage in uncivil behaviour that the editors above have been creating. Personally, if he gave the picture to me, I would have been annoyed because I like arguing until something is resolved. Other than that, I don't see what your oppose is for?.... Spawn Man 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   The image is named "DoNotFeedTroll.jpg"; it's clear, cute shorthand for "do not feed the troll". See Wikipedia:What is a troll if there's any question about the "troll" label having negative connotations. It's uncivil and strongly bordering on a personal attack. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   You would say that as you are currently opposed to this RfA. If I was opposed I would also shoot down anyone in my position. Further, it is my opinion about the image. I feel that the above editors have been very abusive & aggressive. If that doesn't sound like a troll, or at least an ogre or fairy tale creature, then I don't know what is!

   Just think of poor R.D.H., seeing his family of goats (others who have left Wikipedia from horrid RfAs) being eaten by trolls (people like Ghirlandajo & Giano) as they tried to cross the big bridge (the crossing to adminship). Now it's R.D.H.'s turn to cross the big bridge. He gets all kind of emotional abuse from the trolls. I have no idea why I just made this ordeal into a bed time story, but it made me feel calmer at least..... Sayounara.... Spawn Man 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   So I guess "How may I ask is the above image aggressive?" was a rhetorical question. Sorry for upsetting you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   The question I asked WorldTraveller above is open to you also.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   The question was "So I take it you don't find the comments to which that image is a response to be at all incivil or aggressive? Please explain?" I'll respond with a question: Do you believe there is a loophole in WP:CIVIL that states you need be civil only to those you believe are being civil to you first? Because you seem to be tacitly admitting that the image is tantamount to calling Giano a troll, and I'm not sure how you can stretch logic to claim that isn't incivil; instead, you are falling back on the schoolyard defense "but he started it." Responding to incivility with your own is called escalation, and it's a bad thing. As an admin, you'll draw more such fire, not less, and you need to demonstrate an ability to calmly deal with it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Point taken, I've removed the image.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   And referring to the nominator and candidate as "kids" and this process as a "charade" are not borderline personal attacks...they ARE personal attacks. Or at the very least, trolling.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Kids? People can look at these links below and form their own opinions

   [44]

   [45]

   [46] Giano | talk 09:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Very well, I removed the image. Do you strike the comments which inspired its invocation?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose Too often sets a poor example. Motivations obscure. I don't expect to be wheedled or harried into changing my vote. --Wetman 04:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Comments in this RfA and in diffs do not make me confident that R.D.H. has the temperment to be an admin.--Sean Black (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose. His harrassment of Geogre and this image do not inspire confidence. My support above was in the nature of "what could it hurt?", and I think we've been given a glimpse of what it could. I'm none too impressed by User:Giano's behaviour here, either, but then, Giano isn't up for RfA. RDH is. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Too much hostility, as seen above, poor judgment regarding "troll" labelling. Responds poorly to criticism, from what I've seen on this page alone. Too little involvement in the project namespace, only 211 edits to "Wikipedia:" pages and almost all are candidacy-related, almost zero experience with deletion process. Averages 4.34 edits per page, which suggests too much focus on specific topics, which is generally not an admirable trait for an admin. Does a lot of reverting with nondescriptive summaries, which is okay for vandalism issues, but this revert demands better explanation. Possibility of using admin abilities in an edit war seems too open. Also often reverts OrphanBot's removal of unsourced images. Might reconsider in a few months. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:04, Feb. 3, 2006
10. Oppose per my discussion with Ghost at the end of the Questions section (at present at the foot of the page) and also the concerns raised by Freakofnurture. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
11. Oppose. I'm unfamiliar with RDH but the matters opined on this nomination and his reactions to that make me uncomfortable about supporting him. >Radiant< 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Candidate's response to opposition has been significantly less than civil. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. The candidate's response to comments in this RFA has convinced me that they are not ready for administrative tasks, which often involve dealing with strongly-phrased criticism (accurate or not). Nandesuka 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Concerned about his responses on this RfA. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose many civility concerns raised by this RfA. Cannot in good conscience support.--Alhutch 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, conduct on this RFA is sufficient. Demi ^T/_C 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per conduct on this RfA and incivility in several of the diffs brought up. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Administrators are often called upon to resolve conflicts and make decisions about matters over which there is disagreement. Doing this successfully requires (1) some skill, and (2) a suitable temperament, if I may use that word: one has to be patient, well-mannered, and disinclined to taking things personally or calling the other fellow(s) names. I have taken some time to review RDH's contributions. Those to military topics, the related WikiProject, and the histories of wars are impressive: it made me glad to see his industry and ability in this regard. However, I am unable to support this request for adminship, mainly because of concerns related to the above. I view this point especially seriously as RDH writes that he in fact intends to actively involve himself in dispute resolution, quite apart from the many conflicts that will undoubtedly come his way were he a sysop ("I will take an active role in trying to moderate and mediate disputes before they become full blown edit/flame wars and Rfc fodder..."). Lastly, I find Freak of Nuture's comments on policy experience to be quite pertinent (although I do not share the opinion that RDH's focus on a smaller number of topics necessarily detracts from his candidacy). Best wishes to all. Regards ENCEPHALON 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) NB. Some diffs: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].
19. Oppose per temperament issues already described by others. FreplySpang (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Geogre and Encephalon. User has inconsistent history with respect to civility. Xoloz 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose, this is a classic example of someone who is a great editor, but also totally unsuitable for adminship for all the reasons addressed above. Martin 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Concerns about incivility. Carbonite | Talk 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Ghirla's opposition gives me some pause, as does the response you gave in question 4 in the following section. I suppose I'm a bit worried that your self description as "a lazy, mildly dyslexic AADD afflicted bastard, with a Scots/Irish temper, courtesy of my ancestors which has been deep fried by a Southern climate and upbringing". While I appreciate editors that have a sense of humour, I am trepidatious at this point about fully supporting your nomination. Which is hard for me because I am fully appreciative of your editing, in the larger part by far! I suppose, at this point I need some more convincing. I will watch this page for other comment, but if I remain unconvinced, I will retain this neutral stance. Hamster Sandwich 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Reading the oppose comments, above, I am not so sure... --M@thwiz2020 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral not sure yet how I will vote. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral for the time being, but more inclined to oppose, after spotting a recent sickening talk about "Ghirla's distortions" on the candidate's talk page. What particularly bothers me is the nominator's trollish personal attacks. After I contributed more than 400 full-fledged articles to this Wikipeida, I do not like being called a troll by someone who has more than 16 times less main-space edits than myself. I confess that I live far from the Yankee world, have never been abroad, and my command of the language is limited. But this is not a reason to call me a troll, especially as I find enough energy to make my new articles appear on Wikipedia's Main Page almost daily (even at this very minute). I believe that Giano, one of the finest contributors to this project, responsible for half a dozen featured articles too, doesn't deserve to be subjected to such attacks as well. I have a long experience of fighting archtrolls but even my patience has its limits. Consequently, I'm going to request the community to comment on offensive trolling that has plagued this page. --Ghirla | talk 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral per questions raised regarding civility and preferential treatment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral, what KillerChihuahua said --kingboyk 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. Will be happy to support based on contributions, but I will be waiting on answers section to be completed. Hamster Sandwich 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 60% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• See R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)'s edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. It goes without saying fight vandalism, so I won't say it. Vandal whacking aside, "Be liberal in what you accept, Be conservative in what you do" shall be my guiding creed as an admin. I will take an active role in trying to moderate and mediate disputes before they become full blown edit/flame wars and Rfc fodder (Discussion pages can be wonderful things if they are used right). As I become more familar with admin duties and chores and more comfortable using, but not abusing, admin powers I will help out in other ways as well. Philosophically, I'm a mixed breed between an Eventualist and a Darwikinist.

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

A. There are so many... where to start?:) Obviously, there is the FA with Leithp on General Sir Richard O'Connor ( KT, GCB, GBE, DSO, MC ;). La Grande Armée, which is fast becoming a pet of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Of my non-military contibs, I'd have to say Tsul 'Kalu, because it combined my interests in mythology, cryptozoology, geography and etymology. In my research I was surprised to find how many places had been named for the beasty. So it was not only a fun article to do, but I learned something. Nufy8 and I turned Team Fortress Classic into a better, more presentable article. Maybe not FA quality yet, but a lot closer than it was when we found it (someone on its talkpage even went so far as to recommend "Nuclear Cleansing":). As my nominator mentioned, I've also contributed in non-article related ways. For instance, recently I came up with the idea of Task Forces for the military history project. It has proven popular, but time will tell if it is up to the task.

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

A. Of course I have:) I was here a scant few days before I found myself in a conflict over Steam (content delivery). Mr. Jennings and I did not resolve our differences fully, but we agreed to disagree and continued to edit the article more or less peaceably. Amazing what a little Good Faith can accomplish. I showed some to a new Wikipedian, Philx, when he posted an interesting but problematic section on the Roman legion article. The result not only resolved the conflict but led to a friendship and collaboration which gave rise to two fine articles where none had existed before. This was one of my best moments. Not quite so pleasant, but an example of how I try to handle disputes is A discussion between Piotrus and I on the subject of Molobo. He came to me for advice, which I'm always glad to offer but especially when it is a friend whose work I greatly admire, then asked me to try and mediate a dispute between him and Wiglaf (another friend for whom I have the highest regard), which I was also glad to do. The things which cause me most Wiki-stress tend to be outside the realm of articles and projects...such as Fac's, Rfc's and, of course RFa's :> When this happens, a combination of beer and computer games usually soothes the mood.

4. Why do you think people should vote for you? (Question by Spawn Man).

A. I don't:> I see myself, and everyone here, as editors/contributors first. The primary job of the admin cabal is to facilitate this and never lose sight of the project's ultimate goal. Thus I see adminship as a duty and responsibility, not a reward or perk (it is with good reason the mop is its symbol;). In all honesty, I'm a lazy, mildly dyslexic AADD afflicted bastard, with a Scots/Irish temper, courtesy of my ancestors which has been deep fried by a Southern climate and upbringing Y'all. My virtues and vices about even out. My dad used to call me "Kid Electricity", because I followed the path of least resistance. Being an admin would be one more duty I'd feel compelled to perform. By voting for me, you will make my life a bit more difficult and complex. But who said life was easy or simple:> I dispise dishonesty and injustice. When something catches my fancy, or ire, I can be very passionate about it. This project is one of those things. If anything I've stated above, or ever, here catches your fancy, then by all means do vote for me. If you find just reason to oppose, then no hard feelings. Any way the wind blows, I want to be part of this project and community for the long haul. If my becoming an admin can help make them better, then it is a burden I will accept. At the end of the day we are all flawed meatbots trying to build a great encylopedia together.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 14:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

5. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A.That would depend on the situation as determined by common sense and judgement. If someone is an obvious newcomer, who has just discovered "Oh wow! I can EDIT this! Coolz!" Then a test1 is in order, along with perhaps a welcome message. A repeat minor offender (provided they've not been warned already) would earn a test4. A serial minor vandal (who has already been warned) or single major one would get themselves a free bv, the duration of which would depend on the nature of the offense.

6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A.Once again, the circumstances of the case would determine my reaction. Assuming they are not reverting vandalism (In which case I might leave them a "Good job! Thanks!" note), I would warn them first. 3RR is too often used as a weapon and justification for blocks and bans. In edit wars, one side will often try and see if they can get the opposition to break 3RR first, then go crying to an admin. I don't play that game. Policies are tools, not weapons.

7. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A.If it contains blatant, biased, unencyclopedic or malicious slander. Again, Judgement and common sense will have to determine this. But trivia, delusional rantings and self promotions, such as this Kenji Siratori, found by User:Anville a few weeks ago, are mostly harmless Foma. As a Darwikian, I believe they will become extinct eventually, unless they evolve into a more worthy form. The way VfD has been operating of late, this will be sooner rather than later.

8. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A.I try to actively AVOID controversial topics. Besides, such things usually get far more attention than they truly deserve. My interest are in the more obscure, strange and less covered realms. But failing this, I would try and present all major sides of the issue along with what sources, links and arguements I can find to back them up, and leave it to the reader to decide which view is best. If the other editors cannot reach a consensus and an edit war ensues, I would lock the article and actively engage them on the discussion page to see if some compromise can be crafted. If none can be reached, but tempers cool and the sides agree to disagree, then I will unlock the article and the battle of ideas can resume.

9. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A.When my dear friends get frustrated, jaded and leave the project. This does'nt frustrate me so much as it discourages. Sadly, my list of frustrations has grown a lot longer than it was only a few months ago (Ignorance, if not bliss is at least Novacane), it now includes: Vandals and Deletionists, who find it easier to destroy rather than build. Obstructionists, who like to argue for arguement's sake rather than to make valid point. Nationalist-POV pushers. Those who use policy and bots as weapons to enforce their own personal/editorial agendas. The over zealousness of the image Copyright-Vio Militia. Or ANYTHING which drives away productive, talented, valuable and helpful editors/contributors. For the last couple months, it seems, in the wake of the Seigenthaler controversy, the climate here has gotten far more contentious if not poisionous. It is not only me, ranting and bemoaning this state of affairs...several of my friends have noticed it too. We see the symptoms all around us, but until the causes are identified and delt with we can only try to treat the symptoms and HOPE things get better. Much of it, I believe, is an inevitable result of the community's increased notariety and growth. But unless changes can be made to cope with this, the dedicated, talented Wikipedians of good faith will continue to drift away with those who remain attempting to reclaim the 'Pedia, and steer it back on course.

Extra question (10): Is it all right to vote Oppose on this RfA? I know you say under question 4 that it is — "If you find just reason to oppose, then no hard feelings" — but it honestly doesn't look like it from your responses so far. Or have the Oppose voters all given UNjust reasons? You've been arguing with them a LOT, following them to their talkpages to insist that their criticisms are misguided, or bad faith, or that they've done worse themselves. Geogre, objecting to cronyism, comes in for a detailed "you too!", and Giano, referring back to your input on an October RFA, ges told at length about his own (perceived) faults. Bunchofgrapes, a little strangely, also gets told about things in general that you dislike about Giano (who is not currently applying for adminship).

Please note that it IS considered proper, and the best kind of vote, to give a reason for one's Support or Oppose; you're not supposed to give chase when people do that. Ghirlandajo accepted your apology, which is great, I'm glad to see it; but it does look like you're trying to argue the other three Opposers into the ground, on this page and even more on their talkpages. You even push your very apology for past conflict to Giano rather aggressively (as in "Ghirlandajo accepted, I don't see why you can't")! I mean, it's surely up to him, not you, to accept your apology as sincere or not. Other people than him might find the timing of it rather cynical. IMO you're very aggressive on Geogre's page, too. Is such belligerent polemic and hot pursuit what I have to expect, too, if I should oppose you? I don't think these are proper RfA manners. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Of course anyone here may vote however they see fit. I'm surprised you have not yet done so, since you obviously feel so strongly about my nomination [53] What I'm mainly objecting to is the active campaign Giano has undertaken against this Rfa. It is not proper manners to refer to this Rfa as a "farce", a "charade" or "kids mucking around" either. There are over 40 users here on all sides of the matter who clearly disagree. In the case of Ghirlandajo, a number of comments were made expressing concern. I decided to address them, by being BOLD (or "Aggressive" if you prefer;) and try to make amens with him. I was wrong for what I wrote, regardless of my reasons, and he, as the gentleman and scholar he is at the end of the day, graciously accepted. This encouraged me, and I thought maybe reaching out to Giano and you in a similar fashion might, if not produce similar results, at least alleviate the ill will that has built up between us. My motives and timing I clearly stated to Giano [54]. I truly wish to start with a clear, if not entirely clean, slate. This means no serious enemies or animosities. He soundly rejected my offer and initiated his talkpage offensive against me. I have responded. Perhaps wrongly so, but I've kept my responses civil if, at times, a bit irreverent. A little healthy cynicism is all well and good, but when it leads us to always expect the worst from others, to doubt their benefits rather than give them the benefit of the doubt, to assume guilt until proven innocent, then we end up only bringing out the worst in ourselves. With this in mind, my offer of apologies and peace still stands and extends to you, Bishonen. Do you accept?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have a problem with my voicing my concerns here before deciding whether to vote; I meant it as a mark of consideration. Sure, I'll accept your peace offer, and I hope we'll both be able to either interact civilly or avoid one another from now on. I feel I have to oppose, though, according to my conviction. I think you're a valuable contributor, but not suited for the admin role. For one thing, I simply don't agree with your tolerant description of your own demeanor on this RFA /your recent talkpage interactions as "civil if, at times, a bit irreverent". I'll take your word for it that your offer wasn't in any case about influencing my vote. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

I have no qualms at all with you voicing your concerns here. I'm sorry I failed to address them to your satisfaction. But I respect your convictions. Thank you for accepting my offer and for your confidence in me as a contributor. As I've said (perhaps too many times) if we cannot be friends, at least let us not be enemies. Along these lines, may I also convey to you congradulations on your Featured Article today.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Matt Yeager

Final (37/16/5) ending 22:21 February 5, 2006 (UTC)

Matt Yeager (talk · contribs) – I joined Wikipedia back in May after using it anonymously for a couple weeks. Since then, I've created a bunch of articles, along with a whole slew of redirects, as well as fixed countless grammar issues, bad links, and spacing problems. I've got over 2700 edits (Kate's tool), not counting edits on my own userpage. I'd like to become an administrator so that I could more easily stop vandalism, mostly. There are certain anonymous vandals who often are given seemingly free rein over high-profile, featured articles, and I'd like to be able to stop them. I don't mean simple test "vandalism", or inserting the word "poop" into a couple articles; I'm talking about repeatedly inserting an 800px picture of a penis into Columbine High School massacre. I've been in my fair share of disagreements on Wikipedia, winning some and losing some, but I've learned a lot from all of them, and I believe that I could handle administrator responsibilities without losing my head. Thanks for your time. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh, alright, if you insist... accept. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - has my full confidence. Latinus 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
2. In my one encounter, Matt showed a very great level of maturity. I expect him to fulfill this role very well. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I see this editor around, good work --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
4. With only 79 edits to User talk space, I'm somewhat concerned about your low use of test templates to warn vandals. This issue, however, can be easily left as a suggestion for the future rather than a reason not to give you the tools now, in the light of all the good things you've done in your time here and your obvious Wiki-enthusiasm. Happy to support. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Lack of warning vandals is a problem, but can be easily fixed. Good luck. — Moe ε 00:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support with the minor concerns of Phaedriel and SWD316 in mind. Our encounter on Running up the score a while back was entirely pleasant. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per Phaedriel. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. I like what I see. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Ugur Basak 01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
10. strong Support though let me point out, there is no point in accepting a self-nomination. freestylefrappe 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Though I'd like to see more warnings for vandals on User Talk pages, my very positive experiences with this user outweighs those shortcomings. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Very good wikipedian; should be a very good admin. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. --TantalumTelluride 05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support I see no problem.--Jusjih 08:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Need more admins. - Haukur 17:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Support this guy makes sense!  Grue  20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
19. ok looks good. Derex 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - a good and competent user -- Francs2000 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Support edits seem fine.--MONGO 03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Merovingian {T C E} 06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Supppppport.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Support clean up wikipedia! good luck, you'll do well. User: Ncrown23334
25. Support - Everyone has occasional lapses in judgment or understanding. I don't know that he'll be perfect, but I trust that he'll evolve with his duties. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 05:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support - Fear is ruining our society, lets not let it ruin Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 05:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. A user's belief on what Wikipedia policy should be does not necessarily infer he would be unable or unwilling to abide by it and assist in the enforcing of it. That's a fundamental lack of good faith, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Adminship is not a big deal. User is smart, polite and helpful. I saw no breach of civility on the Talk:e (mathematical constant)#Important_numbers, just an editorial dispute which came nowhere near to breachin any standard of etiquette or policies. To use a editorial dispute to oppose the user being granted an administrative position is misjudged, and unfair. Proto t c 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support good editor --rogerd 05:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per below. Discussion on e was a tad silly, but nonetheless thought-provoking. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:46, Feb. 2, 2006
30. Strong support! as per this discussion. --M@thwiz2020 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. See why here, feel free to ask me for a more detailed reason. Would still like to see more talk page edits per other comments (e.g. warning vandals). Petros471 17:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Support All in 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong Support, good editor. Extra points for having experience of conflict and showing maturity in dealing with it. I'm always dubious of supporting users who have spent all their wikitime peacefully contributing away in some uneventful corner (the way I had myself at my candidature, sad to say). And extra points for the selfnom of course! Bishonen | talk 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC).
35. Support I see no problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
36. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Adds colour and flavour to the encyclopedia and I'm a fan of self-noms as well. Leithp 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, quotes such as "it is not policy until it is voted on" imply a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia consensus. Radiant_>|< 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, his treatment of WP:ENC has been disappointing to say the least, showing an absolute insistence on holding outright votes to work out whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or not. In what manner would he close an AfD. Also, for a self-nom, the nomination is uncompelling, amounting to "I want to block the anons"; you can vandal fight without being an admin. -Splash^talk 16:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. While I am in favor of everything else the user has said, this seems to be Yet Another User "running" on the grounds of fighting vandalism. The other activities mentioned do not require administrative rights. Please see WP:ANOT. Avriette 01:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Per Talk:e (mathematical constant)#Important_numbers. —Ruud 06:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Splash, and -- more pressingly in this case -- per Ruud. If one doesn't have an understanding of what transcendental numbers are, one should probably have the good judgment to defer to others' judgments of e, or at least to phrase comments as tentative questions, rather than complaints. Strikingly poor judgment in that case and lack of humility, the two qualities I hold essential in an admin. Xoloz 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Splash. Also, probably should have deferred on the dispute over e.--Alhutch 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Reluctantly oppose, after reading the discussion on e. Jonathunder 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Too little time has elapsed since the lapse of judgement in the discussion of the importance of "e". Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose I was about to vote in support, but after reading about e, I decided to change my vote. I do not see the truth in Matt's statement above, I've been in my fair share of disagreements on Wikipedia, winning some and losing some, but I've learned a lot from all of them, and I believe that I could handle administrator responsibilities without losing my head. From what I see in the e argument, he has not learned a lot and he cannot handle responsibilities without losing his head. Other than that, he is a good candidate. --M@thwiz2020 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (changed to support)

9. Oppose per Splash and Radiant.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Practice WP:COOL for a couple months and you should be a "shew-win", as they say. ;) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Participation in debate on e was sufficiently silly to make me uncomfortable with adminship at the present time. Martinp 19:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I'm all for a low bar for admins, but you really do need to show the slightest modicum of a clue of how the place works first. Ambi 09:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Per Splash and Ruud. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. weak Oppose. I feel uncomfortable both with the discussion about "e", and with the discussion of Talk:Phoenix, see also the behavior at history of "phoenix". (Nothing wrong with regular users behaving like that, but not admins). Austrian 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Per Splash, Radiant, and Ruud. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per above, especially Splash and Ruud. Turnstep 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not swayed either way particularly, good luck though. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Needs more user talk edits. But still does good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Doesn't understand consensus or mathematics. I would suggest that someone claiming that e is not an important number in math/physics take a few math/physics courses before deciding to revert war on the article in question. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-1 03:23
4. Neutral Agreem needs more talk edits. Pschemp | Talk 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral I too am not swayed either way particularly. --kingboyk 06:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• It would appear that this discussion should have ended a few hours ago. Since I'm neutral I don't suppose it matters too much, but I've struck it out anyway. --kingboyk 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, it's not over until the fat beauracrat closes, I think the time is just a minimum. Leithp 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Matt Yeager's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Mostly just simple rollbacks of vandalism and bans of malicious vandals. I might get involved in helping clear up stub-category deletion, as that's always clogged up. Helping with requested moves and protecting requested pages also would be things I'd be interested in doing.

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

A. Well, there's User:Matt_Yeager#Selected_contributions for the full list... but the ones I'm most proud of are running up the score, Washington State University, Issues in American football (more about that below), Tri-Cities, Washington, Microsoft Hearts, Diamond Rio, and the Rose Bowl Game.

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

A. Whew... let's see... e (number), Template:Exploding organisms, American football, and my current one, cohabitation. Ha, just TRY and find a common thread! Anyway, those are the biggies. On e, I objected to an unsourced sentence calling "e" one of the most important numbers in math. After a lengthy discussion (lasting over a week, as far as memory serves), a source was finally provided, and I dropped my objections. On Template:Exploding organisms, I wanted to put "human" on the list, with a link to spontaneous combustion... after a discussion, User:Lifeisunfair (now an admin) convinced me that I was wrong. On American football, an edit war (are steroids a big problem in football? How big of a problem is injury?) between two other editors was distabilizing the page. I moved the disputed section to a daughter article and facilitated the discussion. Talk:Issues in American football has most of the gory details. Currently, I'm in a very friendly disagreement with User:Aecis over cohabitation as it relates to the sourcing of articles. (Well, it's friendly now... =P)

I'd also like to add that I don't believe that I've ever crossed the line into personal attacks, nor have I ever violated 3RR (or the spirit thereof), except when reverting pure vandalism. If you think that my disagreements with fellow editors is reason enough to oppose me... I can respect that. If you have any other questions, fire away.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A. I wouldn't ever use {{test4}} unless I truly meant it (next violation means a ban). Otherwise, I'd use {{bv}}. I don't know if {{test3}} would be something that I'd use any more than just plain {{test}} or {{test2}}.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. I'd let it go the first time—you can't have admins blocking people without any real justification. I'd warn the user, too. If he danced around 3RR a second time, I'd post a very specific warning on his page. 3 strikes, he's out.

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. When I have even the slightest doubts about the article's unremarkable-ness, it would go to AFD.

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. I'd seek input from other people. Otherwise, it's very, very difficult to achieve NPOV.

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. The overapplication of WP:IAR; the fact that the closing admin of a VfD, RfA, FA, etc. discussion gets to decide what "consensus" is; the fact that most admins and other entrenched users seem to have a very low level of interest in improving the encyclopedia (try out Special:Random sometime and see how pathetic half of our articles are); the fact that certain rogue users often decide to insert ridiculous u's into perfectly fine words like "color" and "flavor" (kidding!); and the fact that admins are so slow at times to ban truly malicious vandals. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Benon

Final (19/20/17) ended 01:56 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Benon (talk · contribs) – self nomination, i have been on wikipedia for about 2 months as a registerd editor (and sevral months as various anons, i didnt use my username because i had forgotten id even made it!) and in that time have become a massive wiki - addict, i mainly vandal whack, as an ex-anon who vandalised (note this was over a year ago) i feel i know exactly what kind of behaviour is vandalism and what is a new editors test.

I am happy to answer any follow-up questions you have, post them here or on my talk page and i will respond when asap

please note i am dyslexic so my spelling isnt 100% spot-on, just thought id mention that. extra note:- i thank my oppose voters so far for providing constructive critisim, it is much appriciated :)

follow up note, there is some supected sock-puppetry going on here, probably by the same person whos doing this [55]

Candidate, self-nomination: Benon 01:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Don't see why not. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Not to rag on RexNL, but he was made an admin even though almost all of his activity was within 1 month, so I don't see why benon couldn't be one then. I know this RfA probably won't pass (sorry benon), but I will vote support to fill in this space.:p Give him a few months and he'll be a shoe-in --Shanel 03:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   Wants to know what shoe in means :s Benon 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   Alright alright I mean "shoo-in" :P--Shanel 04:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Support - A bit short-tenured, but great vandal fighter who never fails to warn our new/anonymous friends. Reasonable contributions in the Project space as well. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support We need admins of all kinds. John Reid 06:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools, 1 month is enough experiance and everything can be learned by being an admin anyways. --Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 07:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   just a note this username has been very active for 2 months ;-) Benon 07:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Dispite the short time under his username, great vandal fighter and a nice person. Support. — FireFox • T • 09:40, 29 January 2006
7. Support - extremely unlikely to abuse admin tools. Latinus 13:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, I don't think a vandal would edit at the pace of 1500 per month and waste all that time during that month to abuse his admin powers. Croat Canuck 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, especially for "Responses to questions", "Your talk page", "Mistakes/Errors in judgment" on my RfA criteria. Also for good use of warning templates on vandal pages, and passes the ultimate questions- will this user do harm as an admin? No. Will this user do good as an admin? Looks like it :) If this RfA fails please continue the good work and try again in a couple of months or so. Petros471 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Super-duper support: This user is a committed vandal fighter. Some point out that s/he may need more experience. However, he has proven to be trustworthy and has frequently had to ask admins to ban people. We might as well facilitate the process and give him a mop. Where (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Support An excellent vandal fighter! Don't let losing this RfA (which I hope doesn't happen) put you down - you can do it! --M@thwiz2020 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak support Benon does a good job of RC patrolling but some times Benon's conduct can be a bit immature--Adam1213 Talk + 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    :-O :-O :-O ... no comments :) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

13. Support -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, likely to do more good than harm. Deserves a chance. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 08:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, User has demonstrated good faith in time here. If the user can be trusted in 4 months time, the user can be trusted now. Adminship is no big deal. Hiding talk 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support see rational.--Edivorce 14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support All in 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Support I believe benon will become a valued administrator, helping to mop the places others don't like. --Alf ^melmac 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Support This user has been on both sides both as a vandal and as a dedicated user he will be a asset in restoring pages and blocking punks. [[User:Mjal 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]

Oppose

1. Oppose for now, good user but too little time, all activity in the last few weeks also, try again in a few months and your a shoo-in :) --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose I sorry, but 1,600 edits is not enough, besides 1,200 were in this month alone. His lack of inactivity is a problem. A good contributor other than that. Will support if you reapply in 3-4 months. — Moe ε 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   I think you mean "lack of activity" ;)--Shanel 04:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   Darn your right, lack of inactivity, lol. Sorry, I did mean activity. — Moe ε 04:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   i count almost 1800 [56]Benon 08:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   When I made my vote you had only 1600 ;-) — Moe ε 15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Not enough experience as of yet. The vandal fighting and high usage of edit summaries is commendable, but I'd really like to see an absolute minimum of 3 months of solid experience before adminship. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   just a note this username has been very active for 2 months ;-)

4. Oppose. I think more time should pass before such a position is considered. --Buchanan-Hermit 08:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above needs more time. --pgk^(talk) 09:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - too soon, too soon. Staffelde 13:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose – too new, I'm afraid. You appear to be a good candidate, so I'll happily consider you in another 4 months at least.--cj | talk 15:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - I want to see if you can keep up your high edit count starting with February. You had a total of 10 edits before December. So, see you in a month or two. Kusonaga 16:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, started serious editing on 11th December and that's just not long enough to have seen things that happen and how to handle them and to have demonstrated thoroughly how you will handle the wide range of things that will come your way as an admin. Try again later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 January 2006
10. Per all above, too soon. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Sorry, two months of activity is not enough time. Do stick around though, you seem to be a good user. P.S. I admire your edit summary usage :-).--Alhutch 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose If you are serious about this, maybe you should have spell checked your nomination. Fthepostingquota 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    note to closing bureacrat, this user has under 100 edits at the time of checking and may be a suspected sock puppet--Benon 13:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

12. Nothing personal, but I do oppose nominations of editors this new, as some things are only learned and seen over time. Suggest trying again in a few months. Jonathunder 22:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Waay too new, and I though my 4 months before RfA was pushing it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose. sry, just don't think it's time— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.163.52 (talk • contribs)

    sorry anonos dont get a vote on rfas

14. Oppose: ten months too few. Avriette 01:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. for now, if user shows regular activity and participation on current account, then he'll be a shoo-in for his next RFA. --Madchester 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Nay more experience needed User:Ncrown23334

    note to bueracrat this user has 15 edits, a good size on the rfa and may be a sockpupprt

17. Oppose. not been around long enoughPschemp | Talk 04:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

    'Oppose.: 2 months doesn't seem like enough time for me, maybe come back and try again in 4 months whilst still being an active part of wiki.--User:AndyPandy1337

    note to buercrat this user has no contribution and may be a sock puppet

18. Weak oppose, as there is no way that you can learn about all the policies in Wikipedia in such a small sort of time, but most importantly, I try to look for important contributions to the article namespace. Most of your edits are vandalism reversion, which is ok, but I'd really like to see some more content. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    Note to closing Bureaucrat: this user has about 11,000 edits and is not a sockpuppet. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    hahaha titoxd i knowyour not a sockpuppet :p

19. Oppose. Too soon. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose Your vandal fighting is great work but you seem to make mistakes, so I wouldn't want to equip you with a rollback button just yet. Maybe in a few months I can get a clearer picture of your editing. Ashibaka tock 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Benon, you know I love ya, but I think it's really too soon for you. You're great with reverting vandalism, but that's all I've seen you do these past couple weeks. RFR would be perfect for you, but I don't feel Adminship is right for you, just yet. --lightdarkness 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Benon has been editing heavily for a while, but I don't think you're ready yet. Keep up the good work, and in a few months, please try again. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral You've been registered for a bit, but have really just started editing regularly. Be sure to look in to and work on the Project areas, as well as articles. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Looks otherwise OK but has been really active for too little time. JIP | Talk 08:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. It will be better if you contribute more for longer time.--Jusjih 10:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Not sure yet. --King of All the Franks 12:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral - sorry mate but I think another month or so would do you the world of good. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. While I feel that "number of months" is just another form of editcountitis, the painful truth is that Wikipedia has A LOT of policies, and to even get acquainted with half of them, you need more than a month and a half. I wish this user the best of luck and hope they will come back in late March if they keep up this level of commitment. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

   P.S.- Great job on the number of user talk edits! :o)

9. Neutral. You have shown yourself to be a dedicated vandal fighter. However, being an admin is more than just fighting vandals. I suggest you read up on what admins do (such as at the Administrators' reading list and maybe check out some of the conversation at WP:AN and WP:ANI. --Deathphoenix 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

   i have been on lurking on he AN but i don use the Ani much because im on irc where i can get an admin to del with the problem faster

10. Neutral. I don't plan to oppose this user, but I feel that he needs to take more care over what can and cannot be speedy deleted before given the chance to play with the delete buttons himself (e.g. Wmsc). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    thanks for the advice, i alredy had shanel slap my wirst for that and send me off to read the deletion policy pages before tagging enaything else.Benon 13:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

11. Neutral. Benon, love ya, man, but I can't support you. I personally would be willing to do it after another month. Mo0[talk] 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral until more experienced, and use correct spelling/grammer, please —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 23:26Z
13. Neutral. Has handled this RfA well, despite some obvious sockpuppetry. (changed vote from: Oppose. Only 23 edits before December 19th. Active for less than a month and a half. More time please, looks good for the future.) NoSeptember ^talk 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Neutral, its really too soon. Really needs more experience. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Too soon. Patience, my young padawan. I do admire your willingness to admit you were once a vandal, though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Neutral maybe next time and I agree with Quadell about admitting that you were once a vandal. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Neutral definitely on the right track so far - another month or two and you can count on some enthusiastic support from this corner. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 94% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 124 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• See information about Benon's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. My main activity would be rc patrol, it can be really frustrating to be vandal whacking and having bout a vandal up to a {{test4}} warning to the have to wait for an admin on irc to block them whilst they continue to vandalise.

I also like to be someone who helps new editors feel welcome, a simple ten second {{welcome}} placed on the talk page, and praise of good eits makes a new editor hopefully feel like there welcome at wikipedia.

Also ensuring that articles tagged with a speedy tag are delt with well sppedily, sometimes ive found articles tagged a long time ago because admins simply havent got around to deleting yet.

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

A. I am particuly proud of welcoming new editors,

i am also proud of the mediation i did here (which sadly had to go onto arbitration, after the parties went back to attacking eachother) [57]

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

A.I dont lose my cool even when provoked by pepole personally attacking me, in fact i even have a cool as a cucumber award. i think this link helps to show it again [58]

aribtration here [59]

If someone really tries to provoke me i dont rise to it, ill go and do some editing (on a diffrent subject) have a cup of tea etc then respond to ensure im not going to make a retailory remark, because thats just lowering yourself to there level.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A.Test 3 and 4 are only apropriate after either a {{bv}} or {{test2}} has been issued to someone, i will use the test template series when it a new editors testing, like blanking a section, add hi mum etc and a bv when a page is replaced with offesie pictures profanity sneaky vandalism or if its linkspam the {{spam}} series.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A.Assuming were talking outdie the exceptions in he policy, then i would start up a disccusion with the user via there talk page whilst watching them, if they continue to do it i would probably be inclined to block them becaus as i understnd the policy it's the spririt of the rule that matters the most, but of course i wold only do this if a disccusion about there behaviour proved fruitless, because after all they may not even be aware there doingsomethng wrong!

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A.When the article is obviously un-notable like my my freinnd bernie then that is an obivous case for immedate speedy deletion. For an article that maybe notable i would use a search engine like google to see if the person was notable anywhere else if not speedy. If im still unure Id porbably ask another admin thorugh irc etc (i alredy do this) and if not sure opt for afd insted because it takes community conseus into account rather than your own personal view. Also [60] provides a list of usfel guidelines.

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A.I try to think if i where pushing this pov id wirte it like this and if i was pushing that pov id write it like this and then write content that balanced both arguments.

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A.One of my greatest frustrations are persitant vandals, who are difficult to stop becase there on aol or a dynamic ip etc.

9. Referring to your comment about you being a former vandal- thinking back to your time as a vandal, what made you do it, what motivated you? Now, why do you contribute productively? Why did you change? --Petros471 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A.Wow thats thinking quite far back, i guess i thought it was funny adding hudge amounts of swear words being inserted as a "test" or blanking a page . However i think what turned it round for me is when i started using wikipedia as a source, the site had all the info i needed without advertisments, and i thought why am i trying to destroy something that's really usfel to me and (probably) millons of other pepole and i could return the favour by adding content id found because it wasnt here so it was there for the next person.

10. Related to the above, do you feel you have made any other mistakes at all while editing Wikipedia (apart from the above). If so how have you handled them? Also what would you do if a user disagreed with something you do as an admin? --Petros471 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A.Of course ive made mistakes whilst editing, im sure every editor has because were not machines! However im happy to admit when im wrong and take the advice of other, and appricate it like here [61][62]

if im unsure the best thing is to ask another wiser editor, something i do reguarly over irc.

As an admin if someone diagreed with what i did then the first thing is to find out why and list to there side of the argument, if there's a genuine reason and ive made a mistke ill fix it, if im unsure ill ask another admin(s) for a review of my actions. After all Wikipedia is a constant learning experince.

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

---

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

Mb1000

Final (10/16/10) bureeaucrat removal 05:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
original ending 01:52 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mb1000 (talk · contribs) – I, Mb1000, hereby nominate myself to become a Wikipedia administrator. Despite being relatively new to Wikipedia, (I've been a registered user since Feb. 1st, 2005) I've really tried to contribute as much as I can. I have over 2000 edits, but you're welcome to check my edit count here. When starting new articles and stubs, I try to make them as high-quality as possible, although, as is often the case, the articles greatly improve over time. I have spoken time-and-again against vandalism and for neutral articles, and I have tried to edit out as much biased material as I could find.

As I believe in transparancy and honesty, I will here admit that during my first few months of using Wikipedia I was a little over-zealous with regards to adding images and such, and so I ran into a few of Possible Copyright Violation problems. I have since become much more careful about the images I add, so I hope that these past problems won't be held against me. I have gotten into one edit war (watch how it unfolded here), and now I regret it and wish it would have never happened. It was a childish display of the damned male ego. Again, I hope that this won't be held against me.

I truly want to be an administrator so that I can contribute even more to Wikipedia, so please support my nomination. Thank-you. (soMb1000 01:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh yes, I do accept my own nomination. Mb1000 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak support, I don't see much problems with this user. JIP | Talk 08:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak support, I see no major problem.--Jusjih 10:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Unlikely to beat people over the head with the mop. --King of All the Franks 12:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - not likely to harm Wikipedia (ie abuse admin privileges). Latinus 13:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - Not a problem with this user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - User has made ammends and is showing good contributions to the project. Johntex\^talk 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support--Edivorce 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support All in 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support He's been around for a long time [[User:Mjal 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]
10. Support Good edits all the oposses seem unwarranted - Mike Beckham 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose, User could do with an increase in the talk namespace, and the past issues are somewhat troubling. Also, article edits could be a tad more productive. Seems like a good chap, however, and am currently debating over a switch to support. -Zero^Talk 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   Switched to Strong oppose as you've really gotten out of hand with this. Spamming people for votes and this nonsense regarding Jimbo's talkpage is very poor judgement indeed.-Zero^Talk 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose less than 100 wikipedia edits over that long of a time is a knockout for me sorry --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   Strongest possible oppose per [63] --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per above. May I suggest you remove this nomination and reapply in a few months? I will possibly support a future nomination. — Moe ε 03:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Too little general experience. Staffelde 13:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - is spamming neutral voters with requests to reconsider our votes and change to support. Attempting to subvert consensus like this shows, in my opinion, very poor judgment. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose: suggest trying again in a few more months. Jonathunder 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. asking people to change their votes without reason seems pretty uncivilized. -lethe ^talk 21:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose: Needs more experience, editcount is low. Fthepostingquota 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per ESkog. I really don't like RfA vote campaigns. Also, I'd have to agree with the Wikipedia namespace issue also. Mo0[talk] 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose until more experienced per above comments —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 23:30Z
11. Oppose more experience. i'd probly vote yes in a few monthes. Ncrown23334
12. Oppose on grounds of proactive vandal-fighting. Avriette 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

    Why would you oppose someone who improves the Wikipedia experience through the removal of vandalism? Help me out here. Silensor 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

    Plenty of people improve the project throught the removal of vandalism. Being an admistrator doesn't just involve the tapping of the rollback button. There needs to be more insentive when bestowing the admin capabilities on a user. -Zero^Talk 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose. I was told campaigning for adminship is poor form, after I initially enquired about it. --  Denelson83  21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose. Instead of self-camapiging for the RFA nom ([64],[65],[66],[67], etc.), the user should participate in more RFAs, AFDs, vandalism patrol, and talk pages instead. I'd like to see him contribute more to the Wikipedian community besides minor spelling and spacing edits. Also needs to show better understanding of WP policies (i.e., poor Request for Protection and image tagging) --Madchester 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose, is begging for votes on Jimbo's talk page. >Radiant< 02:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Per above. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Mb1000 has few edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Perhaps you could become more active in RfAs and AfDs. Will probably support in a few months. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Porquoi? We got to get some more edits, people! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral - edit count looks fine, a bit weak in Project space. Doesn't seem to really do a lot of vandal fighting yet - there's a lot you can do in that regard without admin powers (see the counter-vandalism unit for some suggestions). I am concerned about the judgment displayed during the edit war, but one bad encounter shouldn't spoil your reputation forever. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose.

3. Neutral as per User_talk:Zscout370#User:Mb1000. While I worked with Mb1000 on an article, the Canadian Hearladric Authority, which became an FA, this behavior that was pointed out to me, and also with the comments here. Sorry. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Definitely shows promise, but I'm not too big on self-noms, and I think this should get withdrawn till the user has some more experience in the namespace. Kusonaga 11:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Keep on doing the good work for a couple more of months, then try again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Needs to diversify edits into talk, user talk, and Wikipedia namespaces. However, I love to see a user who sees the possibility of losing their job as a positive so that they can contribute more to Wikipedia. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral Granted, when I was RfA'd earlier this month, I had about the same number of total edits (2000), Wikipedia namespace edits (90), and editing time (since Feb 2005) as you have now. However, I feel that, what I lacked in these areas, I made up for in my ability to resolve disputes, communicate with other users, and learn quickly (e.g., within a day, I was participating in AfD very well). I feel that, with just two months more, if you work at these attributes, you can succeed in another RfA. (If you decide to self-nom, though, make that three - self-nomming should be more infrequent than regular noms.) Good luck on future RfA attempts! --M@thwiz2020 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral same as above commentPschemp | Talk 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. You would probably make a good admin, but I can't tell yet. Try again in a few months. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral, as I usually vote with self-noms. Usually if an experienced user thinks that you're good enough, then you are. If you had waited a little longer then you may well have been nominated, and would probably have been more successful; two unsuccessful RfAs already should have hinted at this. I have a feeling you would make a good admin, though. Persevere; seek and ye shall find... haz (user talk) 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• See information about Mb1000's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
• Mb1000's previous RfA's: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mb1000_2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mb1000

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Well, I'm particularly passionate about combating vandalism. So I'd be engaged in combating that. I will admit, I'm a busy guy, so I can't do as much as I'd like. But who knows maybe I'll lose my job. :)

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

A. Well, I'm especially proud of my work on the articles Canadian Heraldic Authority and Women in heraldry, both of which I started. I've worked a lot on other articles such as Good Night, and Good Luck., Time (magazine), and Everybody Loves Raymond. I've added many images to Wikipedia, and I do the weekly cover update on the TIME magazine page.

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

A. Yes, unfortunatly, as mentioned above, I did get into a nasty edit war with a particular user (User:Madchester). I acted like a kid, and it was stupid. I'm resolved not to fall into the 'ego trap' again. I will try to avoid another edit war at all costs.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A. For Test 1: W hen an edit has added irrelevant links to a page, for example, or vandalised a page in some way for the first or second time. 'Test 2 would be for a third offense. After that, if the vandalism continues, the user must be blocked. Test 3 I would use if the user seems inexperianced and his/her edits appear to be mistakes rather than downright vandalism, and yet it seems the user doesn't take Wikipedia seriously.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A. Well, if he is reverting back vandalism, I ban him for a while. If it's a legitimate edit I'd give a stern warning. If the behavior continues, I'd block for 24 hours.

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A. When an article is clear nonsense it should be deleted as fast as possible!

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A. If I see carefully worded statements that take a position on the matter, I would tag the article as NPOV.

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A. I love Wikipedia! It the best thing since uniformly sliced bread! I'd like to see more people using it! And less vandalism. That I really hate. But that's not Wikipedia's fault!

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

---

---

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any other user.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. The expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications. Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before nominating themselves.

Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. Vote sections and boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions}}. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat nominees not promoted.

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

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

 

Related requests

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

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