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 08:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 08:37, 14 October 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. It is approved for one trial run, which will take place in October 2024.

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

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AirshipJungleman29	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	27 Sep 2024	34	21	4	62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

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Monitors

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

Current nominations for adminship

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 three to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.

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

Current time is 08:37, 14 October 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.

Silence

Final (95/0/1) ended 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Silence (talk · contribs) – I met Silence in November 2005 at Talk:Victor Hugo. Neither of us was particularly interested in editing the article ourselves, but the process of helping a couple of enthusiastic newcomers was an enlightening experience for both of us. I found that Silence was a very helpful user who worked well with others on talk pages and responded well to criticism. His attitude is exactly what I look for in an administrator. He has an amusing sense of humor, but he doesn't let jokes get in the way of building and maintaining an encyclopedia. He is bold, he is resilient, and he is dedicated to the project. He can occasionally be found contributing to the deletion process, and he has done extensive work on repetitive maintainance tasks, such as categorization. There should be no problems with his level of experience, even for those with the highest standards for adminship. He has been around since July 2005 and has accumulated over 9600 edits, including one in the elusive portal talk namespace. [1] He has contributed to featured-article discussions, article improvement drives, collaborations of the week and countless other community projects. I'm confident that he can be trusted to use the sysop tools wisely. And even though he doesn't like country music, it is my honor to nominate him for adminship. --TantalumTelluride 03:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks. -Silence 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. ---TantalumTelluride 03:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. DarthVader 13:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, even though he disagrees with my awesome proposal =). Impressive maturity on the Sam Spade RFC, and valuable contributions. Gotta fix that country music thing though. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support ForestH2
5. Support --Terence Ong 14:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support Genuinely shocking cliche moment for me -- if I'd realized, I would have offered to nominate! Xoloz 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. An experienced editor who knows the project well. Zaxem 14:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support — Brendenhull (T + C) at 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support -Jflash 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
10. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Glad you waited until I was back from wiki-break. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support--digital_me^(t/c) 15:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Very patient user who explains his decisions in detail. Not trigger happy at all. As a mediator in the Sam Spade RfC he showed how effective he could be as a voice of reason and a calming force. We need more like Silence. David D. (Talk) 15:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, happily - just my kind of candidate! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, per nomination. --Mhking 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Rfa cliché #1 and, judging by the names currently on the list, this won't be my only cliché support today. RadioKirk talk to me 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support offering my non-cliched support as I haven't run across Silence before, but on reviewing the contribution list, this is an obvious "yes". Gwernol 17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Yep, no problems there. MaxSem 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Tons of good edits and civil talking. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Very impressed by Silence's handling of the dipute at Talk:Vestigial structure. Good user.--SomeStranger (T | C) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support A very experienced user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per the many positives of this candidacy. The one negative for me is a potentially insufficient community interaction, reflected in the kinda low level of User talk edits. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    My experience is that he interacts with the community of the article talk pages. I believe this is actually preferable. David D. (Talk) 20:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

22. Support. Per all above. I too have had good experiences with Silence. Go gett'em tiger. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, no problem here. --Tone 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Strong Support. I feel proud to even be permitted to sign my name on the support section to make Silence an admin. D. G. 22:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Experienced and interacts well with the community -- Samir धर्म 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong support A good man. Shocked, shocked am I that I failed to nominate the man myself. On the same subject, I like staplers. Snoutwood (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Has left a good impression on a few encounters, and is being supported by other people I trust. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Qualified and experienced. Kalani ^[talk] 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support: Already cleaning messes, needs a bucket to put them in. Geogre 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support: I don't think I ever expressed my appreciation to Silence for stepping up to help push Rosa Parks through FAC. Thanks. Looking back through this user's calm and knowledgeable posts to Talk:Rosa Parks, I have no concerns about his suitability for adminship. - BT 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Merovingian {T C @} 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Conscious 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
38. "Silent" support; no serious concerns after a thorough check. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Weak support—not because I have any issues; I just don't know much about Silence (pun maybe intended [edit conflict—I came up with it first =p]) and so don't have a compelling reason to emphatically support. Ardric47 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. User is active in the project space and, from all interactions that I've seen, civil. — TKD::Talk 07:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support – Gurch 11:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support -- user talk pages show level-headed discussion and a willingness to help out wherever necessary. The sounds of Silence are nice and civil. --Elkman 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support with bells on -- recently encountered User's calm and effective methods. Skittle 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Wanted to leave this vote totally blank for the humour but that wouldn't work. Ah well! Sssshhhh.... (there I got my humour in) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support per the stapler pic — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support The King of Kings 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support RFA cliche 3 --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Oh, I can't believe I missed this nomination. I actually wanted to nominate Silence myself, but he seemed to think this nomination would fail and I'd have a chance... the man is modest. Anyway, Silence comes with my highest recommendation and I believe he will be invaluable to the continued development of Wikipedia. Most strong support. Andre (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support A great user! Mr. Turcotte^talk 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support - Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support - I like his style. Humour and integrity are necessary qualities in an admin. I think he has both. --Guinnog 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support per your good qualities. Thetruthbelow 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, enthusiastically. Good work, good personal style, good writing, good answers to questions below. Good good good! --Allen 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Kafziel 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. Are you kidding me? Just have a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles for an example of his great work. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Strong Support It'll be nice to have someone to knows policy and won't abuse it. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. This person will make a good administrator. Yamaguchi先生 00:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Cleared for Adminship --Pilot|guy ^{(roger that)} 00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Silent Support Werdna (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Saravask 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. A very friendly user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
63. SUPPORT!!!!! RN 06:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Looks fine to me.--MONGO 07:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Piling On Support seems to have every credential for moppery. MLA 08:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Joe I 08:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Yes. Misza13 ^{T C} 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Tony Sidaway 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Silence and I seldom see eye to eye but he has proven himself an innovative thinker. We need more people like this.
69. Support Excellent bed-side manner. Shell ^babelfish 16:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support Deserved. -- Szvest 17:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
71. Support I would like to nominate this user as administrator because this user demonstrates good behaviour, and edits good articles. '''*Daniel*''' 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Hate to pile on, but he certainly deserves my support per most above. Yes please. Rockpocket 07:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support Extremely good contributor. With around 10,000 + edits he deserves to be an admin.Jordy 11:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Support, worthy of adminship. DVD+ R/W 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Great and experienced editor; friendly and civil. --Zoz (t) 19:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support It'll sound strange, but the way Silence handled the lone oppose persuaded me to vote. You've got to like having someone as an admin who understands the importance of "little things." ~Kylu (u|t) 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Support. Outstanding and helpful contributions, very well-balanced editor, has both quality and quantity on their side. Nothing wrong here. Grandmasterka 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Support my observations of this is editor are positive.--cj | talk 06:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Adfirmo - I actually did think he was one already. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support From what I've seen, Silence is exactly the sort of person who should be an administrator. His contributions have been uniformly constructive in nature, he is always civil and helpful, and goes by Wikipedia policy. I have no worries about him ever abusing admin powers. Kasreyn 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Support Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC).
83. Support - with pleasure. -- Avenue 10:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
84. Support.  Grue  11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
85. Support. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
86. I thought I already voted Support. Roy A.A. 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
87. Support. SushiGeek 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
88. Support enthusiastically. Erudite editor, great guy. Herostratus 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. A truly qualified admin candidate. (Nice thesaurus work, Herostratus, by the way.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
90. Support. I don't know many people who put as much time into the project. Comic 06:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
91. Support per his opinion on pie. αγδεε (ε τ c) 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
92. Support —Scott5114↗ 07:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
93. Support Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
94. Support per the usual cliches. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
95. Support. *drew 08:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose E-mail not activated. Activate e-mail and I will decide again. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a bizarre reason to oppose someone, is it not? --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I think most people these days expect admins to have an active e-mail, and that's a pretty reasonable and simple expectation. -Silence 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's strange, I thought I'd activated my e-mail back in early March. I must have screwed up my preferences somewhere along the line. Thanks for pointing that out. -Silence 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the whole e-mail validation thing? Snoutwood (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very important that admins have their email activated in case a block needs to be contested. Werdna (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I authenticated my email on March 9, on request. I must have either forgotten to enable it somehow, or accidentally un-enabled it at some point. Either way, I'm glad it's working now. -Silence 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral until I learn what this comment means: [2]. Ardric47 19:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like that nefarious scoundrel User:TantalumTelluride is up to his old mischief again. Alack! He's fooled the lot of us. ;3 -Silence 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, Silence, they've discovered our sinister plot to take over the Wikimedia Foundation. We must resort to Plan B. --TantalumTelluride 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's really nothing to worry about. I was merely joking. --TantalumTelluride 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed to weak support (see above). Ardric47 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Knows Latin quite well but doesn't have any templates signifying ability to communicate an a non-native living language. :-|Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Silence.com.au 08:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what you mean. I don't have any such templates because I don't competently know any living languages other than English. It would be dishonest of me to have such a template, even if, as a sidenote, I can use dictionaries and online translators for very rudimentary and basic translations such as those I've used on the German, Spanish, French, etc. Wikipedias—mainly for InterWiki purposes. Although I've taken some classes on a few living languages, such as Spanish, Arabic and particularly Greek, I don't consider my own ability in those languages sufficient to meet the minimum requirements for a Babel-1 template: "basic ability - enough to understand written material or simple questions in this language". As such, I feel it would be misleadingly inflating my own foreign-language abilities to use more Babel templates. -Silence 09:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Silence's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Silence's edit count, retrieved from Interiot's javascript tool at 04:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC):

Username               Silence
Total edits            9603
Distinct pages edited  5037
Average edits/page     1.906
First edit             06:19, 12 July 2004
 
(main)          2773
Talk            1460
User            827
User talk       170
Image           13
Image talk      2
Template        1010
Template talk   149
Category        1266
Category talk   60
Wikipedia       1599
Wikipedia talk  273
Portal talk     1

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: Although I can't anticipate everything I'll end up doing—I tend to dabble in a variety of different things, as the need arises—I expect to primarily assist with organizational issues such as article, category, and disambiguation page-moves, along with reverting vandalism and helping out with backlogs. I've been an admin on a (humor-based) MediaWiki site very similar to this one since December 2004, so I have experience with some of the admin tools, and look forward to helping people out with whatever they need that I'm able to assist with.

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

A: Mostly, I suppose I'm pleased by pages which I've majorly reorganized in the hopes of improving accessibility and consistency, like the List of Latin phrases pages (before) and various articles I've copyedited. I've also found it very satisfying to contribute new information to Wikipedia on occasion, such as on Capitoline Triad (before). There's still lots of work to be done on all the pages I'm pleased with, though.

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

A: Yes, I've been in conflicts in the past, and editors have caused me stress. In my early days on Wikipedia, I think I was too willing to be goaded into arguments by insults. Since then, I've learned not to waste time on petty fighting; nowadays I mostly either avoid or try to cleanly resolve (such as with outside intervention) any disputes I come upon, and I'm not so concerned with trying to defend my reputation or honor or any silliness like that. Life's too short, and too full of candy. The most recent major conflict I've been involved with was the RfC on Sam Spade, where I tried to avoid vilifying any party and sought instead to mediate a peaceful resolution, though I think I largely failed in the latter. I hope to continue to improve my diplomacy and people-skills in the future, so as to make the process of collaborating on this odd little encyclopedia thingy a smoother and more productive ride. Good luck to me.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A: That's a somewhat vague question; obviously, if an admin does break an important rule, the punishment would depend on the nature and severity of the infraction. However, not all potentially valid administrator actions are explicitly listed in policy; this is because a written set of rules and guidelines cannot possibly account for every single specific instance that may arise. Significantly, something not being explicitly covered in policy is not necessarily the same as something going against policy, and it is often more important to consider the spirit than the letter of a policy. However, while written policy cannot realistically account for every possible situation where admin action may be necessary, administrators are nevertheless expected to be intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies and to use consensus, established procedures, and their personal judgment and common sense (such as it is) to best benefit the encyclopedia. Admins ultimately enforce policy; they do not make it—anymore than all of Wikipedia's users do, that is.

Yes. I give a great questions or answer query for quick response emanating through wonderful way. D. G. 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Do you like pie?

A: Nah... I like a cream-flavored or simple treat, but never pastries. "Delicious" circles generally are "eh", I've realized. They rarely go nicely into the gut.

1. How will becoming an admin reduce your effectiveness (in quality or/and quantity) at contributing to the main Wikipedia? Why? Or if you allege it won't, explain. What do you intend to do about it?

A: Though adminship carries with it many responsibilities and expectations ("with great power comes great responsibility"?), at its essence, adminship is simply providing users with more technical options. As such, adminship cannot, on its own, decrease anyone's effectiveness at contributing to the encyclopedia (I assume that's what you mean by "main Wikipedia"). It may cause many users to work more on meta-activities, but I don't see how such activities aren't (indirectly) important to contributing to Wikipedia: indeed, they are vital. For myself, I don't expect my adminship to lower my rate of contribution to the encyclopedia; indeed, it may increase it, as, by giving me more things I can help out with, it will contribute to my increasing Wikipedia-addiction and thus cause me to interact with articlespace more often than if I was wasting time on a "life". ;) You know me, DG. When has multitasking ever caused me to do less, overall? If anything, the opposite tends to be the case. However, I appreciate the questions. :) If anyone else has any queries, feel free to send them my way.

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

---

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

Samir (The Scope)

Final (114/2/2) ended 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Samir (The Scope) (talk · contribs) – This user meets criteria for the ideal Wikipedian: heavy on content, slick with maintenance, and immensely polite and civil. His involvement in two WikiProjects (initiating one) has been totally constructive. I think he should become administrator before he becomes a gastroenterologist. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination -- Samir धर्म 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, irrespective of whether he accepts or not, remove if he doesn't--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Utter nominator support. The Scope for admin. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support --WS 23:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Why, of course. Sensible, active, and polite. - Cribananda 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support - an unfailingly polite, helpful editor, committed to the steady development of Wikipedia, which exhibits patience and teamwork. Great asset. Rama's Arrow 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I am impressed with his responses to the questions. Yanksox 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per 2 page essay aka the question answers :) -Goldom (t) (Review) 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Cliché. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:28 UTC (2006-06-07)
9. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Nothing to suggest privilege abuse. Kalani ^[talk] 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support despite dearth of edits in Portal talk per Bucketsofg - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Excellent answers, excellent editorial career. Xoloz 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Holy crap, NSLE ... Supported. Werdna (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Very Strong Support Samir apart from being a magnificent contributor is a very helpful & reliable person. I'm sure he will be a great asset with the mop. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support It is time to give him the mop. A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support, great and friendly user. --Terence Ong 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Pace Minfo (neutral), I think his status as a Senators fan ought to earn him some sympathy votes, in view of how the series against the Sabres went. On a serious note, though, JFW succinctly enumerates the reasons for which the project would benefit from Samir's being an admin, and I concur heartily in his nom. Joe 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong support, great ed and a thoroughly nice bloke. Deizio talk 02:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support trust with tools, productive editor, seems very likely to make productve editor (although nom says "he should become administrator before he becomes a gastroenterologist" and I'd hate to think editorship would deprive the world of a needed gastroenterologist ;-} ) Pete.Hurd 03:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per all the reasons above. Nothing else to say that hasn't already been said. — Nathan ^(talk) 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support upon examination of edits and discussion entries.--Folksong 04:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. My interactions with him editing various medical articles have been good. He will make a fine admin. Nephron  T|C 04:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support All of my experiences with him in the medical world have been pleasant and his portal is especially cool. You can claim any of the medicine featured articles if you'd like! InvictaHOG 04:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Canucks over Sens Support - per Tawker. Oh well, the Sens are my 3rd team in line, (Canucks, Oilers, Sens) - but that has nothing to do with adminship does it :o -- Tawker 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
26. "Mighty Ducks über alles" support per Tawker. ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong support - great user, calm, sensible and friendly.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Kind, patient and talented - just the kind of admins we need. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 06:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support fully deserving. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - All my interactions with him have only increased my respect for him. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Supprot, He is being nice in Wikipedia, and good editor. Revert every vandals in Wikipedia. So, I nominate him as Admin. '''*Daniel*''' 00:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support. Of course yes. Amazing editor. Contributed in several subjects, including his special interest medicine. --Dwaipayan (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 07:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Pretty obvious Support. DarthVader 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support - per his comments.. -- Lost 07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support - A very good editor. Bharatveer 07:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per NSLE. --Nearly Headless Nick 08:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. He is experienced enough and ready to handle admin tasks. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support genuinely nice guy. Keep up the great work.--Eva ^db 09:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, sure. --Tone 09:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Doctor and Wikipedian! Cool! - Darwinek 09:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Great answers. — Ravikiran 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Excellent answers to the questions. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 10:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support A good editor with all qualities required become admin. - Holy Ganga ^talk 10:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - For his good work, in main and project namespaces. He will surely help! Afonso Silva 11:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Super happy mega fun lightning support --james_{(lets talk)} 12:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Passes the test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 13:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Good answer to question 3. Dr Zak 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support about time. Gwernol 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Pile-on! No reservations at all. Thatcher131 14:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support As a sysop, I was involved in the situation he described in Q.3. Before you draw out your daggers, gentlemen, let me hasten to tell you that I was the admin he contacted to look into the situation with the erring admin. I found the conduct of Samir to be unblemished through out that episode. I'd have liked to nominate him myself and write a long nom like the one below but I guess there is no need for that as Samir has answered the questions really well. --Gurubrahma 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Consciencious, and clearly to be trusted with the tools. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Cliche Support, would make a good admin. Roy A.A. 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. Excellent contributions, balance, and communication. ×Meegs 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support I have just decided to raise my standards for RfAs. However, you do meet my new ones. Steveo2
57. Support - Polite and helpful. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support, without reservations. Sango123 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support pretty sure this isn't a dupe :P --digital_me^(t/c) 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Geo.plrd 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Go Sens Go!! -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support -- Underneath-it-All 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Pepsidrinka 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Sure! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Merovingian {T C @} 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support excellent answers to the questions Eluchil404 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
69. He comes up with some of the oddest (and most educational) pictures of any editor I've yet encountered. Head and heart are in the right place. More candidates like this one please!^TM Support ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support This user would be a good representative/example of what a Wikipedian should be to other Wikipedians - he is polite and he contributes! I wish I could do as well. — CJewell (talk to me) 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support without question. Or, rather, with excellent answers to questions below and willingness to help out in backlogged areas. --Elkman 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support – Gurch 16:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
74. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support AvB ÷ talk 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support (I may support the Sens if they get rid of Krusty), good response to question 1, has shown familiarity with Wikipedia procedures. His willingness to be tarred and feathered in Toronto (and other underprivileged areas) as a Sens fan far outweighs his being a Sens fan. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support. Racing towards the century! But, I can not wait any more. --Bhadani 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Support per nom (why have a gastroenterologist when we can have an admin?) and based upon my review of his userpage and contribs. Agent 86 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Support would make a great admin —Mets501^talk 20:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support - Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 20:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Support The Scope for admin. Mr. Turcotte^talk 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Support Friendly, polite editor with fine contributions history.--MONGO 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
84. Support Great answer to question 3. And per nom, and per above. Will be a great admin. --Guinnog 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
85. Support nice and civil editor. Thetruthbelow 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
86. Support. As I'm No. 86, I feel able in saying "per above". SoLando (Talk) 23:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
87. Support. I just reverted vandalism on his userpage, so you know he's doing something right. ;) Kafziel 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
88. Support ForestH2
89. Support (almost WP:100!!!). great editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
90. Support Saravask 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
91. Support seems like a very good choice for editor --Deville (Talk) 04:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
92. Support, excellent balance of traits needed for an admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
93. Make it to WP:100 Support. I spy a good admin and look forward to a substantive editor. ImpuMozhi 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
94. Support Joe I 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
95. Support, he deserves a mop. MaxSem 12:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
96. Support excellent skills and piling on is fun! Shell ^babelfish 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
97. Support Deserved. -- Szvest 17:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
98. Support. Ticks all my boxes. Rockpocket 07:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
99. Support Fine contributor, both articles and images. No hesitation in supporting. WP:100 is that way --> --Cactus.man ✍ 10:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
100. His poetry is terrible. Kotepho 10:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
101. Support: as nominated. --Ragib 11:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
102. Support Extremely good contributor. With around 3,000 + edits, he does deserve to be an admin.Jordy 11:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
103. Support per nominator. My conversations with him have always been positive. +joturner 16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
104. Support Gladly. Master of Puppets ^{Giant Enemy Crab!} 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
105. Support; user always kind and helpful. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
106. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
107. Support worthy of advancing to adminship. DVD+ R/W 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
108. Thought-he-was Support A cliche that definetly applies here for me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
109. Support Tintin (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
110. Strong Support. Lots of experience, specific answers, significant contributions, and I find all the current oppose votes either silly or nonsensical. Grandmasterka 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
111. Support - appears to be level-headed, and is a good contributor from what I've seen. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
112. Support Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
113. Support no brainer support of a candidate with solid credentials and good references. jbolden1517^Talk 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
114. Support because s/he fails the ludicrous 1 FA test. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose no templates on his userpage sigifying ability to comunicate in a non-native language and cannot prove such an ability. :-(Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Samir (The Scope).com.au 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting reason for an oppose. People can oppose for any reason or no reason at all, but how important is this ability in the larger scheme of things given that this is wikipedia-en? ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why an admin has to be multilingual. Also, some users do not like to have userboxes/templates on their userpages, so I don't think your vote is providing fair rationale.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I avoided Oppose votes for this reason because of my ability to speak Pig Latin at a near-native level. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait Myrtone, aren't you Austrailian? I don't think it matters that he's not multilingual, you two speak near the same language anyways, just a differant accent. ;) The King of Kings 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever reason you opposed for, the issue has been taken care of. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A very strange reason to oppose. We've got plenty of Yanks who only speak English, and even that not very well! JFW | T@lk 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

According to his user page, he speaks English, French and Hindi! That sounds multilingual to me... smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The above oppose vote was removed by User:Myrtone86 himself with this edit. The edit summary was Now I realise that he does speak sveral languages but I had no way of knowing that, so I appologise, I am still not happy with robchurch's vote, the nazis are out of context. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Only one edit to image talk shows low participation in vital areas of the project. Also most of his last 5 edits are concentrated around double-balloon enteroscopy - there is no evidence he has contributed outside of this narrow field, for the last 10 minutes. The Land 18:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   I thought this oppose was a joke till I saw that you were an admin. Not contributed to anything outside of narrow field for the last 10 minutes?? Only 1 edit to image talk? Aren't so many of his DYK's enough proof that his articles add value to wikipedia? - Aksi_great (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   I am not sure I understand this oppose either. Normally, an article takes many more than 5 edits to come out as a good article and it sure doesnt get completed in 10 minutes. -- Lost 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, this one makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps it was a typo or something? —Mets501^talk 20:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   A bizarre vote. This voter's own edit history would disqualify himself from adminship. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   Now I see: the edit summary was oppose, inviolation of WP:POINT. Or rather, invoking the Boothy443 gambit. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test despite 11 months here. Looks like a specialist in a limited field. But admins need to be wholesome with good judgement of a clever vandal and a clumsy editor. Anwar 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral good Wikipedian, I just don't se why he needs adminship. Oh, and he's a Sens fan. Minfo 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   I think his comments below speak for themselves. JFW | T@lk 02:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   If you look at his reply to question number 1 on this page, you would realize the myriad uses he has for his administrative tools. Also, I don't see why the fact that "he's a Sens fan" should affect your judgement about him as a wikipedian, and whether he is trustworthy enough to become an admin.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   I think his comment ("he's a Sens fan") is in the same manner of jest that those who mentioned it in their supports did so. Pepsidrinka 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think those comments were there when I voted. If I had seen it I could support him, oh well. And the Sens Fan comment was meant in good humour, funny how these things don't carry over to internet. Minfo 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Per question 2, you are well on your way. :) - Mailer Diablo 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Samir (The Scope)'s _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Samir (The Scope)
Total edits 3419
Distinct pages edited 2179
Average edits/page 1.569
First edit 04:05, July 17, 2005
 
(main) 1297
Talk 130
User 165
User talk 823
Image 95
Image talk 1
Template 7
Template talk 10
Category 2
Wikipedia 779
Wikipedia talk 27
Portal 80
Portal talk 3

 G.He 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• See Samir (The Scope)'s edit summary usage with Mathbot'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: There are quite a few things I'd like to help with:

1. Closing AfD's: I've started with the straightforward keeps, but I think I have the critical ability to read through more controversial AfD's in an attempt to find consensus. It's something I enjoy doing also
2. Dealing with the backlogs on WP:SD: There can be huge backlogs, and I always find glaring candidates on RC patrol.
3. Protecting pages from edit disputes: Many disputes get heated, and I think part of the dispute intervention technique is a cool down period on articles. More in (2) below
4. Protecting pages from vandals: I frequently see RC patrollers getting targetted on their user and talk pages and, even though it's best to ignore, sometimes the attacks are very personal. I've put other user pages up for WP:RFPP before, but there's a backlog and I can see other users getting hurt by personal attacks. Would be great if I could just protect the pages myself.
5. Blocks: WP:AIV backlogs can get long also. I would be conservative with blocks, especially initially, but I think I can use them effectively.
6. Prod backlog: Another backlog I'd like to help with
7. Miscellaneous: When I look at WP:ANI there are many miscellaneous situations that administrator action would be useful for. I'd like to assist there as well.

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

A: I've contributed a number of articles to Wikipedia that I am pleased with. I think that, in addition to policy issues, an understanding of content appropriate for the encyclopedia is important for an administrator. I've focused on "meaty" edits, where I've tried to add substantial content.

I do gastroenterology, and many of my contributions are related to that field, as I am able to add specialty knowledge. I enjoyed editing ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease (Mailer Diablo, the goal is WP:FA soon!) because I added a heap of material while referencing all my additions. I find adequate referencing is something that is lacking especially for medical articles. Similarly, I am pleased with gastric lymphoma and Schatzki ring which are also well referenced and became DYK's. After soliciting help from others to assist in editing these articles, I thought there was sufficient interest to start a Wikipedia:WikiProject, and I started WikiProject Gastroenterology to develop a strategy for improvement of GI related articles. I'm quite pleased with the start this WikiProject has had.

I have a specialty archive of medical photos that I think would be difficult to find, and I'm always pleased when I can add a very interesting photograph or a schematic to bring value-added to an article: endoscopic foreign body retrieval, gastrointestinal stromal tumor and brain tumor are some examples.

I'm also pleased with many non-medical articles (Ardeth Wood and Max Keeping are just a couple of examples). I'm always pleased when I can make a referenced article on a notable person I may not know much about.

Finally, I'm pleased with my contributions to WP:AfD, as I like to think hard about and research around the articles up for deletion, and not just put a vote down. I've hunted and researched articles up for deletion that I know little about (like Barrie Zwicker) and used the information to build reasonable articles, if it was appropriate. Danny Cedrone was a stub that was about to be CSD'd, but I'm happy that I researched into it and built it up a little -- other editors have built it into a very good article now. I think that whenever you have deletion powers, you need to take the time to address articles critically before pushing the button.

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 usually come to Wikipedia to combat stress!! I do most of my heavy edits when I'm on call at night in order to take a break from other stressful situations.

I have been in a couple of conflicts that caused me a bit of stress. One situation that comes to mind was when I viewed another user was being criticized on WP:ANI. When the criticism turned into a personal attack, I felt it was unfair, and left a talk page message to an experienced sysop who had placed the personal attack. This was followed by a personal attack against me, and a little later to a block on another user who tried to help what was going on. So much stress! -- it was a night call and to boot, I had just run a code blue! I didn't know the sysop at the time, but when I looked through things, I saw that he seemed to be fairly reasonable and very experienced, and I think he was just having a bad day. Even though things were looking grossly unfair in my eyes, I thought it would be best to try hard to de-escalate the situation, and I think I did so, after a time period.

From this I also fully realized why an administrator should never use powers such as blocks, or page protection in disputes that they are personally involved with.

I think my real world job has offered me (too) many opportunities to learn dispute resolution strategies, that I can translate well onto Wikipedia. When I peruse WP:AN and WP:ANI, I see there are many opportunities to help out with dispute. It is paramount that an administrator remain neutral in dealing with these situations, and in facilitating discussion on talk pages and requests for comment (or even straw polls) on articles. If the situation becomes stressful for the administrator, it means that (1) other parties or admins should help out to ensure neutrality and (2) it may be time to take a break from that activity.

Thank you.
DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I think these situations need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I realize that it is impossible to draft policy to cover all nuances on Wikipedia that are disruptive to the process of building an encyclopedia, and situations will inevitably come up where administrators will have to make decisions on uncharted ground. It's part of WP:BOLD in my eyes. Oftentimes common sense will guide things best: as the simplest example, obvious deletions of articles that haven't been listed per WP:CSD should be deleted.

There is however a limit to this, and administrators have to be accountable for all actions -- including non-policy related actions. If a decision to perform an action outside of policy meets with consensus disapproval, I think the feedback obtained at an RfC is more important than sanctions: it will help with the administrator's actions in the future, and it will help build policy or set precedent on that particular issue in the future. Yet, if the consensus is clearly that an administrator's actions were egregious or in bad faith, then I do think sanctions are warranted. The reason for the sanctioning would not be solely because it was an out-of-policy action, but would rather be based on the specifics of why that particular action was wrong. Currently, the best venue for handling sanctions in this regard would be WP:ArbCom. Sanctions would include anything from blocks to de-sysoping, as would be appropriate for equivalent bad-faith "policy" decisions. -- 02:03, 8 June 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.

Fritz Saalfeld

Final (33/20/7) ended 18:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fritz Saalfeld (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to nominate Fritz Saalfeld for adminship. He is a dedicated Wikipedian for about one year and a half with almost 10000 edits, most of them in the mainspace. I deeply appreciate his work at WikiProject Albums of which he is an active member. He is the one who converted almost all of the album articles to conform to the mm:ss standard of adding album length (an outstanding job which involved several thousands articles). His excellent contributions helped the New Radicals article being promoted to the featured status. I find him very civil and helpful and I'm certain he would never abuse admin powers. Jogers (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: accepted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fritz Saalfeld (talk • contribs) .

Support

1. Support of course. Jogers (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - Damn it. I wanted to beat the nom support. Excellent user. Will certainly pass the "1FA rule". Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support? We don't need no stinkin' Support. Franz would make a calm, cool, and collected administrator. I definitely support this RfA. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support A civil and great user. Would also not abuse admin powers. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support The user shows a good knowledge of the area where he would do admin work and as far as I can tell, a lack of strong desire to be an admin is arguably a good thing, I'd rather have less power hungry admins. JoshuaZ 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per Siva and, more importantly, JoshuaZ, with whose observation that those who actively and frenetically pursue adminship are often ill-suited for the task (or, at the very least, not properly motivated) and want all the noblesse with none of the oblige. It is, to me, refreshing to find an individual for whom adminship is no big deal, and who, even as he wants to be an admin because he believes he can serve the project and the community in that fashion, wants primarily to be an editor. Many here are of the opinion that, where a candidate is unlikely often to use the mop, etc., he ought not to be supported. I imagine that this conception follows from the idea that, because desysopping is difficult, only those who will actively benefit the project with the mop, etc., ought to be approved; the risk of abuse, the argument goes, is such that the likelihood of positive admin actions must be great. Here, though, I see no reason to think either that Fritz would abuse the tools or that he would avolitionally misuse them, ignorant of policy. Where a user is civil, deliberative, and collaborative, he/she ought, IMHO, to be supported; even if Fritz only uses the mop, etc., a few times monthly, his use will benefit the project, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence to suggest that we ought to weigh the prospective minimal usage against the probability of Fritz's acting inappropriately, namely because that probability approaches zero. Joe 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. No problems here. --Tone 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Busy, civil, trustworthy. Pass the mop. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak support - still not 100% sure if you know what adminship entails but you don't seem to be one who would abuse the tools -- Tawker 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Support. NoPuzzleStranger 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Voted by 205.188.117.67. —Khoikhoi 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

10. Support per nom. FeedThePigeons 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom and JoshuaZ. Kusma (討論) 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Nothing to suggest they'd abuse the privileges. Should be an admin. Nephron  T|C 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. DarthVader 23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Experienced long-term editor. Zaxem 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong support. Great user --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. I see no big problems.--Jusjih 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Meets all of my RfA qualities, nothing pointing toward possible admin tool abuse. Kalani ^[talk] 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - meets my criteria abakharev 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per Joe. —Khoikhoi 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support anyone with this many edits should be an admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Gerg (talk • contribs) 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC).
21. Support Passes the test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support Containment Unit 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    205.188.117.67 vote, [3] --Rory096 16:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

22. Rfa cliché #1. Seriously. RadioKirk talk to me 16:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Support - Hahnchen 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support - Is a native speaker of "German" (I'm not sure which dialect) and can contribuite with an advanced level of English. :-)Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Fritz Saalfeld.com.au 11:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per answer to Drini's question. We need more admins who understand that receiving a mop does not make you a law unto yourself. Cynical 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support this user has his head on straight. May not use the tools often, but will use them productively. Opabinia regalis 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support - not a nutter, knows his stuff - the only two things that matter. Just because he wrote 'accepted' in lower case doesn't make him apathetic. Proto||type 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
29. I was surprised when I realised he wan't one, actually. Would make a tremendous admin - he's probably just being too modest. Flowerparty☀ 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. For me, lack of desperate desire for adminship is a big plus, as he is unlikely to let the tools go to his head. Has demonstrated commitment also. I would like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits, but its not a dealbreaker in this case. Rockpocket 07:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support per Joe. --HarryCane 16:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support will be good admin --rogerd 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose Obviously a good user, but I don't think there is a desire to be an admin or knowledge of what it entails. I feel awful, but I just don't think the user will benefit from admin status. Yanksox 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Point of Information. The following is gleaned from WP:ADMIN:

   "Wikipedia practice is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." (emphasis mine.)

   Are you opposing the user's nomination due to an absence of rabid ebullience on the user's part? Exactly what about said user's responses suggests ignorance of Wikipedia policy? --Folajimi 14:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   I am not suggesting ignorance of policy, I am suggesting that this would be a moot point and that if this RfA passed, the user wouldn't really do anything that was really an admin duty. The attitude towards this is pretty lackadasical, I've looked overalot of admin areas and there is serious backlog in alot of them. I think if you want to be an admin there was to be a serious effort on your part to give up "editing" and do the admin duties of maintance. I think it was Tawker that said from admin status, you no longer edit. I think this user wished to really keep editing and doesn't show any interest in the major maintaince aside from pictures. I'm sorry if it isn' cohernet, but this user really doesn't need admin status.[4] Yanksox 15:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   I don't follow. If there is a serious backlog in admin areas why wouldn't we want more trusted community members to become them? Even if the only thing that Fritz would do as an admin was removing some images and blocking one vandal a month, it would still be a help, right? Jogers (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   I concur. Wikipedia is growing really fast, and we need as many good admins as we can get. Even if Fritz doesn't do much with the tools, any work towards clearing the backlog is surely good. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   Ok, I'm just revoking my last statement since I was nervous because: A) I was taking care of my flooded basement and B) I knew I was going to have a telephone interview, and was somewhat of a rabble. My primary concern is just the lack of really wanting to be an admin, it seems that he could still be an excellent user without being an admin. It appears that he most likely won't use the tools necessary and keep going on...just with being an admin. I really feel that in order to be an admin, you really have to show that you would be willing to go above and beyond the call of duty. All, I am seeing in these responses is someone whom acknowledges that they would be a good user, but really isn't certain of what to do or if they would do it if they went up the next step. Keep in mind, this is a VERY WEAK oppose, and the reason I am leaning towards oppose is to infact that I don't think the tools will really be used and it doesn't appear to be a neccessity. Yanksox 18:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose not explained why tools are needed, edit summary use - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose For me the answers to the questions below give the impression the wrong sort of attitude in a potential administrator; and per Yanksox's comments above. --Wisden17 19:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Yanksox. We have 900 admins, and 20 do 50% of adminning; unless a user gives more thoughtfull responses to questions and demonstrates significant policy/legal knowledge and dedication, I'd rather not support.Voice-of-All^Talk 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per Yanksox. ForestH2
6. Weak Oppose" per Yanksox and the following - I think he could potentially be a good admin, but the lack of desire and general apathy towards the RfA is a bit of a flag. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose While he's done a lot of work here, I don't see any need for admin tools. There is oodles of standard cleanup-type work to be done that seems to interest this user. Also, the unsigned acceptance and mediocre edit summary usage indicate a lack of attention to detail, which can lead to messy problems with admin tools. Aguerriero (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above.--

digital_me^(t/c) 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Weak Oppose per norm. Minfo 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak Oppose per hoopydink. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Fails a few of my criteria. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:27 UTC (2006-06-07)
4. Oppose For a long-time editor, candidate has very few project-space edits. I'm concerned about familiarity with wiki-process, and the fact that editor failed to signed nomination acceptance doesn't help (tiny thing, but if a candidate can't take care to proof-read his/her RfA, I'm a bit off-put.) Xoloz 01:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose per Yanksox. Roy A.A. 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose per Yanksox. It doesn't seem like the editor is familiar with process enough. -- from The King of Kings 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Oppose per Voice of All. Thetruthbelow 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose Per the questions --Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per apathy (Q4) and Aguerriero --Zoz (t) 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Xoloz.—Perceval 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per answers to questions - particularly Q3, consensus is king and is only backed up by WP policies - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose as per Yanksox, Aguerriero, Xoloz and others above. Sorry. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Didn't sign acceptance, and has a rather low projectspace edit count, but otherwise seems like a good user. --Rory096 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Hmm, toolserver count indicates that the user isn't very active except for December, so I'm leaning towards a weak oppose. --Rory096 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   That would be 5500+ AWB-assisted format changes to the infobox on every album's article. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral - a spike of over 5'000 edits in December makes me a little unsure of how to vote here. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, project space edits are on the low side. --Terence Ong 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - a fine and diligent editor, but weak answers to questions lead me to withhold support, for now. --Guinnog 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Not sure how admin tools would help him contribute. Eluchil404 13:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Low WP-space edit ratio, imcomplete explanation of how the candidate would use the admin tools, edit summaries are on the fence for me and the user has an irregular edit distribution. However, the user does have amazing article space contributions that cannot be overlooked, and adminship wasn't supposed to be a big deal, remember? (Regarding his so-called "apathy".) Grandmasterka 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

User's last 5000 contributions.Voice-of-All^Talk 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Fritz Saalfeld (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 136 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 06, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 22, December, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 73.18% Minor edits: 79%
Average edits per day: 23.36 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 539 edits) : Major article edits: 89.83% Minor article edits: 84.82%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.06% (3)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.26% (213)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 65.42% (3271)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3774 | Average edits per page: 1.32 | Edits on top: 11.16%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 10.42% (521 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 73.92% (3696 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 7.08% (354 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 8.58% (429 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 78.76% (3938) | Article talk: 3.38% (169)
User: 0.2% (10) | User talk: 4.36% (218)
Wikipedia: 3.2% (160) | Wikipedia talk: 0.96% (48)
Image: 7.56% (378)
Template: 1.08% (54)
Category: 0.04% (2)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.42% (21)

• See Fritz Saalfeld's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Count with Tool2:

Username Fritz_Saalfeld
Total edits 10084
Distinct pages edited 7883
Average edits/page 1.279
First edit 10:50, January 18, 2005
 
(main) 8565
Talk 311
User 17
User talk 280
Image 487
Image talk 8
Template 72
Template talk 30
Category 13
Wikipedia 225
Wikipedia talk 76

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 have previously done some work finding images with missing/incorrect licensing information or sources, and that's something I'd like to expand when I become an admin – help deleting images with unknown source for example. And I'd be happy to help out wherever I'm needed.

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

A: I think the New Radicals article, not so much because it's a featured article, but because I feel it's the best source about the topic currently around; That's something I always try to achieve when writing Wikipedia articles. Same goes for Emma Roberts.

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 had one lengthy conflict with RJN over plural group names (e.g. "The Beatles") and if they should be treated as singular or plural (e.g. "The Beatles are" or "The Beatles is"). Despite our different opinions the whole discussion remained absolutely civil and friendly.

Whenever there is a conflict, I try to convince the opposite site by quoting Wikipedia guidelines and examples similar to the current case, or find a consensus that everybody is happy with.

'Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. Why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A: I think the project would profit from me as an admin because, as I said before, I'd try to work on cleaning up images with missing/incorrect licenses, and I feel that's a part of Wikipedia that really needs some work. However, I wouldn't really say I "want" to be an admin. I obviously wouldn't mind, but there won't be any hard feelings if it doesn't work out. I actually hadn't really thought about becoming an admin until a couple of editors suggested I would make a good admin on my talk page.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A: Yes, I think especially admins should follow the rules, even more than anybody else because they reprensent the whole communinity and in a way are role models. Becoming an admin shouldn't be a free pass to do whatever you want. I think temporal removal of admin status (similar to temporal blocking) would be an appropriate punishment.

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.

Evadb

Final (17/26/7) ended 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Evadb (talk · contribs) – I have been editing Wikipedia since early February. Since that time, I have made around 3,000 edits. Of these, more than 2,000 have been to the article space. This is something of which I am particularly proud, since our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia. Though I am certainly not perfect, I have tried to remain calm and collected when I disagree with people. Should I be granted adminship, I hope to be able to use the admin tools constructively, mainly in maintenence and vandal control. I believe that I am unlikely to abuse the tools as I have proven with my actions to date. I always try to understand the consensus and not act unilaterally. I look forward to reading the criticisms of my fellow editors and seeing how I can improve, whether or not I am successful in becoming an administrator.--Eva ^db 09:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept my self-nom.--Eva ^db 09:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. First to Support. Although some users would prefer some more editing time, Eva shows that she knows the policies and would make a fine addition to the community if equipped with the tools. --Tone 09:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - All I've seen are good things from this editor. She always has great input on the heraldry articles that I edit.--Dave Boven 09:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Tentative support. I certainly can't see anything you've done wrong. :) RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Passes the test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 11:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, meets my criteria. --Terence Ong 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Meets my criteria. Good editor. DarthVader 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Has enough experience. Molerat 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. I loved your answer to Q3. CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Thoughtful answers to questions, thoughtful edits. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Per Tone, Boven, and others. No problems here. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Geo.plrd 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Looks alright and appears to have a cautious approach. It looks like this user does as opposed to talk (based on the large number of main space edits). The lower number of Wikipedia name space edits does not concern me; they don't mean the candidate has not read the policies/understands them. Nephron  T|C 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support I don't see much reason to oppose. For those that say that this user shouldn't be admin simply because they have few WP:Space edits, that does not mean that they have not read the policies. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Support Evadb is a great user, and meets all of my criteria. I have no problems in supporting her. The Halo (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support -- Mostly Rainy 16:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support, meets my standards.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, because a failed RfA can really get you down, and you definetely need some Wikilove now. Don't be discouraged , Eva - you really are an asset and your hard work is much apreciatted. Next time, and with a little more experience under your belt, you'll make it for sure. Best wishes! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 09:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not enough project-space edits leads me to question if you might fully understand our policies. Fails a couple of points of my criteria, so unfortunately, no. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:22 UTC (2006-06-06)
2. With regret, does not appear to meet 1FA. I can see that your edits are heading towards this direction though. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not enough project-space edits. ForestH2
4. Oppose. Doesn't have that much experience, and I'm not convinced he needs the mop. --Rory096 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose per 89 WP:space edits - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose lack of non-main edits. Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, needs more experience. Royboycrashfan 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose You seem to be an fine editor & your contributions are undeniably valuable, but the low amount of Wikipedia space & talk space edits & slightly unsatisfactory answers to questions 1 & 4 show that you do need more experience in the non-encyclopedic part of Wikipedia. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Low amount of Wikipedia space and talk edits are a concern. Carry on improving the quality of edits in these namespaces and I will support you in the future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Cleary a dedicated user, but at the moment I do not feel you have the necessary understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in order to carry out the role and responsibilites. --Wisden17 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Too early sorry --Mahogany 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per above. Sorry. Also, email, which is important for admin communication, is not enabled. G.He 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose; per above and lack of e-mail. Ral315 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose per above.--Jusjih 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose Too little project-space experience suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 01:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose User doesn't seem to grasp everything in the administrator's reading list.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose as unfamiliar with admin tools (one should know about them first then get them if required not seek them to learn how to use them) and unanswered questions (even though optional they show a real enthusiasm when answered). Ifnord 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose How silly to nominate oneself for adminship! They should know better than that, but can only contribute with a basic level of Spanish, as possibly nothing at all in any other lanaguge, except of course, American English (their native tounge), Blazon can no more count than the language of music. :-(Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Evadb.com.au 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

    Comment- this criterion for adminship is absurd. You don't need to speak other languages than English on the English Wikipedia. Last time I checked, American English was the same language as Australian English. Where are your other-language userboxes?--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

19. Oppose Too little experience in the project namespace. -- from The King of Kings 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Weak Oppose. Needs more experience, and I wasn't particularly won over by the answer to the question posed by Yanksox. Will more likely support if nominated by another editor a few months of experience down the road. Agent 86 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Opppose per my standards - four months isn't quite long enough for us to be sure. Cynical 23:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose but only for inexperience in, say, project space. Will definitely consider supporting in the future --Deville (Talk) 03:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose - no response to optional questions, 2 days should have been enough -- Tawker 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose same boat as Tawker, I think this RfA is being ignored. Yanksox 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Tawker. They are optional questions, sure, but at least acknowledge them... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose per NSLE. Naconkantari 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Replaced above vote that got removed by IP vandal.--Andeh 09:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Looks like good future admin material, but not enough experience at this time.--digital_me^(t/c) 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Does not have enough WP namespace edits to merit a "Support". Kalani ^[talk] 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral took my time to evaluate this candidate. She's made a forceful start, and I especially like the fact that she contributes extensively to mainspace. After some more emphasis on project space (perhaps WP:AfD would be a start?) to understand the project better, she would be a superb candidate -- Samir धर्म 02:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Candidate appears enthusiastic and hardworking. As with other users, I am concerned about experience, especiallyin dealing with more controversial/grey matters. Otherwise, she is fine. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Hard to criticise, but just not enough to go on for me to support at this time. Come back with more of the same in a few months and it will be a thumbs up from me. Rockpocket 07:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Great user. Doesn't meet my criteria for project space edits. I need to see a greater demonstration of understanding and application of policy before I vote to give her the mop. Eluchil404 13:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I would like to see more WP-space edits. Also, the user has suddenly gone on an indefinite wikibreak and seems to have given up on this for now, which obviously doesn't bode well. The length of experience and answers to questions are satisfactory, though. Grandmasterka 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Evadb's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Count with Tool2:

Username Evadb
Total edits 3000
Distinct pages edited 1013
Average edits/page 2.962
First edit 14:32, February 9, 2006

(main) 2119
Talk 122
User 218
User talk 209
Image 195
Image talk 2
Template 17
Template talk 1
Category 21
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 89
Wikipedia talk 5

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 have done some work in reverting vandalism in the past. I hope that with the addition of the administrator tools, I can do more of this in the future. I've also been involved in some basic tidying of different aspects of Wikipedia. Much of my work is in the area of heraldry, and I hope to use my new admin powers to help ease the administrative backlog matters in this realm. I feel that I have a good knowledge of the basic admin tools from reading the appropriate articles. The truth is, though, that I am unsure of how the added functions will impact me, and look forward to learning more about them.

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

A: As mentioned above, much of my work is in heraldry. I'm particularly proud of the Heraldry Portal that I've helped to create. I've also been involved in creating biographic articles for many heraldists and officers of arms. I think that these add a great deal to Wikipedia and provide a great resource to those who are curious about things heraldic.

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 think of two instances where I've had conflicts on editing. One was on the article Richmond Herald. My main course of action was to discuss the matter with the other user. Unfortunately, this did little good, and eventually a compromise was reached with the help of another editor. This compromise still exists, and while I do not think it is perfect or a complete reflection of Wikipedia policy, it is better than an edit war. Another instance of conflict came on the Kandern article. Another user and I discussed the merits of adding a definite article to one of the names in the article. This was a very silly little point of contention, but we kept the discussion going for some time. Eventually, the other user noted that I was getting a bit "hot under the collar." This had not been my intention, but when I heard that I decided to drop the issue for a while and come back to it later. I have not yet returned to it, but look forward to sparking up the discussion again when I've got the time.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. What is your understanding of admin duties? Also, why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A:From my understanding of the Administrators' reading list, admins have a lot of responsibilities. These include, but are not limited to, monitoring those articles which have been nominated for deletion and working through the process involved in that, blocking and banning, page protection, and helping to revert vandalism. As I mentioned in my previous answers, I am looking forward to learning more about these capabilities. As for your second question, I am quite sure that my answer is the same as most any admin: I want to be an admin so that I can help to make Wikipedia better. It's as simple as that.--Eva ^db 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How would you respond to criticism that you don't have a solid understanding of Admin powers and duties? Yanksox 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, I'm sure you've seen these before... -- Tawker 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   A

9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

   A

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:40, 8 June 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.

Terence Ong

Final (91/51/8) ended 13:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Terence Ong (talk · contribs) – Terence Ong is an excellent contributor to Wikipedia with over 11, 000 edits in various areas of Wikipedia and has been here for over a year. He is a very friendly and humble user and has no hesitation in helping other users. I think that this user would be a great admin, given the active role he plays in combating vandalism as well. If he is given additional responsibilities, Wikipedia would benefit greatly.

Terence Ong had been nominated twice before. The first nomination, (which I nominated him) he declined it, revealing the matuarity of the user. In the second nomination he withdrew his RfA. I feel that the time is ripe for him to be an admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As Terence's admin coach, please consider this a co-nomination. Terence has been very civil to everyone, and has contributed a lot to this project. He passes all of my stringent criteria, which surely says something. I strongly opposed him the last time, amid severe accusations, but I believe Terence has understood his mistakes, and that incident has been cleared up. Also, for posterity, first RFA. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:10 UTC (2006-06-06)

I would like to co-nominate Terence as well. I think he is ready now. (no additional comments from me, everything has been told above :-) )--Tone 09:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So do I.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC!

• As his current AC, and having previously nominated him, I also hereby give my co-nomination for his excellent contributions to the project and its community. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank my nominators for nominating me. --Terence Ong 09:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Terence is a remarkable young man; I believe he will join the ranks of Merovingian and Ilyanep as some of our finest young contributors. His kind and courteous manner will serve him well as an admin, and his photography shows dedication. -JCarriker 09:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. --Tone 09:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support – very experienced, will make a great administrator – Gurch 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. A dedicated, committed editor across many areas of the project. Zaxem 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - he should've had it a long time ago. -- 9cds^(talk) 09:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - sounds highly qualified to become an administrator. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 09:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, does good work on AfDs. The user is very experienced and he's nominated by NSLE, so no questions --Nearly Headless Nick 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support good work on AfD. Very civil. Looks to have learnt since last RfA. MLA 10:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - Clearly an experienced user, should make a great admin. --Scot^t 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support Seen him do excellent work at the AFD. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 11:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support I have seen him do a lot of good work at AgD, he is without doubt ready for the tools. Rje 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong support as per above, as co-nominator. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:16 UTC (2006-06-06)
13. Support =) — FireFox ^user_talk 12:31, 06 June '06
14. Strong Support I have seen him do a lot of good work and even dedicating his whole day to taking photographs of Singapore and even trying to use a teacher's computer to edit so much to the extent where he is banned on using it. Such dedication should be very useful to the community. He deserves this promotion to adminship Leidiot 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong Support. Excellent editor and great part of the community. Terence has been my role model since I first saw him; I hope to be more like this user. DarthVader 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support of course. His involvement in SGCOTW has all of us see through our first Singapore-related FA. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Excellent editor. ForestH2
18. Support Naconkantari 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per Tawker -- Tawker 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Ahem! What about WP:ASR? ;-p Misza13 ^{T C} 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

20. Support, I think. Adminship is No Big Deal, and Terence is OK by me, seems polite and tolerant. Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
21. (2 edit conflicts!) I support this great editor. (Yeah, editor! 'Cause he's actually building an encyclopedia here ;-) ) The minor issues raised below, can't convince me he shouldn't be given the mop. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Per Tawker. I find that although in the past he has done some questionable things, I really don't think we should judge him by what he did more than a month ago. ILovePlankton 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Crazynas 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

24. Support. [ælfəks] 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong support. "Voting" delete on most AfDs isn't a reason to oppose. Most AfDs should be deleted. --Rory096 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    For the record, that bears no resemblance to my actual reasons for opposing. — GT 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe it wasn't about you? --Rory096

    Well it doesn't for anyone else's either. — GT 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support Yanksox 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

26. Support Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Strong support of course! Computerjoe's talk 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support - Hahnchen 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Excellent editor. Good luck, mein Freund. haz (user talk) 16:58, 6 June 2006
30. Support - my experience with this contributor has always been positive, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. bd2412 T 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. It's about time we give him the ability to close AFD's, block, protect, etc. Royboycrashfan 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support good dedicated user. Still solid edits after the last RfA. Good work on Singapore articles, Afd, etc. Just one thing, please write to the Afd edit summaries if You wanted a Delete or Keep, helps the closing user. feydey 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Struck per recent newbie biting [5]. feydey 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

32. Cliche support Thought he already was an admin. Oldelpaso 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

33. Support - Yup! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Nominator Support My reasons are stated above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support.  Grue  19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. DVD+ R/W 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per all above. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. I don't see any convincing reason to oppose. Terence can be trusted to close deletion discussions, and he understands how to deal with vandalism. --TantalumTelluride 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per all above. G.He 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Strong Support for the times he's reverted vandalism on my userpage! —Khoikhoi 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong Support seems like a great candidate hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support as per last time. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Merovingian {T C @} 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Looks good-- significant contributions. I don't think immaturity is an issue judging by the user page and comments from others. The oppose arguments aren't very convincing. Nephron  T|C 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support a bright light and a brilliant contributor -- Samir धर्म 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support I see no big problems.--Jusjih 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support why are all the good people being nominated when I'm on wikibreak??? Rama's Arrow 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Already thought he was support :P -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Excellent contributions to the WP namespace. Kalani ^[talk] 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Seems to be a good guy, especially for the jobs outlined in his answer for the question 1 abakharev 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Strong Support per all above. Werdna (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Mature enough to handle it. And passes 1FA. :) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|e|666} 01:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support - a wonderful person and contributor. Sango123 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support as 3rd co-nominator. Terence has proven himself this time.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support, meets my standards. — Jun. 7, '06 [03:11] <freak|talk>
57. Support Shows expertise and contributes to a broad range of articles.--Folksong 04:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
58. SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT. Excellent contributor, kickass guy, proves to be responsible enough for the mop. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support A contributor who will help WP with the tools. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Like last time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support. All my interaction with him, directly or indirectly during another discussion, or just observing from afar, I have noticed his dedication to the project and to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 07:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Weak Support- I'm just a little troubled by some of the arguments raised in the Oppose camp, mainly that Terence Ong basically just goes with the flow on most things and rarely takes the initiative, but I do believe this user has a good understanding of policy, knows Wikiright from Wikiwrong and won't abuse the tools. The Admin group has room for quiet achievers, and I do not believe that Terence Ong will be too timid to do what needs to be done. Reyk _YO! 08:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support Not only a friendly user, but also one who understands fully what this project is about. The Halo (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Active, polite, trustworthy to use the tools peopwely and well. -- Avi 12:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support per his dedication to Singapore articles and anti-vandalism efforts. - Tangotango 15:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Weak support. There's no question he has the tools (and, well, I thought he already had the tools, but...); still, I would ask Terence to get one more: a stopwatch that counts to ten ;) RadioKirk talk to me 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support, good with the mop. --Vsion 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Rather experienced editor here at Wikipedia with significant contributions to the community. His maturity level has increased and he's now more qualified for the job since the last RfA. Think he'll be able to do a fine job once given the chance.
    - Advanced 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. Solid editor, should do well as an admin. PJM 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Bucketsofg✐ 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Appears to "speak" several lanaguges, a bonus point! :-)Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Terence Ong 2.com.au 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support--digital_me^(t/c) 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Strong Support -- from The King of Kings 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support I take his criticism seriously but I think he'll be allright. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Cleared for Adminship --Pilot|guy ^{(roger that)} 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support, great user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Yes please - I havne't been able to write anything for two weeks since RfA and need someone to help delete stuff. All the delete-processing admins seem to have disappeared. I don't want to turn into a delete-processor. My first love is writing. If Terence promises to stick to the clearcut deletes then I hope you folks will change your mind. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Support Joe I 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. The first oppose vote *can't* be serious... —Nightstallion (?) 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support. Admin's not a big deal, and Terrance seems to do a not bad god with the sweeping brush. I actually read this whole page, came across the racist remarks and then finally worked out that they we're in a discussion I was having with Terrance about Singapore Airport... Terrace immediately appologised, and that was the end of the matter, for me/wangi 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

    Actually I believe that they are not accusing Terence of being racist, but saying that he had made such accusations about others during his last RfA. It (allegedly) happened on IRC and since I wasn't there (and haven't seen any logs) I don't know exactly what was said. — GT 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

82. Support In the few times I have talked to him, on Wikipedia, MSN Messenger and Google Talk, he has shown to be a very friendly person. He knows a lot about Wikipedia and can give helpful advice. Terence is a talented youngster. Being 14 myself, I have experienced much stress in my 5 months here, and I've not handled it well either. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Support per nom. --Xyrael ^T 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
84. Support per nom Anger22 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
85. Support I don't he will abuse tools. Beside, anyone with this many edits should be a admin. The Gerg 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
86. Support, great user, lots of work on AfD, very civil--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
87. Support Fantastic editor, I don't really understand the complaints about a "lack of leadership" because he votes delete on bad articles... Plus, admins should only use deletion powers unilaterally (not per a community decision) when the decision is clear, so do you want an admin who has a history of making decisive, in-your-face deletion votes? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

    • I don't think people are looking for divisiveness so much as overt evidence of thought and attention. We want to be sure that he'll devote the appropriate amount of time and effort to situations that might fall under his jurisdiction as an administrator. Some of his edits might lead you to believe that he doesn't even read the articles up for deletion before commenting, to say nothing of a bit of research, and his contributions to AFD are often more along the lines of votes than actual discussion of the article in question.-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

88. Support I am always in favor of a Wikiholic! And you sure are one! Imhungry
89. Support. He's reasonable, and his AfD contributions are generally well thought out, even if I may not agree with a small percentage of them. Erik the Rude 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
90. Support per various comments above. BryanG^(talk) 06:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
91. Support. Terence has a high percentage of edit summary usage (100% major, 74% minor) and his edits reverting tons of vandalism have proven to be very beneficial towards the project, imagine what more he could do with a mop and the position of admin. Эйрон Кинни (t) 11:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Terence is a very friendly person and makes lots of good contributions. That said, I don't support him becoming an admin. Many here use his AfD involvement as a reason to support, and yes he does vote on a lot of AfD's. However, as was brought up in his first RfA (see question 2 by Vivian Darkbloom), his AfD contributions are rarely helpful and tend to just follow whatever the general voting trend is at the time, usually consisting of nothing more than a one or two word summary. He was never seen espousing a minority opinion and his response to this concern was basically "Yeah, so what?". — GT 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   I don't believe that's a really good reason to oppose. If it is worth deleting, you don't expect someone to say keep, when they feel it should be deleted. This should not be held against him. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:26 UTC (2006-06-06)

   I'm not expecting him to intentionally take the other side when something is obviously "worth deleting". AfD's are not always slam dunks. Haven't you ever been in an AfD where the first batch of voters made a rash conclusion before someone stepped up with some relevant information or convincing argument that swayed the consensus? With as much AfD participation as Terence has, I've never seen anything close to such a thing from him -- just the same old "Delete, NN" or "Keep, notable" after 10 other people have voted the same way. — GT 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Don't want to seem like I'm pushing it, but if everyone took that POV, then you'd get only two or three AFD votes. After all, there wouldn't be a need to repeat "Delete, NN", would there? (BTW, on that point, if an AFD was about a person, and it was NN, I do believe Terence should take initiative to tag it CSD A7, but honestly now...) My personal opinion is that it's quite trivial to oppose on this count, but I respect your right to use this reason, and won't push this any further. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:42 UTC (2006-06-06)

   Sorry, just a final reply to clarify: it's okay and useful to affirm with what others have already said, I'd just expect that once in while it would be the other way around. And the relevance of this to me is that I consider self-determination to be an important characteristic in an admin who will be placed in controversial situations, where I'd rather see decisions made based upon what is right rather than what other people have expressed approval of. — GT 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Seems like a good chap, heart is in the right place. But deficiency of initiative and leadership coupled with some previous examples of going off shows a lack of maturity. Ifnord 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. This user has spent a fair while advising other people to assume good faith, but this conversation shows me that he doesn't himself, and doesn't understand that it's a problem. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. The last thing we need is an admin who does unusual things when stressed. His unusual use of English would not be an insurmountable problem if not for these doubts. Sorry. --Guinnog 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. No offense to Terence, but I do not think he has the demeanor to be an admin. Adambiswanger1 03:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Users like Terence are always hard to judge due to their original edits being overwhelmed by vandalism reverts. It's great that Terence is so conscientious in vandal fighting but this is a minor role for an admin with respect to the skills required for the job. Reading the comments here, it seems that proactive editing is not the norm. Are all Terences RfA votes really support? This type of editing worries me as it seems to involve little critical thinking and is a pattern that suggests he is trying to be 'liked'. Will Terence be able to make the right decisions when his friends are in the wrong? This in itself is not enough for me to oppose, but after reading proto comments below i really feel i need to oppose. This comment "a tirade of racism and abuse via IRC aimed at anyone who voted 'oppose' - was only 3 months ago" really is worrying behaviour from an admin candidate. David D. (Talk) 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: Are all Terences RfA votes really support? I don't know where you got that from, but I've seen him oppose users before, so the answer to that query would be "no"... the racism happened during his last RFA, after which he apologised, and I believ the apology was accepted. Does this mean that this incident is going to forever be held aginst him? That would be ridiculous, I think, so I hope that it's just because in your view, not enough time has passed. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:54 UTC (2006-06-07)

   Thanks for your input NSLE. I have been thinking this over and i still feel uncomfortable with Terence's out burst as a result of the previous RfA. You're right that we should forgive, but three months is just too short and it would be easy for him to be on good behaviour knowing his new RfA is imminent. What would make me change my mind in the future? I would be impressed if Terence started outlining his rationale for votes. NN is easy to type but it convinces no one he has actually thought about it. Give him the mop (I made this up, I'm not sure if he has used this exact expression), or such, does not help us know why he believes someone would be a good admin. Sorry, but i have to stick with oppose for now. David D. (Talk) 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose - what I've seen from this user in the past is that he does not handle stress very well. In the recent past, since his last RFA, I don't think I've seen anything that proves the contrary to me. I know Terence is very friendly and a good contributor, but being an admin will very likely get him into conflicts, and I think I have reasons to doubt his maturity in dealing with that. Also, I echo some of the concerns above, mainly from David D.: he has shown little independent decision making, which gives me little indication of his behaviour as an admin. --JoanneB 11:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Terence is friendly, witty and is always willing to help, no doubt about it. What I do doubt is his abilty to come to conclusions that are best for wikipedia and not necessarily for his friends' benefits. I do believe that past mistakes can be looked over once a user had changed their ways, but with the actions from his last RfA just a few months ago all too clear in my mind, I feel the need to Oppose.--Ali K 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. As has been laid out by those above, Terrence is completely unpredictible when dealing with conflict and especially criticism, something he'll experience on a daily basis as an admin. (His own "defense" of his behavior in the previous RfA makes this clear: "Stress and frastruation makes me do unusual things at some times.") He resorts to namecalling and personal attacks in an attempt to discredit and badger anyone who disagrees with him; his behavior on his first RFA was completely inexcusable, screaming racism and ageism at a large collection of very well respected contributors who voted oppose. The last thing we need are unstable and trigger happy admins who easily yield to peer pressure in order to fit in; I continue to believe that he is wholly unsuitable for adminship and that a promotion of this candidate would be reckless disregard for the best interests of Wikipeda. Absolutely not. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose - He's a good contributor, no doubt, but what from what I've seen of him as per Question 3, I have my doubts about his maturity when he runs into edit conflicts. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose: throwing out wide-ranging allegations of racism, only three months ago, is still much to soon. Jonathunder 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose A good contributor, but I can not support him for adminship per JoanneB and Essjay. ×Meegs 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, per GT; doesn't seem very thorough in investigating articles nominated for deletion. Just pulling some examples from the last few days: he added throwaway "delete" responses on articles like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Active_citizenship, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T-Shirt_Hell, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Deacon where a "keep" consensus emerged after someone actually did some research, and he apparently didn't realize that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pelodiscus included more than one article (did he read either/both before "voting"?). This was a concern raised in his last RFA, and I don't see that he's really addressed it in substantial fashion. I just wouldn't feel comfortable trusting him with admin powers.-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose As the former anon editor who received this kind of attitude after making a legit edit, I have serious concerns over his behaviour, particularly during stressful times. I have not seen anything to change my mind and I do not think he is cut out for adminship. Soapy Sunshine 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Here is the diff [6] that T.O. reversed. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose, per Essjay and JoanneB. User needs to be able to deal with stress better. I hope that he'll take the comments here to heart and try again another time, once he's shown his ability to stay cool under fire and retain his independence better. Snoutwood (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    I want to clarify that that doesn't mean to start opposing RfAs. It means to think for yourself and demonstrate that by providing solid, well-thought-out evidence. Taking stands on things. Not being uncomfortable being the only one to support something that you believe in. These things are worthy of respect. Snoutwood (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

16. Name recognition /= good admin. Length of time /= good admin. Number of edits /= good admin. Erratic/unpredictable behavior /= good admin. This user displays all of these. People saying he "deserves" it should read What adminship is not. Oppose for now. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Tom Marvolo Riddle (^). There's too much emphasis on contributions and not enough on what will actually happen when they get the tools. I agree with Soutwood in using this as an improvement experience. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose (mild) Would like to see more depth of comment on AfD's etc - his research doesn't do itself justice. Dlyons493 Talk 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose basically per LV. I really was going to sit this one out because I couldn't bring myself to vote either way, but he put it well enough for me sign on. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Essjay. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Essjay. Accurizer 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose per AfDs and Essjay. Kusma (討論) 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose per all the above. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Changing to Oppose per Essjay. Yanksox 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose. I too had been leaning nuetral but such vehemently remarks from Essjay make me believe that Terrence is not ready to be become an admin. SorryGuy 04:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose. It appears to me after some very careful consideration that three months is not enough time, in this case, to be confident that Terrence will use the tools responsibly. Admins who react poorly under stress can be a very bad thing for Wikipedia. I mislike his answer to question 3; it describes a conflict in which another user was (apparently) primarily at fault, and then describes another conflict in which Terrence made a personal attack and realized he shouldn't do that anymore. I frankly expect a user who has had severe conflicts and stress to have learned something less superficial than to follow WP:NPA. -- SCZenz 06:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose (changed from neutral) - SCZenz and Essjay have convinced me that I shouldn't be neutral on this. Proto||type 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose admins must, above all else, be able to deal with stress and adversity. I have not seen enough to prove that Terence Ong can do this at all times. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Essjay. Cynical 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose per Essjay and others. Aren't I Obscure? 02:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose per Lord Voldemort and SCZenz. I do believe that users should be given the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to rise above past mistakes. That said, three months isn't quite long enough for me to secure that the user has rectified the problems of temperment that plagued the last RfA. Xoloz 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong oppose - as some respected editors before me have mentioned, none of the issues raised during the last RfA have been convincingly resolved, viz. name-calling, mental readiness for the janitorial tasks, and AfD comment behaviour. In addition, although he promises to warn newbies in his answer to question 1, in reality he warns vandals only sporadically despite being reminded to do so. None of his last 40 reverts made with popups were accompanied by warnings. Lastly, [7] seems to indicate an unwillingness to discuss one of his reverts, wiping out the request using popups, no less. (The only mistake the anon made was to place his comment in the wrong place.) All in all, the doubt factor over this user's suitability for the sysop buttons has only increased since his last RfA. Kimchi.sg 09:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose. As one of Terence's admin coaches, I was incredibly surprised to see another RfA for him after only 3 months; I happened to stumble across it today. There were serious concerns from the last time around and there hasn't been enough time to address those and show growth. Terence knows policy well, but still has difficulty in applying or interpreting it. Great contributor and will make a wonderful admin in the future. Shell ^babelfish 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Tony Sidaway 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Not yet. An administrator above all needs to be able to handle stress and stick with the right decision.
35. Weak Oppose. Like many others to say this, I have found Terence to be a great guy who has has made many fine contributions to wikipedia. However, I do not feel that the position of administrator is the best place for him to serve wikipedia at this time. He has plenty of potential as a future admin (per Shell), but not just yet in my humble opinion. -- Banes 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Reluctant oppose. Terence seems like a nice guy, but his comments on AfD and the incivility I see discussed here means that he needs to work on things first. Maybe in a few more months. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Absolutely not. KnowledgeOfSelf was badgered with racism and ageism accusations in Terence's last RFA (I was in IRC at the time). An admin who resorts to baseless allegations regarding a person's opinions is not an admin I want. Ral315 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Oppose per various comments above. FreplySpang 21:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Weak Oppose Changed vote after seeing several oppose votes. — Nathan ^(talk) 22:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose. I was wavering, but didn't have anything with which I could justify opposing until I saw this. How we deal with vandals, clueless newbies etc. is far more important than how we deal with experienced members, and I see this as an example of newbie-biting. Combined with what has already been said, including a lot of the support votes as well as the oppose, I see an editor who, as an admin, will be much admired by Esperanzans, Wikiproject members and others in the Wikipedia circles he moves in, i.e. those who have already climbed Wikipedia's learning curve. But he is likely to inadvertantly kick some of those who are still climbing off the mountain. Great editor, please keep it up, but not ready for adminship. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose as per Essjay. Pete.Hurd 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per nom. Aguerriero (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I cannot in good conscience vote support after reading some of the above edits and concerns. For now, oppose.Aguerriero (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Oppose as per Essjay and most of the concerns raised above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Oppose. Excellent contributor, but seems unlikely to make a good admin at present based on all the above concerns. Shell Kinney's comment (oppose #33) in particular carries a lot of weight with me. --Avenue 12:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Oppose per Essjay. --Zoz (t) 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Weak oppose. Most of the best admins, in my opinion, are the ones who explain their actions well. I'm not especially warm to people who fail who explain their rationales at all on AfD, even on particularly contentious AfDs. There were many concerns raised on his last RfA that do not appear to be fully addressed. But as an eventualist, I believe everyone deserves a shot at adminship and Mr. Ong definitely deserves more opportunities (given more time and thought.) Grandmasterka 02:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Strongly oppose. Terence's own behavior since his last RfA and his not so forthcoming answers here make the case against giving him admin power even stronger now than it was before. For three reasons, the same as last time. I won't bother asking the questions; he didn't really answer before, and he hasn't responded to anybody else here. Firstly, he still hasn't apologized to the user he falsely accused of vandalism during the last RfA, and still refuses to even explain why he won't apologize. Second, he refuses to follow himself the standards he wants applied to others. Rather than discussing his own stressed-out misbehaviour, which is well-known, his new response to the question below about behaviour under stress has changed only by going on at greater length about how bad a user he had a dispute was. But Terence's only actions in that dispute seems to have been to make personal attacks against the user and accuser her of bad faith. [8], just the behaviour he complained of. As Sam Blanning pointed out, Terence erases other editor's comments from his talk page without explaining, but complains when others to it to his own. We've got too many admins with double standards for them and their friends on one hand, and the rest of us on the other. Third, since Terence just about always sides with whatever the majority is in any dispute he's involved in, and doesn't show any understanding of why that bothers many of us, I don't think he's given any basis for us to believe that he's got the discretion and judgment admins ought to have. His failure to give significant responses to that issue here is at best uncivil, at worst an admission that he's got no real answer to the problem. VivianDarkbloom 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Oppose - I'm sorry to do this, but it must be done. Oppose because of the diffs identified in this discussion so far. - Richardcavell 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Oppose if for no other reason than lack of independent insight and judgement on AfDs as per GT, which I have noticed and found frustrating. It would be better to do more research on fewer items. As it stands, the opinion can't be relied on, although goodwill for the project seems apparent. Tyrenius 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Oppose per diffs provided above. Robert 03:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Oppose - Support. Looks to be a quality editor per Zaxem and dedicated vandalfighter. Problems identified in the last RfA don't appear to be an issue anymore - Peripitus (Talk) 09:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)changing my opinion based on both the diffs shown and with respect to comments by Essjay and a previous admin coach - Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. I don't ever seem to see Terence take any initiative, on any project contribution, ever. It's all 'per nom' on pretty much every AfD vote, and support every RFA. And despite the huge immediate wave of 'supports' from all his fellow Singaporeans (q.v. Siva1979 below), I don't feel comfortable backing him to be an admin. That being said, he hasn't done anything wrong recently ... although what he failed for in his last AFD - a tirade of racism and abuse via IRC aimed at anyone who voted 'oppose' - was only 3 months ago. But as I said then, Wikipedia is not IRC, so I can't in good faith oppose, even after that kind of incivility and childishness. He said himself that "Stress and frustruation makes me do unusual things at some times". Has he changed that much in three months? Can't be sure. Oh yeah, neutral. Proto||type 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Moved to oppose. Proto||type 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Seems like a very good contributer.. but I can't make up my mind on whether he would be a good admin or not --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per GT, unfortunately. Even today, I'm not confident Terence Ong looks at the articles he votes on. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   AfD is not a vote. --Rory096 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   True, which makes looking at the article all the more important if one is to engage in discussion. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I've noticed Terence around on AfD and I can't say I have any problems with him on that score. But the comments above regarding unfounded allegations of racism and so forth following his previous nom constitute a serious problem for me. Time does heal all wounds, but maturity (regardless of calendar age, which is unimportant) is something that can only develop over a period (much) longer than 3 months. I see it as the key criterion in an RfA. Simply put, not everyone is cut out to be an admin, however great an editor they may be. This is a 'Neutral' rather than 'Oppose' because I am relying on the statements above and have not actually seen the comments in question. If this RfA is tight, my contribution can be taken by the closer as an Oppose. Badgerpatrol 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
4. I came here intending to support, because Terence is a nice guy and has grown somewhat since his last RfA, but the strong opposition from people I trust a lot suggests that more growth is needed. Still, I cannot oppose. Please do not despair, Terence, but instead take on board some of the input you've been given, work on being more equanamable, and more thoughtful in your comments, and in time adminship will come. ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Nice guy but since he plans to do xfD work, the AfD commentary is rather sparse. I can't hold comments made on another medium three months ago against him per se, but their apparent content is concerning as well. Opabinia regalis 04:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. This is a shame, as I said last time that if Terence ever came up again I would support. However, reading this RFA discussion has made doubt creep into my mind; hence the neutral. Undoubtedly a prolific and active user, but some of the above makes me think maybe not admin material at the moment. Batmanand | Talk 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I really want to vote Support, but I feel he needs to mature as a person before he is given the sysop tools (which I'm sure he will someday). I think Terrence is a fine editor and a great wikipedian, but adminship isn't a reward. --eivind^t@c 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Terence Ong's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Count with Tool2:

Username Terence_Ong
Total edits 11226
Distinct pages edited 7287
Average edits/page 1.541
First edit 11:44, January 28, 2005

(main) 4097
Talk 323
User 706
User talk 833
Image 22
MediaWiki talk 1
Template 126
Template talk 7
Category 19
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 4953
Wikipedia talk 137

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 to close xFDs (AFDs, TFDs, MFDs, CFDs, IFDs and RFDs) as well as proposed deletions, despite I don't work at CFDs, IFDs and RFDs most of the time. I will still participate actively in xFDs. Another thing I will help with is vandal fighting, the vandalism rate on Wikipedia is high and is shocking to see some pages not reverted on sight even after a few hours. I will improve the efficiency of reverting vandalism and help block persistent vandals if they vandalise after several warnings. I will also help protect or semi-protect articles that have been vandalised continuously or unprotect after a few days. Several encyclopaedic articles get nominated for deletion either AFD or proposed deletion due to the article unwikified or in bad shape. These articles needs serious cleanup and expansion as soon as possible. A number of articles have been nominated for speedy deletion, but they do not meet any speedy deletion criteria or if they do, . If not, I will bring it up to AFD or its respective places for deletion. Another thing is I do see vandals (anons or not), attack/ imposter usernames and abusive sockpuppets, I am helpless in this situation as I cannot block this users. I will also deal with trolls who create trouble throughout the encyclopedia. They disrupt the editing proccess of a Wiki and I do not tolerate vandals and trolls. However, in some cases, they are clueless newbies testing pages, I will give them test warnings and ask them to try the sandbox.

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

A: NTUC FairPrice, Anglo-Chinese School (International), Singapore general election, 2006, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and Light Rapid Transit (Singapore). The first two articles I mentioned are articles I created from scratch. These articles are not fantastic at all, neither did they had any honourable mention. However, it is one of the better articles I wrote. Without saying, there have been changes to the article which I definitely do not mind since it is a Wiki. Currently, the content and quality is satisfactory, and I'm rather contented with it. When Singapore had its elections last month, I helped update the article and write the content, covering the election as much as possible. Though not tidied up yet, I am still proud of it as it also appeared in the "In the News" section of the Main Page. Also, I helped to write the articles for almost every constituency, though two are still not written. They are mainly stubs and therefore is nothing to be proud of. I did helped in Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) which is a featured article despite I did not helped much. For Light Rapid Transit (Singapore), I helped expand, cleanup and improve the article to the style of its sister article i.e. Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). In the near future, I plan to pay more attention to LRT and the elections page, and hopefully reach good article status.

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

A: Not too long ago, I was involved in an arbitration case of Monicasude's conduct. Six months ago when Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) was a featured article candidate which he objected. Later, he changed the vote to strong object citing the article was not neutral. Monicasude refused to accept the concensus and tries to find trouble with the article. It was promoted to a featured article eventually and made claims that the article contained "weasel words" and it was a POV article. He added tags, but it was reverted, he therefore added another tag this time. Still, it was reverted, causing a short edit war but it stopped. Also, I suggested him to archive his talk page. Instead, my comments were blanked thrice without a reason. Another user filed a RFC against him for his questionable conduct. Monicasdude did not take his RFC seriously and remained uncivil. Several months later, an arbitration case followed the RFC and he was placed on a civility parole for one year. This case involved ten users which includes his conduct at AFDs, I used to see him there until the arbitration case. Another time was with a group of members from oWikiProject Airports and WikiProject Airlines. The Airport WikiProject people wanted a standard format for airlines and their destinations in a standard format. However, the Singapore Changi Airport article was one was in a table. A standardisation took place and a there was a lengthy dispute for quite some time. I then made a personal attack at two of its members without realising it was against it when I was still unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since then, I've learnt not to make personal attacks on anyone and remain civil at all times. Around the same period, another editor from sister WikiProject Airlines. A Singaporean editor and I had a dispute over Singapore Airlines subpages. Some of this sub-pages doesn't exist for most airlines and the user sent the article for AFD. As a result, one was deleted and the other kept due to a lack of concensus. The dispute was whether the two articles, Singapore Airlines flight numbers and Singapore Airlines fleet violated Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:40, 8 June 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Fir0002

Final (65/3/3) ended 07:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fir0002 (talk · contribs) – Fir0002 has a hell of a lot of featured pictures, as well as a hell of a lot of edits. He's an asset to the community and would do well as an admin. SushiGeek 06:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks a lot for the nomination, I humbly accept. --Fir0002 www 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Obviously. However, I'd like other people not to vote until he accepts, so that we don't get another CSCWEM debacle again if he doesn't accept right away. SushiGeek 06:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support. --Rory096 07:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak Strong Support. It's somewhat concerning that you have notes on your talk page for untagged images from one month ago. Are you unfamiliar with our Copyright policy?Concerns addressed Werdna (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Otherwise, a nice editcount, good history of interaction, and exceptional contribution to the area of pictures Werdna (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   He forgot to tag 2 out of about 450- I'd say that's not too bad, especially because he immediately corrected them. And I'm sure he's familiar with the copyright policy. 450 images! --Rory096 07:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   It's actually closer to about 1500 - I upload to the commons now. And I think you'll find those images were actually just part of my userpage. I realize that's no excuse but I thought I'd mention it. --Fir0002 www 07:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for your prompt response. My concerns have been alleviated. One more thing, would you please consider enabling email? Werdna (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   Done. --Rory096 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks very much for responding to my concerns, Changed to strong support. Werdna (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Support. -- excellent contributor of photography, many of featured status. Administrative tools will not be abused by this user. - Longhair 07:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. I've never seen so many image edits Support Be good to have admins with more variety of edit history like this. -Goldom (t) (Review) 07:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. I've seen Fir0002 on FPC quite a bit over the past few months (since I started being a regular there, he was active there long before that) and Fir0002 has always been levelheaded and quite a benefit to that sub-community. I am not sure that Fir0002 has really explained why he wants to be admin as well as I would normally like to see, but it comes down to if I trust this user with the mop. And the answer is that I do, completely. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I'm most aware of Fir0002 from his photography, but he's clearly a major asset to Wikipedia.-gadfium 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, good user. --Terence Ong 09:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. A long-term committed user. Zaxem 09:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. See User_talk:Fir0002#Questions. Petros471 09:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Fir plans to use admin tools when dealin with images and he's an expert there. --Tone 09:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - Very active at WP:FPC, don't see any reason to oppose. --Scot^t 10:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Lots of photographic contributions and very active. Hohohob 10:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. DarthVader 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support ForestH2
16. Support, 47 FPs?! More than enough to equate 1FA as a substitute! - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - a rare SushiGeek nom + its pretty easy to rack up some project editcounts if one wants adminship but lots of null edits really don't tell us anything at all. Great photographic contribs and we always need more people to clean out old images / moved to commons etc (and this gets to be my longest vote of the day)-- Tawker 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong support. [ælfəks] 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Looks like a good specialist admin. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. A bit low in the Talk namespace, but otherwise qualified! Kalani ^[talk] 17:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. I'm impressed by the long list of images. Royboycrashfan 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support I have absolutely no doubt Fir understands the main encyclopedia body, and a serious image admin could be a big boon. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Support - I cannot belive that all this time, since seeing Fir0002 around WP:FPC, that I sincerely thought he was already an administrator, *sigh*. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong support - asset to Wikipedia. Everyone loves pretty pictures. — Celestianpower ^háblame 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support.  Grue  19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support a must have for adminship because of his work with images. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support very good editor in my experience.--Alhutch 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong Support a VERY talented photographer. I love the photographs he has taken. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. He goes out of his way to help others' FPCs too.--ragesoss 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, I doubt he's going to abuse the tools (and he takes some of the best pictures I've ever seen). —Khoikhoi 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support seems like a great candidate (great pictures, also) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Merovingian {T C @} 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. No reason to suggest they'd abuse admin mop. If a picture is like a thousand words... this user has contributed many many thousands. Nephron  T|C 23:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Yanksox 23:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Weak Support, should really get that email enabled first --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, kept his cool in a debate with Canberra wikipedians (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra/Archive02#Image additions) and we all learnt something--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Weak Support despite the linkspam - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Weak support. Good photography related work, but would appreciate more main space edits apart from photographic work.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 07:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. He has been doing good work on photography and images and has made valuable contributions over that time. Capitalistroadster 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support always good to have admins with specialty skills, such as exceptional photography. He has proven that he can be trusted with admin powers -- Samir धर्म 09:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Well-known user here. Australia is far far away from my country but thanks to his photos I would like to go there in future. - Darwinek 10:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support; works well with others and is a valuable contributor. The tools should be useful for all of those image edits. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support someone with photography experience is also a handy addition to his valuable contributions. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Looks good from here.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, and about time too! Sango123 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. He improves other people's photos. I think that speaks for itself. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support I definitely feel he would make a good admin, he has shown himself as a responsible editor for quite a long time and would definitely use the tools well. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Changed from neutral after the user enabled email. G.He 03:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support - RFA cliche 4 --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

    What's number 4? I only know about no.1... Petros471 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

52. Support - Very responsible editor. --HappyCamper 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Joe I 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Strong Support. Experienced, I'm sure wikipedia will benefit from his service. I also love his pictures, great contribs in that area. -- Banes 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Very strong support. Fir, I always thougt you WERE an admin already. Great work, looking forward for more FP from you -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support Extremely good contributor. With around 4,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.Jordy 12:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. --Avenue 12:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. We could use more people who know something about pictures, and the admin tools are helpful in maintenance tasks related to images. Don't see any reason this user will abuse the new tools, especially as it appears their use will be mostly limited to images (at least at first.) Grandmasterka 03:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support - You give this community, and the world, so much in your photographs. Enjoy the mop you're about to be given. michael ^talk 12:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support per above. Nevermind2 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Better late than never. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Fir0002 has taken many excellent photographs and definetely cares about the visual quality of our articles. There is one thing about Wikipedia articles that I know for a fact - an article here is not good without good pictures in them. His images give a crystal clear example of what something looks like. He definetely deserves the "mop." --Evan Robidoux 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support -Blnguyen | Have your say!!!.

Oppose

1. Two things, the signature spam and the voting templates (User:Fir0002/Discussion_on_templates). Reasons were presented in lengthy discussions to discourage both. Fir just ignored/dismissed them. An admin should be open to discussion and be able to admit to own wrongdoings. --Dschwen 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   I except I was fully in the wrong with my sig but I can't say that "reasons and lengthy discussions" had been involved in notifying me. I recieved one comment on my userpage about it (and I didn't realize it wasn't just to do with aesthitic considerations). As soon as I was notified about WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer (about 2 mins ago) I removed the link from my sig. I would like to point out that User:Fir0002/Discussion_on_templates occured a year ago, and I'm certainly not hiding it, as I feel I put up many valid comments which were never addressed. However you are free to take your own view on them. But just out of interest, did you read the entire discussion? --Fir0002 09:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   I actually did, and had a couple of good laughs (crushed by elephant :-) ), but it still concerns me that you dismissed all points as flawed logic. Why stage a vote if you are not ready to accept the outcome? It doesn't matter whether it is was year ago. People tried to remove the images but were reverted. I guess most just have given up. --Dschwen 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2. I'm very glad for your photography contributions but I see practically no project space edits and in general very few edits that don't have to do with photography. This doesn't really signify to me that the user is ready for adminship. I also share Dschwen's concerns. — GT 09:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Erm, the user seems to have over 1300 project edits. As for not doing anything except photography-related stuff, I don't see how that's bad. He'll just focus on the image-related parts of adminship. --Rory096 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   I'd estimate that less than 2 dozen of them are to pages not dealing with images. Feel free to peruse them yourself to see what I mean. Adminship should not be considered a reward for good editing though pretty much every support vote above is treating it as one. I know it's nice for everyone here to imagine he will be an image-specialist admin but there's no way of restricting his powers in such a way. — GT 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   True, but neither is there anything in the candidate's history here to suggest that he would ever seek to insinuate himself inappropriately into areas with which he is unfamiliar; one can, I think, be confident that he doesn't seek adminship in order to abuse the admin powers and is sufficiently responsible to know that whereof he is insufficently knowledgable to use the mop, etc., thereof ought he to remain uninvolved. Joe 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose Great editor, pictures are superb, nothing in his answers to the questions makes me think he really needs the admin tools though. "I'd certainly brush up on it" should really come before accepting a nomination for adminship, in my opinion. I also don't like the hesitation about email, or the many typos. I'm sure, on the other hand, that he would not abuse admin tools if given them. I just don't think he is ready for it yet. --Guinnog 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose so long as your signature contains spam. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Removing my oppose vote. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

   The external link was removed as soon as I pointed it out at the start of this RFA. See User_talk:Fir0002#Questions. Petros471 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Please first enable email, and then I may reconsider. G.He 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Support - Email's now enabled. G.He 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Please first enable email.--Jusjih 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral E-mail is not enabled. Otherwise a little bit low on edits, but could be a great specialist-administrator abakharev 01:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment I now have enabled my email. --Fir0002 12:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral I have to be honest here - Fir0002 is a great editor, and I absolutely love his contributions to Wikipedia. But giving him admin privileges would be like giving a ceremonial degree to someone, and discredits the whole process. Nothing to me suggests that he needs them - the only task he's intended at needing them for is deleting old edits of images. I'm pretty wary of handing out such powerful tools to people who have only vague notions of what an administrator does or can do. At the same time, it's clear that fir0002 is not a major risk - the worst that is likely to happen is that he makes a minor gaffe like unblocking someone upon request or does something without understanding all the ramifications or conventions that go with it. If this was anyone else, I'd be voting oppose...but I won't, simply out of recognition and respect. Stevage 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Fir0002's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Count with Tool2:

Username Fir0002
Total edits 4244
Distinct pages edited 1950
Average edits/page 2.176
First edit 09:27, August 31, 2004

(main) 1195
Talk 39
User 294
User talk 452
Image 816
Image talk 1
Template 18
Wikipedia 1359
Wikipedia talk 70

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'm not entirely sure as to the full extent of the uses of adminship, so I guess I'll just see what I can do and gradually build up my sysop chores. One thing in particular I can see myself doing is helping with the closing of the nominations of FPC and possibly deleting edits of images which are no longer needed (many images get "edits" which aim at improving aspects of the image - I'm not sure how many of these are now just hanging around doing nothing).

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

A: I'm very proud of the number of FP's I've managed to accumulate obviously, but In particular I'm proud of Image:Bee mid air.jpg. Article wise I guess I've got to say Swifts Creek, Victoria, although I gotta give most of the credit for the text on that page to jjron

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 don't know about stress (I sometimes actually enjoy them), but I've certainly had some lively debates with users. I guess this argument was probably when I got most involved (which is why I've kept a record of it). I don't think I've been very offensive in any of my remarks, but I've certainly started being more tolerant and less defensive.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. What is your understanding of admin duties? Also, why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 13:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A:Admin duties, as I udnerstand them, are a combination of a janitor, judge (or adjudicator) and (whats something beggining with j that means take action? :-). If you are referring to the actual theory behind it, I might not be word perfect but I've got the general idea and I'd certainly brush up on it if I am successfull in this rfa. Reasons for wanting adminship? Right now the main reasons are image related, specifically in working arouund FPC - closing noms, deleting temporary "edits", blocking the odd sockpuppet where necessary. With time though I hope to expand into further duties. Thanks for the question! --Fir0002 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Question from GHe

5. I see that your email is current not set or disabled. Emails (along with Talk pages) are an important method of communication, especially for admins, for they may be faster and better for certain situations. Will you enable email now? G.He 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A: I think I will, but before my decision I'll wait for Petros' reply to this comment I left on his talk page. --Fir0002 08:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Update OK I've gone ahead and added my email address. --Fir0002 12:08, 7 June 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Crzrussian

Final (86/1/2) ended 04:38 , 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian (talk · contribs) – Although the bulk of his 7800+ edits have come in 2006, Alexander has been a Wikipedian for 16 months, during which time he has participated actively across several namespaces, demonstrating an even temperament, a pensive disposition, a firm grasp of policy, and, above all, a dedication to improving the project wherever possible. Most RfA participants seek a candidate who (a) will use the admin tools constructively and with some frequency, (b) is unlikely to abuse the tools (either by “going rogue” or simply by acting unilaterally), and (c) is unlikely to misuse the tools because of an ignorance of policy; Alexander surely fulfills each criterion. He patrols recent changes frequently and reports vandals to AIV, demonstrating fine judgment; he surely would benefit the project were he able to block vandals straightaway. I also imagine that he will participate in the closure of XfDs, and his edit history shows that he well appreciates the role of an admin at XfD, namely to interpret the views of the community and to act, in almost every case, as a servant of that community. Finally, because he often patrols new pages, he properly understands how to dispose of pages that have PRODded or tagged for speedy. He is neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, and, even as he often properly tags articles for speedy, he also works tirelessly to improve PRODded articles of which the subject is notable but that are written poorly. As to Alexander’s judgment, his disarming sense of humor, combined with his level-headed nature, give me every confidence that he will not abuse the tools, and his knowledge of policy, combined with his analytical tendencies, make me confident that he will not act in ignorance of our guidelines. Neither does he shy from debates nor does he seek out controversy, and, when he is involved in controversial matters, he is uniformly polite and civil; he demonstrates that one may stand for the good of the encyclopedia and disagree with other users while nevertheless remaining collegial. I have no doubt about Alexander’s fitness to be an admin, and his history here makes plain that, with the mop, etc., he will benefit the project. Joe 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With gratitude to Joe, I humbly accept. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support The nom is much too wordy, but I'll not hold that against Crz. Joe 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Great user and is so helpful and does such an effective job. Crzrussian, does such a great job at everything. Yanksox 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Read the first sentence and two supports and decided to... Support Werdna (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Objective and neutral. Will promote and preserve encyclopedicity.Timothy Usher 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support As a new admin, I would like a bit of relief at CAT:CSD so that I can actually do some nice article writing. Crzrussian has been tagging on NP patrol and it would be good if he didn't have to wait for admins to delete something while the author repeatedly removes the {{db}} tag in the meantime. Also I've had to clear over 200 prods today and some help would be good. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, good user, would make a good admin. --Rory096 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support. As if the listed attributes ween't enough, Crzrussian is also a strong asset to the stub-sorting wikiproject. A very well deserved nom, IMO. Grutness...wha? 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong support I'd like to add more to the discussion, but the nominator has said enough. (Finally, I trust nobody will make this into some stupid muslim-votes-for-jew thing. That would be a damn shame.) joturner 05:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Mr. Turner is referring to my reluctant Oppose vote at his recent RfA. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

9. Strong Support after reviewing strong work in RC Patrolling and using welcomes to encourage positive work. Kukini 05:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support - I wish we had more editors and admins as "crazy" (in scary quotes) as Crzrussian. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
12. JoshuaZ 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - your choice of cliche here -- Tawker 05:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Crazy about Crzrussian support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Impressive contribution count to the Wikipedia namespace. Kalani ^[talk] 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. DarthVader 07:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Я – за. Conscious 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    What? --Rory096 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    "I'm for it", literally :) Conscious 08:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

18. Support a fair and balanced editor who deserves the tools. Pecher ^Talk 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. A dedicated user across many areas of the project. Zaxem 09:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support great editor, level-headed with a great sense of humour to boot. He will do well with the mop. And wasn't he adorable as a kid? -- Samir धर्म 09:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support --Terence Ong 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, sure. --Tone 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong and crazy support --Nearly Headless Nick 10:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support a well-rounded editor who will make a good admin. Gwernol 12:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, because he shares my pathological dislike of cacky articles on sutpid defunct shopping malls. Proto||type 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support ForestH2
27. Support a very strong candidate. He has shown a great dedication to the project and a commitment to keeping it clear of junk. Rje 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support gladly - my interactions with this user have been positive and he displays an excellent level of reason and good temperament. Aguerriero (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support as he passes my standards and nothing bad shows up on radar. Ifnord 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Shows a willingness to work with others, even those that disagree with him on a given topic. Will do a good job of balancing assumption of good faith with vandal-whacking. youngamerican (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support per everyone, and more good humor is always needed. -Goldom (t) (Review) 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Thoughtful answers to questions, and good edits. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per everyone. Royboycrashfan 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support I had my disagreements with Crzrussian, but I found him to be a good user Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. No doubt, he will be a great admin. --Aude (talk | contribs) 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. DVD+ R/W 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong support. Not only a welcoming user, but he displays remarkable wisdom on his edits and discussions. Adambiswanger1 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Well, yes, of course. bd2412 T 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Merovingian {T C @} 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Should be an admin --as per wordy nom. Nephron  T|C 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Great user.--Jusjih 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support per above abakharev 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Trustworthy editor from whom I have seen many well-reasoned contributions. Xoloz 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong Support Whoa - how did this get so far along before I noticed? I must admit, the thought of nominating CZR actually crossed my mind a few days ago, but I never really gave it a lot of thought or followed up on it. However, I'm glad someone else did. --Bachrach44 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Great editor. --Shlomke 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
47. In Soviet Russia, Crzrussian supports YOU!!! Excellent editor. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. I know him cause of stub-sorting. He will be a good admin. - Darwinek 10:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Active, polite, civil; a fine candidate for the mop-and-flamethrower. -- Avi 12:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Even though I'm afraid this is going to come off like a kind of backhanded oppose, it really is a support. Active, polite, civil covers it quite well. He is sometimes wrong (since he's so active that can seem often), and clutches his opinions like a mother clutches her children, but he will do the right thing when pushed into it, and throughout the whole process is very nice about it. I think that's enough for adminship. We have enough of the other kind (Tony Sidaway, the late great SlimVirgin, ...), who are generally right, but are acknowledged even by their admirers to be rather rough around the edges about it. We also need some who are going to be nice, even if they're wrong, as long as they will be right eventually. I know him most because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette M. Böckler (before condensing), which he nominated for deletion without doing a thorough job of researching it, in many ways like the Elizabeth Macarthur incident below. He never admitted he was wrong, he probably still believes he was right; I suspect he still believes he was right with Elizabeth Macarthur. But, throughout the whole discussion he was extremely kind about it, making arguing with him almost a pleasure. Another example was this unfortunate edit on the legendary and extremely heated AFD of El Kondor Pada. Bad judgement, but, called on it, he immediately did the right thing (even though still not apologizing). Yes, we could wish he also be right always, admit fallibility more, strive to improve more than he does; but neither perfection nor contrition are required, doing the right thing eventually is enough, and doing it politely and with good humour makes me actively glad to have him wield the mop and flamethrower. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you for your support. I did apologize for E.M. on this RfA's talk page. I stand by my research and position on A.M.B., though I did make a good faith googling mistake there by including her middle initial. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

51. Support, of course.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per nominator. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support - an excellent wikipedian who will make an excellent admin. I have had frequent interaction as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey and elsewhere, and can only say positive things. Alansohn 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, I'm familiar with his contributions and feel he will make a fine admin. Accurizer 16:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Поддержка - превосходный потребитель активно на статьях для пропускания. Превосходно. Я сказал это правильно? Heh heh. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Ugh, ты сказал немножко не по русски, но мы поняли;) MaxSem 18:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Я чувствую настолько специальным! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Шально! (I hope that's not offensive) -- Samir धर्म 08:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

    Нет, оно не одиозно! Я думаю я должно судить за и выучить русский… Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

    Почему-то вспомнил анекдот, как над одним немцем-переводчиком из ГДР пошутили - предложили перевести на немецкий фразу "косой косой косил косой" :-) Nevermind2 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

    Это Русский Википедию теперь? bd2412 T 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

56. Crazy Russian Support! MaxSem 18:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support!!!!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support...a good sort of crazy. PJM 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, without reservations. Sango123 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Oppose, Change to Support as per User:AnonEMouse and due to Crzrussian's responses. I hope he will really try to reduce the small error rate and to work on how to practically demonstrate good-faith to new users. I take on board that it can happen and we could all be in that space. I also note that the 99% of the time he gets it right and will be of real benefit to the project; the other 1% can always be undone by crabby Australians who think that women who got married, raised sheep, ... are important.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Previous comments:I found his nomination of a new user's article for speedy deletion intemperate and poorly researched. I appreciate the article did not clearly assert notability, it was not that badly written though, and even a crudely formed google search would have found the 1st ten entries related to this woman (no Australian domain prefix required). While Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy. and although Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles states Consider using Articles for Deletion instead for articles written by an established Wikipedian, articles that have been edited by multiple editors, and articles that are linked from other articles . Crzrussian, firstly did not check that the article in question linked to three other articles (links created sometime ago by other editors), and moreover after I was in the process of trying to undelete and interrupted in removing the tag and potentially writing {{hang on}} plus establishing notability, he posted a comment to the deleting admin which I feel shows a lack of understanding of how to manage disputed speedy deletions. I escalated the dispute to the WP:AWNB#Elizabeth Macarthur and walked away rather than trying to solely establish notability - CRzrussian joined the discussion there but still did no research external to the wiki despite providing criteria for notability which the subject easily meets. I expect better judgment from an admin. --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Fair enough. I have responded exhaustively on this RfA's talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    You are of course entitles to your oppose vote, but I just want to make a brief defense of CZR here. Had I been doing NP patrol and come accross that page, I might have done the same thing. The original article does nothing to even make the slightest claim of notability. (got married, raised sheep. Geee....). Frankly the author should make at least some claim to notability. If not, and it does get deleted, the author should simply attempt to recreate it with an explanation of why the person is notable. --Bachrach44 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

61. Support: methodical, polite, and helpful.TheGrappler 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support.Perfectly sane support, good admin material.--Dakota ~ 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - excellent nom, appears to have a lot of experience across Wiki. I suspect he'll be a OK good admin.--Andeh 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support! - the best Crazy Russian since Rasputin! :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 07:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Good user, most likely make a good admin.--blue520 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support A very fine editor. Mr. Turcotte^talk 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per Lacertae :) Seriously, great editor, no question will make fine admin. --Deville (Talk) 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Joe I 08:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
70. No-portal-talk-edits-support! ;-) Misza13 ^{T C} 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support You mean he's not already? As a fellow stub-sorter, I totally support this RfA. Amalas =^_^= 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support - lots of good edits and housekeeping. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Late to the game but я поддерживаю! For Mother Russia! :D (Looks good, balanced edits - though article talk is a bit on the low side, I suppose you're doing the talking on user talk - and you know, 1FA shouldn't be set in stone.) -- Миборовский 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Strongest possible spit take, late comer, clichéd, what he's not one allready Support. Can not say enough positive things about this guy, a shoe-in, and the Mailer-Diablo test doesn't say much about an editor's abilities as an admin. --eivind^t@c 04:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Extremely good contributor. With around 8,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.Jordy 12:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support per everyone (aside from appliers of the once-justly-notorious "jguk test" (at least somewhat toned down by MD)). Then again, as he's both a fellow stub-sorter and recently gave me a barnstar, I'm probably system(at)icly biased . :) Alai 14:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support I haven't actually had interaction with this editor but I have edited articles in which I've seen his own edits and I like this editor's work a lot. --Strothra 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Support. Despite the fact that we have disagreed at times, Crzrussian commands my highest respect. Outstanding work at AFD. Isopropyl 19:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support. Extremely active AfD participant. I see nothing wrong with this user, and Wikipedia will be better off if he has the admin tools. Grandmasterka 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Support. It seems I see this editor everywhere since I first saw this RfA. I don't know if it's because I haven't been paying attention in the past, or if I always noticed without seeing. Whichever way, what I've seen is a good indication of what to expect. Agent 86 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Support. Хотя на счет "russian" меня терзают смутные сомненья :-) Nevermind2 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

    A зря... :) :) (Sorry, all...) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

84. Seems a good sort... support! ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
85. Support enthusiastically. He's a great contributor. Erik the Rude 00:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
86. Happy to support. The only reason why I haven't supported yet, was before I thought I had already voted here! An asset, well rounded contributor, and zealous in his tasks. Wil make a great admin. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test quote with gusto unquote despite 15 months here. Anwar 14:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Hehehe, someone decided to own up? ;) I must, however, give you credit on your active participation in process. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Well, thank you! I am glad I met your stringent exemption rules. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2. This is a really good editor most of the time, but I'm concerned about follow-through. I wrote a response to his note on Talk:MILF, but never heard from him. As I predicted there, his edit (to make the page a redirect) was reverted by the next user to come along. I see a lot of admin delete pages without checking "What links here." If given the mop will your future edits be clean? -MrFizyx 22:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   It is hoped. Also, six weeks and 3,000 edits later I am a lot better. I was not admin material on April 25. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

   I appreciate your humble response. I really think you'll do fine, but I felt the need to bring this up since it was my most direct familiarity with your work. Consider my position to be neutral with a strong lean towards support. -MrFizyx 14:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Crzrussian's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Count with Tool2:

Username Crzrussian
Total edits 7866
Distinct pages edited 5144
Average edits/page 1.529
First edit 05:25, March 2, 2005

(main) 4837
Talk 183
User 133
User talk 1377
Image 58
Template 69
Template talk 4
Category 57
Wikipedia 1129
Wikipedia talk 19

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 expect to close a lot of PROD's, CSD's, and AfD's. I am very active in identifying and nominating substandard articles for deletion, and have also done a lot of "Prod patrolling", screening other people's nominations and either endorsing or contesting them. I have also done a fair amount of work with Special:Shortpages and Special:Ancientpages, two areas that get very little attention, where the tools will help me with clearing out the many obvious CSD cases. I have also been active in Special:Newpages and Special:Recentchanges patrols, and intend to assist at WP:AIV.

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

A: I've been a long-time participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, another neglected, but very important corner of Wikipedia. I've participated in many sorting projects as well (which are quite tedious, I admit), especially in the area of Geography. Otherwise, I may be found improving articles relating to Law, Judaism, Russia, New Jersey, or Geography. I've created a couple dozen articles, but none of them is particularly good. I fail Mailer Diablo's 1FA test with gusto! :) Finally, I am proud of my work at the recently created Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week.

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 do not frequently lose my cool and have never been in a revert war with anyone (except for cases of obvious vandalism). I am particularly proud of my greater-than-usual efforts in pacifying User:Lentisco, and trying to save him from a block. (Unfortunately, I failed!) See both of our talk pages. The only time I lost my composure was over User:Big.P and his behavior at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiwi_Alejandro_Camara and the numerous NPA's I had to endure off that page from that user and his sock puppets. I suppose, that was a mild meltdown. I dealt with it by drinking a milkshake. Or two... :)

Optional question from Goldom

1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?

A: Even temperament, lots of patience, knowledge of policy, desire to teach the newbies, sense of humor. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:48, 6 June 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Gurch

Final (65/1/4) ended 14:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gurch (talk · contribs) – Looks like this user has the right stuff to be a Wikipedia administrator. Deleterious 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

gurch (talk · contribs) I found this tagged as {{db-vand}}, but I know this guy and, cliche aside, honestly believed him to be an administrator. During his 9 months of active participation in the RfA process Wikipedia Whoops. Werdna (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC), he's accrued a staggering 18180 edits, a good 16000 of those to mainspace, 623 to talk, 489 to Project-space, etc. Some may see this as not enough focus on policy, but I see this as commendable dedication to the project and and what it truly is. I have no doubt that Gurch will make a fine administrator, and it's my privilege to nominate him. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept – Gurch 08:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Cheating nobody-beats-me nominator Support Werdna (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Beat the nominator support. I need another admin to do my bidding. --Rory096 08:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. A great mainspace contributor. Good edit distribution between Talk and WP namespaces. Kalani ^[talk] 08:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support seems like a great contributor hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 09:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, great user. --Tone 10:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. How did this great user slip past without having a nomination for so long? DarthVader 10:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
8. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per above abakharev 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. A great contributor. Zaxem 11:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support--Jusjih 11:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support18,000 Edits!?--Imhungry
13. Support But the candidate should have voted mindlessly in AfDs (project spaaaace) for a few weeks and this would have been a landslide of editcountitis voters :-) --W.marsh 13:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support ForestH2 ^{(discuss | contribs)}
15. Support 18,000 edits? Need...medic... Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support absolutely. Caveat that edit summaries should be used more frequently. -- Samir धर्म 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
17. I found the end of the previous voter's sig support - and no, you can't support per Tawker with this vote :) -- Tawker 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Merovingian {T C @} 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
20. I know, DarthVader. How? Royboycrashfan 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong support - so many edits shows a real committment, plus there are plenty of edits to the project namespace to show a knowledge of policy. —Mets501^talk 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. More edit summary usage would be good, but how could I not? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Weak Support - More edit summary usage would be good, more project editing would be good, and a lot of his edits are minor copy-editing stuff. However, he is still a good user overall. Deserves the toolbox. -zappa.jake (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support strong editor with attention to detail needed to take our wiki to a higher quality. Give the editor a broom! --CTSWyneken 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. All my interactions with Gurch have been positive.--ragesoss 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Pepsidrinka 23:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Lack of edit summaries has nothing to do with being an administrator. freestylefrappe 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support --Jay(Reply) 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support--digital_me^(t/c) 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Yup. 18000+ says it all. G.He 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support looks good. Edit summary use is NOT low, I know the actual stats.Voice-of-All^Talk 00:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. In this case, the edit count summary is misleading. It seems clear that this wikignome will make good use of the tools, and has been very uncontroversial. Grandmasterka 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Indeed. I posted a more reasonable value below.Voice-of-All^Talk 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

33. Crazy Yee-haw-hoo-doggy support. Yes is the short version. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. According to VoiceofAll last 500 edits mostly have summaries which knocks out my only complaint.--SomeStranger (T | C) 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Boom!--digital_me^(t/c) 04:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

35. Support for sure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support as per all above.Timothy Usher 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Absolutely. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
38. ANOTHER LONG RAMBLING ALL CAPS SUPPORT FROM SASQUATCH WHO THINKS THAT GURCH RHYMES WITH LURCH AND CHURCH AND I LIKE BIRCH!!!!! OMGWTFBBQAYBARTULOLROFLBRB! Sasquatch t|c 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Cliché support. SushiGeek 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Bien sür. robchurch | talk 12:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Suppurch Proto||type 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support CABAL! Computerjoe's talk 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Strong support. Gurch is an excellent user with whom I have had some extensive interactions. At one point he took the time to create a spreadsheet for me using a software tool he wrote. I have little doubt he will make a fine admininstrator.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support. Looks good-- admin status would help with vandal control. Nephron  T|C 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Entirely satisfied with answers to the questions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
48. I like his answers. MaxSem 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Well-rounded user.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Why not? A good editor. -MrFizyx 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support: Could become Wikipedia's ultimate spellchecker. --Slgrandson 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support this excellent candidate Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Well qualified and will make a great administrator. — TheKMan^talk 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Joe I 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support per his promise on IRC to help me out with the 5am backlogs on CAT:CSD =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support --HappyCamper 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support --Mhking 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Extremely good contributor. With 18,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin. In fact he should have , in my opinion, been am admin long back. Jordy 12:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support An excellent contributor who will make Wikipedia a better place if en-mopped. Gwernol 22:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support, commendable performance, deserving of adminship. DVD+ R/W 04:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Has addressed concerns to my satisfaction. Eluchil404 11:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. --Avenue 12:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Thumbs seriously down Does not have any templates signifying any ability to communicate in a non-native lanaguge, or can prove such an ability any other way, I'm sorry. :-(Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Gurch.com.au 11:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   Quite a ridiculous reason to oppose. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:50 UTC (2006-06-08)

   What NSLE said. I've heard of "uses userboxes" as a reason to oppose, but "has no userboxes"? You've got to be kidding me! Werdna (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I point you here for the sketchy beginnings of a constructed language I am co-developing – Gurch 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

   You know...this is the English Wikipedia. Sure, knowing other languages could be useful here and there, but it's irrelevant to adminship. — TheKMan^talk 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Wouldn't normally pass my criteria due to project edits ratio, but due to mitigating factors I believe it would not be right to oppose this user. Therefore, I am neutral, for now. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:31 UTC (2006-06-05)

   Neutral. I am a little bothered by the lack of commenting on his edits. Comment summmaries are an important part of wikipedia and administrators, being the leaders of the community should uphold to a certain standard. However, since this is a small point I will remain neutral as it seems wrong to oppose someone purely on edit commentary.--SomeStranger (T | C) 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to support.--SomeStranger (T | C) 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral Only makes 3/4 on my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral leaning towards support Lack of edit summaries is a minor stumbling block. However, the user has shown that he is dedicated to this project. It would not be right to oppose him just because of edit summaries, given the amount of work and dedication he put into this project. Moreover, edit summaries are an important part of Wikipedia. Anyway, if you become an admin, I would personally be delighted. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

   Lack of edit summaries has nothing to do with being an administrator. If you dont understand such a basic fact then perhaps you should not be voting, much less running for administratorship. freestylefrappe 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   WP:CIV. Yes it does. Go read up on the past five months of RFAs. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:47 UTC (2006-06-06)

   I should point out that his edit summary use for his last 500 article edits is 95+% for minor and major edits, so this isue is moot.Voice-of-All^Talk 00:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Well, thanks for the information, Voice of all. But I am sticking to my neutral vote for the time being as this nomination is very likely to succeed. And as for freestylefrappe's personal comments about my incompetence, that is for other more civil users to decide whether I am fit to be running for adminship. I do not wish to be engaging in an argument here. My edit histories and behaviour towards other users and RfA nominations speak for themself. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Unfortunately, does not appear to meet 1FA...sorry. But one thing's for sure - Gurch is a fantastic WikiGnome around. - Mailer Diablo 14:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• When the hell did the political soapboxing in nominations start? Users seem to be attempting to raise their own prestige with a bit of do-it-yourself demagoguery. robchurch | talk 12:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• See Gurch's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

Note: Since it takes a while for the system to find the edit summary usage of 18000 edits, here is the summary as of 5 June 2006:

Edit summary usage for Gurch: 33% for major edits and 95% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Note from Rory096, who didn't add this. It's not that it takes a while for it to find 18,000 edits, because it only bases it on the last 150 minor and major, it's that it took so long to find 150 major edits. Apparently he rarely uses major edits, so most of them were a long time ago when he probably didn't know to use edit summaries. --Rory096 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Article edit summary use (last 500 edits) : Major article edits: 95.45% Minor article edits: 97.91% per my JS tool.Voice-of-All^Talk 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Count with Tool2:

Username Gurch
Total edits 18180
Distinct pages edited 16241
Average edits/page 1.119
First edit 21:42, April 18, 2005

(main) 16055
Talk 623
User 419
User talk 235
Image 14
Image talk 2
MediaWiki talk 5
Template 95
Template talk 24
Help 1
Help talk 1
Category 114
Category talk 5
Wikipedia 489
Wikipedia talk 98

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 have worked on reverting vandalism in the past, and will likely do much more of this in the future; administrative tools will obviously be a great help for these purposes. Generally tidying the place up has always been my main focus (for example, I've recently been organizing talk archives), and I will be quite happy to deal with administrative backlogs if and when I have the time. I have requested speedy deletion hundreds of times, and feel I have a good knowledge of this and the various other deletion processes.

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

A: By their nature, the overwhelming majority of my contributions do not yield anything that can be singled out as particularly outstanding. I believe that any change, however small, that improves the quality of the encyclopedia is a good thing. Viewing my contributions as a whole, I consider them to be of value. I have developed my own editing tools specifically to deal with spellchecking; in this sense, I feel my programming knowledge has benefited the project. While most of my (admittedly somewhat inflated) edit count can be accounted for by spelling corrections, I have tried to give some attention to other parts of the project, both process- and content-related.

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

A: I have always tried hard to avoid conflicts over any aspect of the project. So far, I have not had many negative encounters with other users; this is undoubtedly helped by the non-controversial nature of my edits. However, when it has happened, I have always remained calm and tried to act in a pleasant manner. I consider my presence on the project to be separate from any personal prejudices that I may have, and while I may argue a point when I believe it is appropriate, I have never allowed myself to become emotionally involved. At the end of the days, it's just a website full of articles, after all. I have yet to participate in an RfC or arbitration dispute; needless to say, were I to become involved in one I would continue to act as I have done so far, and I would not hesitate to request such a process if I honestly believed there was no alternative way to settle an issue.

Optional question from Goldom

1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?

A: A good question, but a hard one to answer, as obviously every administrator is unique, and some are better suited to certain tasks than others. Of course, there are some fairly general things to look for. One is experience – both with editing and with policy, the former being just as important as the latter. Commitment to the project is another; a quality that many attempt to quantify by laying their hands on as many statistics as possible: edit count, number of months since registration, breakdown of edits by namespace, and when all else fails the good old edit summary usage. These are all important figures, but care must be taken not to get a skewed picture of reality. An absence of conflicts, policy violations and of course vandalism can only be a good sign; but the converse should not leave a user's reputation forever tarnished – new users who have a genuine interest in the project will usually learn from their mistakes, and may well make good administrators a year or so down the line. Finally, looking at the user as an individual, their editing patterns (particularly with regard to "admin-like" maintenance work) and their interaction with other users should give some idea of whether they would be suited to administrative tasks.

Optional Question from zappa

Q: In your opinion, are there situation in which edit summaries do not need to be used?

A: There are a few special situations when I think they are not essential. For example, when making small changes to the layout of your own userpage – edits that are unlikely ever to be reviewed by anyone else. (Of course, leaving summaries in such circumstances may well benefit the user if they look back through their page history at a later date). As far as edits to articles, and pages in the other namespaces are concerned, no, I do not believe there are situations when edit summaries are not required.

Putting the question of my exact edit summary usage aside (there seems to be some doubt, I won't get involved), I have taken on board the concerns of a number of users, and I intend to maintain a high edit summary usage from now on. I think most of my recent summary-less edits are a case of me simply forgetting (or hitting the "Save" button by mistake when aiming for the summary box!) To this end, I have enabled the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in my user preferences, as an extra reminder.

Optional question from Simetrical

6. I notice that a few months ago you appeared to be running some kind of automated or semiautomated process to correct typos. Then, you were performing many minor edits in rapid succession, such as 12 edits at 11:33, 16 April. More recently, you've been doing similar things, presumably using AWB or similar, but more slowly. Is there a reason you haven't been doing such things from a separate bot account, and haven't asked for a bot flag (as far as I can find)? Why did you edit so quickly before, and why did you slow down more recently?

A: I agree that 12 edits per minute is a little fast (a little fast perhaps even for a bot). As you point out, I have not edited at this speed for a few months; I have moved away from this sort of editing, and do not intend to edit at that speed again any time soon. The typo corrections I made in the period February-April of this year were made using a tool that I have written myself; all edits I made were manually reviewed. At no point have I used any editing tool, AWB included, for any purpose other than typo correction – the more recent edits (such as the tagging of talk archives which you are possibly referring to) have just been done using a browser. I believe the speed of these – never more than three edits per minute – is not excessive for a normal user account. If I do decide to return to making high-speed edits similar to the ones I previously made, I will create a bot account and follow the approval process.

Optional questions from Rob Church

7. Just how badass is the Nazi moon base? robchurch | talk 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A: Very. Try to come up with a more useful question next time.

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.

TodorBozhinov

Final: 33/23/13 ended 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

TodorBozhinov (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I have been contributing to the Wikipedia community, with constantly rising activity, for a year (since late May 2005). My main (yet not at all sole) area of interest are the articles related to my native country, Bulgaria, and I am the founder and initiator of WikiProject Bulgaria and the Bulgarian WikiPortal. Although I certainly have made mistakes as part of my work here, I consider myself ready for the responsibility and duties of an administrator. I believe I have good knowledge of the policies and am also very familiar with unpleasant and non-creative activies such as making redirects, copyediting, mass categorizing and moving pages. Todor Bozhinov  → 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Todor Bozhinov  → 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Rama's Arrow 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support looks good to me. I don't consider "only edits Bulgarian articles" to be too narrow, and I'm sure Wikipedia has few active Bulgarian editors so I'm glad for his activity there. Also I don't understand withholding support until he pastes a warning template on a few dozen vandals' talk pages, as this is just grunt work and won't make him into a better candidate than he already is. — GT 17:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   Voted by 205.188.117.8 (AOL IP) G.He 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   I have struck out this vote as it appears to be illegitimate. Per User talk:Froggy apparently this has happened before and the vote was not truly attributable to the registered user. — GT 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

   I, too, have struck out that vote [9], but it appears that 152.163.101.7 unstruck it, got reverted, and did it again: [10][11][12]. G.He 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

   And it appears that that IP also voted below... G.He 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Support A sincere user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. His humility in admitting some of his shortfalls is equally striking. Would definitely be a good admin if given the chance. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Moderate support per GT and Siva. Joe 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Good user. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support He passed my test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, per above reasons   /FunkyFly.talk_   20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, looks fine to me. --Tone 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. In a user with less commitment, or where I had any concerns about levelheadedness, I'd look for much more substantial involvement in deletion or vandalfighting. However, your obvious commitment is the most important thing for me. The Land 22:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support. Firstly he is a great editor, strongly devoted to the project, usually it means he would be a good admin. Secondly, he is a specialist in the area that greatly needs the administrative attention, namely the South Slavic issues. In order to separate vandalism from strong POV from NPOV, etc.; in order to suppress the edit wars but not improvements of the articles you should have some command on the issues. Todor has this command in the Bulgarian and related (Balkan is especially important) and I am not sure any existent admins could substitute him here. abakharev 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per abakharev. TummellIl 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Great editor. I probably prefer a few more edits to wikipedia namespace, but will still make a good admin. DarthVader 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Shanes 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Supports, a strong candidate. --Irpen 03:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Alex. I don't see anything wrong with specialist admins. —Khoikhoi 05:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong support. I'm ashamed at the opposers. They clearly have had limited experience with this wikipedian. If you don't know the editor well, why bother voting? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per Alex and Khoikhoi. SushiGeek 06:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. A dedicated contributor. Zaxem 06:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support for the above reasons.--Telex 14:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support after reading his answer to Q3 and my additional Q. (seems reasonable). CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Merovingian {T C @} 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support - looks like a sound candidate to me. He seems seasoned in the art of article editing, the real point of the encyclopedia. Good luck! --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Support - Self-nomination, dedication, honesty - all good things. I agree with JoshuaZ though - I would advise Todor to ease into his new toolbox - don't block users, let other admins do that at first, then you will get the hang of it more. Good luck, zappa.jake (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support - Nice guy. Nice contribs. Cool sig too. I wonder who designed it for him! I am changing my vote to STRONG Support, after the responses to my questions below.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Much more impressed with affirmative reasons given than with the rather flimsy arguments for opposition. Derex 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support as per above.--digital_me^(t/c) 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support - a good editor.--Aldux 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Looks good. The narrow focus on Bulgaria issues is alright IMHO. Nephron  T|C 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. We need you to be there for NPOV issues on your region, and reasons listed above.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. For reasons already mentioned (especially by abakharev) --Hectorian 16:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Weak Support A pretty good editor. Not a ton of edits though. Mr. Turcotte^talk 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support As per Khoikhoi and Siva1979. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 14:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Will be good admin. --rogerd 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Unfortunately feel a need to oppose. [13] shows that the user clearly has the right attitude for adminship. Furthermore, the user has edited in a few areas other than just Bulgaria related issues. However, the user has very few Wikipedia space edits. Furthermore, the user wants admin tools for among other things reverting and blocking vandals, but I see almost no history of dealing with vandalism on any significant scale and no edits to WP:AIV. I also see few edits related to the other concerns for which the candidate wishes to use admin tools. I am not convinced that Todor has the experience or need for admin tools at this time. JoshuaZ 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   Indeed, many of my contributions are related to Bulgaria, but I believe I have a broader view of the developments in Wikipedia even if most of my edits concern my native country. My work connected to dealing with vandalism until now has been expressed in warning the users and reverting, since most of the vandals I have encountered until now have been sporadic and have usually quickly ceased vandalizing. But as a whole, I fully understand Joshua's concerns and intend to be more active in those spheres if I am granted admin status. Todor Bozhinov  → 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose per JoshuaZ. Naconkantari 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Looking through your user_talk edits, I see only a small handful of vandalism warnings, yet your main reason for wanting adminship is vandalism. I suggest you come back once you've done some more reverting and warning. --Tango 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Tango. ForestH2
5. Oppose - per Tango and JoshuaZ, sorry -- Tawker 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose - not enough Wikipedia namespace edits. Kalani ^[talk] 19:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Sorry I must oppose this time around. Wikipedia email not activated. Other concerns as raised by JoshuaZ. FloNight ^talk 23:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose Sorry, just can't support at this time. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Not many WP space edits. You say you prefer working on the articles themselves, and there's certianly nothing wrong with that, but there is no particular need to be an admin for the tasks that seem to interest you. As oppose number 1 pointed out, that's a pretty good sign you're the right sort to be an admin - not many people would turn themselves in. I'd support after more WP edits. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose with a big vote of thanks. The answers to the questions and the discussion around them make it plain that you don't have the experience for admin. Your stated mission, though, is to be a Bulgaria specialist - it seems to me that you're doing a top job at that without admin powers. Either get some experience of doing some admin chores then come back, or just stick at the good job you're doing. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I believe it is clear you have made worthwhile contributions yet I do not see enough Wikipedia edits or the need for the tools to support you at this time. SorryGuy 19:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Per JoshuaZ in particular, but some others as well. --Cyde↔Weys 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per JoshuaZ and others. Ukrained 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    For whatever it's worth, the user above is known to rarely, if ever vote at Adminship nominations but stalk myself vigorously whatever I do. Since I voted "support", hence above. I am glad he follows my edits but as far as voting is consenred, it is a different matter. Count it or not, just I think this noteworthy. --Irpen

    Well, this is lie and pestering. Irpen is harrassing me in order to influence the voting, or simply to promote himself in such a strange way :). Why don't you self-nominate instead? Nominee, how you, as a possible admin, would react on such a breach of WP rules (particularly of voting rules)? Ukrained 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Of course I had my reasons to vote "Oppose". But I won't justify myself under pressure - just to make a point. Nobody is allowed to intimidate and pester voters by demanding justification. Ukrained 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    See above, --Irpen 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose per JoshuaZ mainly, needs to create a more acceptable signature too.--Andeh 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose, "vandal fighting" involves informing newbies as to why their edit was reverted. Some of them then learn what they should be doing, and become good contributors. Proto||type 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose, does not appear to meet 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose At the moment lacks the all-round contributions which I like to see in a RfA candidate. --Wisden17 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Significant edits are unacceptably low - just 12% despite 13 months here. Anwar 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per Wisden17. -- from The King of Kings 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per JoshuaZ Cynical 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose while Todor is definately one of the more sane users I've had discussions with, I do not see a sufficient edit history in the areas where Admin tools are necessary. - FrancisTyers · 13:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose as per Joshua. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose sorry. Not enough project edits, and not sufficient rational for needing Admin tools. Can be a major contributor without them. Eluchil404 11:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Needs more projectspace edits, and warnings are crucial when dealing with vandals. Many don't even realize they're doing something wrong and hurting WP, and stop after their first warning. If they're not warned, they don't stop. Also, sig is too long, reaching 3 lines easily. --Rory096 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral- Ask again in a couple of months. Reyk _YO! 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral I'm a bit torn. Yanksox 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I would like to support, but Rory brings up some interesting arguments. Royboycrashfan 20:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral – good editor, but not sure about adminship just yet. More edits in the Wikipedia: namespace would demonstrate a knowledge of policies. Answers to questions are OK; as a few others have commented, warning vandals is important, I suggest you get some experience of that, also. If so, re-nomination sometime towards the end of the year would have my support – Gurch 20:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Overall good editor, but I would like to see some more Wikipedia: edits. LINUXERIST@ 01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral - I actually think it's good that the user has one focus (Bulgaria). However, I don't think that the user has enough knowledge of Wikipedia policy with only about 100 project space edits, and an activated email account is crucial for an admin. —Mets501^talk 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Per experience in discussion and policy, I will change to support when I see e-mail activated. RadioKirk talk to me 04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral for low edits at project pages, i.e. those prefixed "Wikipedia:".--Jusjih 11:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral. Can't support due to the use of "span" and CSS in the signature (per WP:SIG, but it would be a poor reason to actually enter an "oppose" vote. --Elkman 14:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    I have changed my signature to a shorter and less complex one in order to solve the issues mentioned by User:Elkman and User:Rory096. Thanks for bringing the problem up! Todor→Bozhinov 14:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

11. Neutral His edits are certainly pretty high quality, though I don't see much reason for this user to be an admin do to likely lack of interest. We have too many admins that are either inactive or never really admin. Its good that you focus on articles, and maybe being a sysop is not necessary. Unless an admin is active in admin tasks, its best not to have user's comming to them with issues requiring an admin. On the other had, the occasional use of admin powers is useful for any editor, and he is trustworthy...I might support, but I don't really know...Voice-of-All^Talk 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral lack of RC patrol, NP patrol experience and complete lack of experience with the community. Computerjoe's talk 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Appears to "speak" several languages, but this is one of those silly self-nominations. :-OMyrtone@Requests for adminship/TodorBozhinov.com.au 11:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but I do not understand your objection. Does the use of quotation marks imply any irony? If yes, why? Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian (and Montenegrin) are actually the same language, linguistically close enough to be farily easily comprehensible to Bulgarians, and I have more experience with it than an ordinary Bulgarian. As for Macedonian, I have almost complete understanding of the language and some experience with using it, but consider listing at as a mother tongue more of a symbol — I consider Bulgarians and Macedonian the same people, but divided by politics, and this also applies to their language. And what exactly is your position on self-nominations? Todor→Bozhinov 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All^Talk 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user TodorBozhinov (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 129 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 05, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 27, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.61% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 39.06 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 771 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 4.68% (234)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.86% (243)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 61.3% (3065)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2183 | Average edits per page: 2.29 | Edits on top: 27.84%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 12.98% (649 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 75.26% (3763 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 3.68% (184 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 8.08% (404 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 79.3% (3965) | Article talk: 3.78% (189)
User: 1.3% (65) | User talk: 4% (200)
Wikipedia: 1.54% (77) | Wikipedia talk: 0.2% (10)
Image: 5.36% (268)
Template: 1.82% (91)
Category: 1.68% (84)
Portal: 0.66% (33)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.36% (18)

• See TodorBozhinov's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 16:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username TodorBozhinov
Total edits 6579
Distinct pages edited 2910
Average edits/page 2.261
First edit 17:25, May 24, 2005
 
(main) 5112
Talk 265
User 147
User talk 231
Image 395
Template 124
Template talk 14
Category 87
Wikipedia 104
Wikipedia talk 10
Portal 84
Portal talk 6

 G.He 16:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• See TodorBozhinov's edit summary usage with Mathbot'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: The main chores I would help with are quickly reverting vandalism, deleting non-free-licensed images, blocking vandals and semi- and fully protecting pages in cases of vandalism, edit warring and heated disputes.

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

A: I cannot say I am particularly pleased with having made a given contribution or written a specific article, although there are some that have been specially pleasant to work on. Of these, I would mention the articles on the Tetraevangelia of Ivan Alexander, the Banat Bulgarians and the Bessarabian Bulgarians, the mayors of Sofia and the Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral. Writing the somewhat shorter articles on the Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline, the American College of Sofia and the Zograf Monastery also turned out to be a great experience.

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: Although I do not think someone has ever caused me stress during my time as a Wikipedia contributor, I do have engaged in some occasional conflicts, the most serious one being what could be classified as an edit war with a troll about facts in the List of cities in Bulgaria. While I asked for a third opinion and did much to prove the user, a well-known troll whose activity has spread well beyond Wikipedia, wrong, I also slipped to violate the three-revert rule. And although I was not blocked because I reported myself, I regret letting the situation escalate to this point through being too quick to revert.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. Why do you want to be an admin? Yanksox 17:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A: I would like to be an admin because I feel there is great need for a person who is well informed on topics related to Bulgaria to actively help with the related administrative tasks. I also think I would be useful by doing general chores, whether related to my area of interest or not.

Why do you feel there is a need for an admin whom has knowledge relating to Bulgaria? Yanksox 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The number of articles related to Bulgaria has got large enough, yet there is no admin that I know of who is specifically interested in the topic. I feel there is a need for someone who devotes much of his time here to Bulgaria to handle the related administrative tasks and help by means of the features an administrator has access to. This way, tackling vandalism and doing away with images with inappropriate license would be quicker and more efficient. Specifically, discussions connected with the articles in this sphere are very often carried out in Bulgarian, so fluency in the language is also of importance. Todor Bozhinov  → 19:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for making this a full disscusion, but you mention an admin whom devotes themself to Bulgarian articles, this could be done without admin powers. Exactly what powers are you refering to and how would you use them in relation to articles dealing with Bulgaria? Yanksox 19:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, I'm happy to explain why I think so. I refer to using the powers I have listed in my answer to question one to better maintain Bulgarian articles. I would use them in the same way as in any other case, but my general interest in Bulgaria and the fact that I closely watch the developments in the sphere in Wikipedia (keep an eye on new related articles, edits, projects, communicate with users, discuss decisions, etc.) would help me use an administrator's powers better in this area specifically. Todor Bozhinov  → 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, but I'm a little concerned by this. Just to take your answer further; Would you protect pages you were heavily involved in editing because of a POV vandal? Thanks CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A POV pusher or a vandal? I consider these to be two separate things in most cases. Anyway, I would warn the user several times and then block him or her if he or she does not cease vandalizing, as I understand protecting a page as a measure only required in cases of persistent mass vandalism or very heated discussion involving a number of people. If you mean a situation in which I am an involved party in a discussion about the neutrality (or the lack thereof) of a given article and your question is whether I would protect the page until the dispute is resolved, then my answer would be: Not before I have heard a third opinion, consulted a fellow administrator and well thought everything over. I.e., if this is the situation you mean, I would prefer to avoid doing this if another resolution is likely to be found. Todor→Bozhinov 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Computerjoe (optional)

5. You don't have many project edits: why?

A: I prefer working on the content of the encyclopedia and am more attracted to editing articles and discussing the content. I certainly do not purposefully evade "Wikipedia:" namespace pages, I am simply more interested in the other spheres of the project.

6. Have you ever RC or NP patrolled?

A: Although recent changes and new pages patrolling isn't a usual thing for me, I often keep an eye on them and have made an occasional edit, minor or not, to some of the pages I have seen there.

7. Is there a cabal?

A: I see Wikipedians as people equal in terms of rights and regard the entities within the project as simply what they are - groups of people who do their job to serve the community, not secret authoritarian organizations. I have not seen the slightest reason to think otherwise so far, and find it highly unlikely to encounter one in the future.

Question from FloNight

8 Your Wikipedia email is not activated. Why? Will you activate it now?

A: I have activated it now. I have not experienced the need to communicate by e-mail with a fellow Wikipedian so far — the main way I would discuss issues is by Wikipedia talk pages, or less ofen by messengers such as ICQ. But I recognize activating my e-mail could be useful as another way to be reached that has its own advantages.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

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

   A

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?

   A

9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

   A

Questions from  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)}

1. Do you believe that many English WP users are (probably rightfully) predisposed against Balkanic users, considering them nationalists or POV pushers beforehand?

   A: My answer to this question would be no. During my time here, I have met several people from English-speaking countries who have no or little interest and experience with the topic of the Balkans, and they have always tried to be as friendly and neutral as possible. I do not think there are many people who are prejudiced towards users from the Balkans, and I also believe there is no reason there should be such people. Although controversial issues abound in the articles related to the Balkans and there are many POV pushers and extreme nationalists, this has not created (and, I strogly believe, will not create) an atmosphere of prejudice in my opinion, because there are many more great contributors from this part of Europe.

2. Have you done anything that proves otherwise?

   A: I prefer to avoid controversial issues as much as possible, but they seem to be unavoidable when working on the coverage of the Balkans. In the cases I have participated in heated discussions, I have always tried to remain calm and neutral, and have seen many other fellow Wikipedians from the Balkans do so too, this way proving to the community that there are plenty of great contributors from the region. Of course, nationalist/POV trolling is common, but the controversial nature of the topic itself suggests it. The presence of trolls/nationalists/POV pushers is expected by native speakers of English from parts of the world far away from the Balkans due to this.

3. How do you plan to use your sysop powers to rectify this predisposition?

   A: I do not intend to undertake any specific measures, because I do not feel such predispositions exists (and certainly not on any larger scale). I would simply continue to contribute for the good of the encyclopedia, enrich and improve knowledge of the Balkans and Bulgaria in specific, while acting against vandalism, POV pushing and trolling. I see this is appreciated by the other users and certainly helps to improve the appearance of the region in their eyes.

Question from Avg

Will you refrain from using your admin powers in controversial articles involving Bulgaria and a neighbouring country (FYR Macedonia, Greece, Turkey)?

A

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

---

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

Ganeshk

Final (85/1/1) ended 15:12, 10 June, 2006 (UTC)

Ganeshk (talk · contribs) – I deem it a privilege to nominate Ganesh Krishnamurthy for adminship. Ganesh has joined the project in January 2005 and became an active contributor from November 2005 with over 25 edits per day since then. He has more than 5500 edits in total and his participation is spread across various namespaces. Me thinks he fits a janitor’s role to a tee, going by his performance of regular and repetitive activities that are eschewed by many editors for more glamorous tasks – I believe he can work effortlessly on several backlog activities requiring admin attention. He was awarded a barnstar for his efforts in maintaining the Indian Collaboration of the week. He is a member of several India-related Wikiprojects, apart from starting one on Politics of India. Given that India is a melting-pot of cultures, I’ve always been amazed by how Ganesh works with such a diversity of editors in a friction-less manner – a fact adverted to in his editor’s review where the community repeatedly referred to his civility, courteousness, polite demeanour and adherence to NPOV. I believe that his ability to foster teamwork is due to his experience in the software industry. Thanks to this industry experience, he has designed a bot to create stubs on unrepresented towns of India, currently waiting approval. He also works in standardising and simplifying tasks such as designing templates. Template:Andhra Pradesh later became standard for templates related to other states of India. Despite his area of work being India-centric, he has been regarded highly by non-Indian editors as well – here, for example. He has been hounded since January by at least 3 editors to accept an RfA nom at various points in time – his standard reply was that he would like to build up more experience and wait till June for the nom. And it is June, hence the nom. He has been very helpful, even for queries on others' talk pages. He knows the right forums to raise issues and fast. He has disclosed various facets of his such as discretion, tact, initiative and helpfulness as called for by the situation. In short, Ganeshk has garnered ample experience of WP and has gathered lot of goodwill so far; he deserves to be an admin and gain access to the admin’s swiss army knife, just like my previous nominee. -- Gurubrahma 14:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks Gurubrahma. I humbly accept. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. A Big Yes!! I beat the nom support A diligent editor to the encyclopedia.--Nearly Headless Nick 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support' -- he's done some amazing work here! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per the cogently written nom. --Gurubrahma 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. I know his work well and I am sure that he shall be a very good administrator. --Bhadani 15:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. My interaction with this user has been positive; infact I was thinking of nominating him.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support --Terence Ong 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Of course. A nice editor with contribution in several areas, especially regarding India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per above -- Saravask 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per Gurubrahma. Rama's Arrow 16:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support — has done very good work in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Politics of India — Ravikiran 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Yanksox 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support ForestH2
13. Strong Support Best one I've ever seen. Great user! — Brendenhull (T + C) at 17:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support looks good. Stats show more than a vandal fighter/janitor as well.Voice-of-All^Talk 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per nom. He has made many accomplishments and it's about time we gave him the mop. Royboycrashfan 17:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support – per nomination – Gurch 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support the well-deserving candidate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support agree with nom -- Samir धर्म 17:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Strongest possible support - One of the most helpful users I have ever met. From the time I joined wikipedia, Ganesh has always been there to help me. One of the most worthy candidates for adminship I have ever met. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per nom. --Tone 18:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per nom. - Lost 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Great user. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Definitely! User:WikiScholarChad
25. SupportGod of templates.--Dangerous-Boy 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Oh, hell, yes! RadioKirk talk to me 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support per nom! - DakPowers (Talk) 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support I really like the way he handles edit conflicts. CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 21:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support great work. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support per above. --digital_me^(t/c) 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. DarthVader 00:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support- A good Wikipedian. Civil, level-headed and has a solid grasp of the way things are done here. I have no qualms at all about entrusting Ganeshk with the mop, bucket and keys. Reyk _YO! 00:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Absolutely. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support -- Saluyot 01:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support, obviously. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 01:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support Tintin (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Per the superbly written nom. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong support An excellent candidate for adminship, and we do need more admins on India-related topics.--Firsfron 02:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Extremely Strong Support nom says it all. Helped me immensely when I was a newbie. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Strong support Good candidate; very helpful.Bmaganti 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Damn. This user has a lot of edits. Seems to fit like a glove into every criteria: project involvement, seniority, promptness, civility—good luck!-- The ikiroid  03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Wait, 5,500 is a lot? Now I feel extra-special :o --Rory096 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Thewolfstar 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Striking AOL, possible impersonating edit by User:152.163.100.69. --Rory096 04:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

43. Support. --Rory096 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Looking good. 152.163.100.69 05:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, anons can't vote. — TheKMan^talk 05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

44. Support, per nom. — TheKMan^talk 05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Joe I 06:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support seems to be a good admin material abakharev 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support per nom. Good work on India-related articles. Kalani ^[talk] 08:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Curpz 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

    Impersonation by User:152.163.100.69 Tintin (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

48. Support--Jusjih 11:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Per all the above. -- Kukini 12:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support 50 --Jay(Reply) 13:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Strong Support per everything said above! The Halo (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Okay. Lapinmies 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
54. Support -- Kunal ^(Talk) 19:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Strong Support - Holy Ganga ^talk 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Major Support Complete support. I totally believe Ganeshk is capable of becoming an editor and hope to see this nomination go through. I also hope to see Ganeshk as a Beaureaucrat someday! Political Mind 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Total support based on everything that I had already written in Ganesh's editor review. Why aren't more people piling on??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support No problems here. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, with no reservations. Sango123 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Meeets my standards, excellent user... No reason to oppose :) LINUXERIST@ 01:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Me too Support Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 01:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support -- Nice contributions and no issues. ImpuMozhi 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support No issues, great user. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 02:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I think I'm starting to develop multiple personality disorder... O_O Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support, great user. --Terence Ong 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    I think I'm having dementia, I even forgot that I voted in this RFA already. --Terence Ong 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

63. Support. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support - enter cliche here -- Tawker 07:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. A good editor .Bharatveer 08:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. I've only ever seen good things from this editor and know he'll be a 1st rate admin. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Merovingian {T C @} 16:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Civil, professional, and helpful. - Cribananda 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. Busy, civil, and calm. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Strong support, I am been quite favorably impressed by the quality and breadth of Ganeshk's contributions that I've intersected with, and I'm not even around half of the Wikiprojects he works on! Very professional and a major contributor. Waste no time handing this one the mop. -- Deville (Talk) 02:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Happy to Support - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
72. SupportTimothy Usher 04:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, due to the previous arguments, and the user's contributions.Cygnus_hansa 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
75. REALLY STRONG SUPPORT great contributor, will make a great admin... Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Support. Multilingual. Looks good and no reason to believe they'd abuse powers. Nephron  T|C 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support no hesitation supporting this candidate, excellent work all round. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Support. I love to support good working users. :) - Darwinek 10:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, excellent candidate. -999 17:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
80. Support per above.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support--blue520 07:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
82. The nominator is one of those noms that comes up with good candidates regularly. Everything checks out. More candidates like this one please!^TM Support ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
84. Support Extremely good contributor. With 5,500 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.Jordy 12:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
85. Support - Very good contributor. Afonso Silva 14:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test despite 17 months here. Significant edits are unacceptably low - just 22% of his reverts (see Voice of All's log). This clearly shows he has been a stubborn POV warrior. And I almost forgot - he has a fair use image on his subpage. Anwar 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   I suppose you understand that we do not tolerate personal attacks? Further such edits might result in a block. Thank you. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

   Even though it is blatently clear that your oppose is an attack, may you please explain what you mean by "significant edits?" Furthermore, how does that show he is a "POV warrior?" Btw, he did some work to make Portal:India a featured portal. Featured portals have to undergo the same rigourous processes of Peer review etc. just like FAs. In that sense he passes the Diablo test. It will be interesting to see what Mailer Diablo votes. I'm predicting a neutral/weak support. Anyway, Diablo says that there are of course exceptions to that 1FA rule. Don't you think Ganeshk's loyal service to the project in both article expansion as well as maintenance makes him justified to have the tools that will have a positive net result for Wikipedia? Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Anwar, The subpage was sandbox work. I have marked for delete now. Thanks for pointing it out. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, can we disregard Anwar's vote...for those that don't know he is opposing every Indian FAC, RFC, FLC, FPC and of course doing his best on FARC and FLRC to try and get rid of India-related Featured articles. The entire Diablo Test thing is simply an excuse, Anwar, don't think you're the only one that know's about the Diablo Test, others will think about it too and will support the users in question. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He has every right to oppose. The 1FA standard is a valid objection. Since he hasn't provided diffs to support the "POV warrior" issue, that issue could be ignored by the community. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit of Boothyism. OK, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Does not meet 1FA. Ganesh is heading in the right direction, though. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All^Talk 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Ganeshk (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 171 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 03, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 15, November, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 97.14% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 39.8 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 505 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 3.48% (174)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 9.26% (463)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 26.34% (1317)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1519 | Average edits per page: 3.29 | Edits on top: 11.3%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 22.9% (1145 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 63.5% (3175 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 8.84% (442 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 4.76% (238 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 47.44% (2372) | Article talk: 8.52% (426)
User: 6.5% (325) | User talk: 11.46% (573)
Wikipedia: 10.12% (506) | Wikipedia talk: 3.88% (194)
Image: 1.78% (89)
Template: 7.34% (367)
Category: 1.14% (57)
Portal: 1.24% (62)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.58% (29)

• See Ganeshk's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Ganeshk
Total edits 5603
Distinct pages edited 1768
Average edits/page 3.169
First edit 17:00, January 6, 2005
 
(main) 2778
Talk 436
User 410
User talk 619
Image 116
Image talk 3
Template 378
Template talk 15
Category 57
Wikipedia 523
Wikipedia talk 195
Portal 62
Portal talk 11

 G.He 17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• See Ganeshk's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Ganeshk's Editor Review Rama's Arrow 16:14, 3 June 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 help out with WP:AIV, WP:RPP and WP:RM and closing WP:AFDs. After I gain some experience I would venture into other functions. I already do RC patrolling and have done around 300 reverts, the rollback button will be really useful.

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

A: For the past few months, I have been managing the Indian collaboration of the week. Each week, it gives me a lot of satisfaction to see articles get into better shape after going through this. I started the Politics of India project in hope of improving and bringing consistency to Indian politics-related articles. I started the Tamil Nadu state assembly election, 2006 and State Assembly elections in India, 2006 articles with that in mind. I am currently working on List of Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu which is on featured list path. I also help out creating templates and infoboxes for WikiProjects and have a bot in development that will create India town articles. I often update the news section of Portal:India and the Indian current events 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: In my early days in Wikipedia (around November 2005), I had been in a edit conflict on the IIPM article. An anon kept removing a section on controversy related to IIPM. That section was keeping the article neutral and the reader needed to be informed. Although the reverts were done in belief that it was vandalism, if that happened today, I will stay below the 3RR and try to get into a discussion on the editor’s talk page or the article's talk page and also get other editors to look into the article. It is great to see that the section still exists, thanks to all the people watching over it. Recently, I was in a edit conflict with User:Anwar saadat on the Ajith Kumar article. After my first revert, I left a message on the article's talk page. I stopped with a second revert and let other editors handle the issue.

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

---

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

Kukini

Final (84/1/4) ended 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kukini (talk · contribs) – Kukini has been with us since December 2005 and has over 12,000 edits. He is familiar with the deletion process, countering vandalism, has participated in Rfa and he has welcomed many new users. He is involved the WikiProject Arizona, WikiProject Education, WikiProject Oklahoma and, he has written over twenty articles and is currently working on more. He has a good record of edit summaries. Kukini is one of the friendliest most civil Wikipedians that I know and it is my pleasure to nominate him.--Dakota ~ 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is an honor to accept this nomination. Thank you, Dakota! Kukini 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Absolutely.--Dakota ~ 02:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support Without a doubt. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
3. You Mean You Weren't One Already? per nominator. joturner 03:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Support I thought you were one! Yanksox 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support No question. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Rama's Arrow 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - a great ambassador for wikipedia - a powerhouse of the barnstar brigade. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, very nice guy and knows a lot of the ins and outs of Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. DarthVader 04:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per DakotaKahn. G.He 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support™ --Rory096 05:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support --Terence Ong 05:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support - per above -- Tawker 05:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Support--Bharatveer 06:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support – Gurch 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support - very good editor, should make a fine sysop abakharev 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support --Haham hanuka 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Really obvious support Great interpersonal skill. And back oh-so-long ago he was the one who first welcomed me to Wikipedia =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - clearly is now responsible editor, would make a reasonable admin. Captainj 10:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. A solid contributor. Zaxem 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Yeah. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support!, is a very kind and courteous contributor, always very helpful and nice to work with. The answers to the questions below were obviously well thought out. -- Natalya 11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. For the same reasons as everybody else, he has more than proved his readiness. Rje 12:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Strong Support Kukini is a friendly member, who helps new members contribute to wikipedia better. We need admins who bring the wikipedia community together. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 12:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Good attitude and caring approach to new contributors gives confidence for successful adminship. Tyrenius 13:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong Support ForestH2
29. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Don't even have to edit analysis Support.Voice-of-All^Talk 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Naconkantari 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Pile-on Support digital_me^(t/c) 15:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support anyone with this many edits should be an admin, though the 8000+ editd to User talk space is rather strange. The Gerg 15:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Absolutely! --TantalumTelluride 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - wow, looks like a great, positive user. Tony Fox 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support - outstanding welcomer (he was the user who welcomed me 4 months after I joined after he noticed that I had not been welcomed). I also like his name as I'm Hawaiian =) Kalani ^[talk] 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support - Lost 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support, sure. --Tone 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support--blue520 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support and surprised he wasn't an admin already. --Elkman 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support His effort in Wikipedia:Esperanza/BB is an example for us all. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per answers to my questions below. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Fantastico! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per above! —Khoikhoi 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Merovingian {T C @} 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support, of course. Sango123 23:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
47. Support level headed and diligent. -- Samir धर्म 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Does a lot of talking, but looks like a good choice nevertheless. Nephron  T|C 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Seen this guy around and seems worthy of the mop. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
50. 50th Support Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 08:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support--Jusjih 09:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
52. There are 52.14 weeks in a year and this is the 52nd support --james_{(lets talk)} 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
53. SupportE Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC) as per nominator
54. Support --Jay(Reply) 15:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Great number of edits and a lot of experience. Just bring the edit summary usage for minor edits up! — Brendenhull (T + C) at 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support per nom. Royboycrashfan 17:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Seriously, you're kidding me, he wasn't one already? --Golbez 18:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support per everyone else who beat me to the cliché ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
59. Support per everything above. DakPowers (Talk) 21:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support yes savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support -- Saluyot 01:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support Should have happened a long time ago jbolden1517^Talk 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Support--Per everythings on above. '''*Daniel*''' 03:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Joe I 06:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support per nom. Molerat 11:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Strong Support Great user! The Halo (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support Meets my standards; excellent user. LINUXERIST@ 01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
68. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support I've been voting "support" a lot lately, but I've seen quite a few members who truly deserve it. Kukini, you're no exception. Steveo2 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support Good, strong, all-round user. --Wisden17 15:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support for the creator of useful tools like User:Kukini/Welcome.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support with whole faith this person will do well. Yamaguchi先生 15:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. --Bhadani 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. I think I had one of the earliest interactions with Kukini on Wikipedia (Dec28), and am pleased to see that they have developed a very positive wikipersona. Syrthiss 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support - good user; will meet everyone's standards I am sure. -- Deville (Talk) 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} Just met him, seems like a helpful person. 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support with pleasure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Support. I like to see more main space edits-- but aside from that alright. Nephron  T|C 23:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. --Srikeit^(Talk|Email) 12:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

79. Support. Will make a great one. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
80. More support for you.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support - good answers to questions and plenty of edits, seems up to the job.--Andeh 01:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
82. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
83. Support I'm so glad I didnt miss this! Strong, very strong, support. What a great editor, plenty of goodwill, friendly and helpful, we need more like this. -- Banes 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
84. Support - yes! --HappyCamper 22:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose- User does not meet 1FA, and has over two thirds of his posts in talk pages. I do not beleive it is fair to elect someone on the basis of their his or her ability to campaign. We must base the decision on the quality of his or her work. -Tombrend (not logged in)

Please log in and then vote. [14] G.He 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Very Strong Oppose. It is completely unacceptable that an admin doesn't meet User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article. Ricardo Lagos 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he should be banned! Someone file an RfAr! --Rory096 03:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm striking this "vote," as the "voter" is a vandal who is currently blocked. --Rory096 03:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, Willy on Wheels should not be welcomed[15]. Other unusual selections: [16], [17]. — Jun. 7, '06 [07:06] <freak|talk>

I was quickly corrected by Dakota for the WoW welcome. (and it was reverted) I did not know that was it was a known negative quantity. I saw that as a learning experience. At the time, I didn't realize that some see "welcomes" as a reward instead of as a polite "all edits are public, thus please take care in your work." Since then, I have curbed my use of welcoming and I try to avoid welcoming the more obnoxious new user names. Kukini 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Does not appear to meet User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article, but has made exceptional service to the community. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Seems like an incredibly friendly person, but the imbalance of namespace edits worries me a bit. We always appreciate those who welcome and help acclimate new users, but I'm not sure what the tools would be for. Shell ^babelfish 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Doesn't meet my nine months. Raichu 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. The ratio of 2:1 for talkspace to normal edits is a bit much in my opinion. While welcomeing new users is definatley an important part of wikipedia, adminship does not give any extra user welcomeing tools.--SomeStranger (T | C) 00:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Kukini's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• See Kukini's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Kukini
Total edits 12134
Distinct pages edited 10253
Average edits/page 1.183
First edit 10:44, December 28, 2005
 
(main) 1803
Talk 894
User 283
User talk 8648
Image 1
Image talk 2
Template 4
Template talk 6
Category 3
Category talk 5
Wikipedia 432
Wikipedia talk 50
Portal 3

 G.He 03:12, 2 June 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: If I were an administrator, I would be active in a number of places, many in which I have already frequented. A few that get more of my interest include WP:RfD, WP:AIV (where there has been discussion about backlog [18], WP:RfA, WP:AN/3RR. I am also interested in learning more about WP:CfD, WP:SFD, WP:GRFA and WP:TfD, but will likely move cautiously into them as I have spent less time there. I have also spent a good deal of time RC patrolling, and will likely dedicate continued effort there as well. In my RC patrolling work, I prefer to take a positive approach with users, I like to help novice users learn about the norms and expectations of Wikipedia by leaving a detailed welcome message [19] with all those who have joined. I also have taken care to learn the process of Test1, Test2, etc. prior to reporting to WP:AIV. I really respect and admire the philosophy behind this process. I also have enjoyed being a part of the process of policy development, as such activity is open to us all. If I am granted adminship, I will seek out mentoring from more experienced SysOps as I move forward in developing skills in mopping. I hope to bring a level-headed approach to my work and am always open to feedback, suggestions, and advice. Kukini 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I have spent time over the past months working throughout the Wikipedia environment, I have found particular satisfaction in working on WikiProjects. I am a particular fan of such projects because I feel they help focus energy and build a collaborative community. After spending time working in various WikiProjects, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago , Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Education. I was particularly inspired by the work of User:Ashlux in his work in WikiProject Oklahoma, and recently decided to try to found Wikipedia:WikiProject Arizona. It is with this work that I am most pleased to date. I also love the spirit that Esperanza brings to our project and enjoy association with this group. The articles/stubs I have initiated are listed on my user page as well. Kukini 03:01, 2 June 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:When I first began work in Wikipedia, I really didn’t understand the culture and mission of the project, and found that I should avoid any areas where my POV might get in the way of constructive work. In my first few days editing, User:Zoe, a SysOp whom I have come to respect, blocked me for a brief period due to a misunderstanding relating to a 3RR for a brief period. Although I had no intent to be harmful, I discovered that pushing for events that I viewed as important to be included in 2006 from Current Events was not a good way for me to expend energy. Nowadays, I generally only read these two pages to see what my fellow wikipedians think. As I really did not understand how things worked when this happened, this experience inspired me to become active in welcoming new members and in helping them have a good deal of information to help them learn how we do things. I believe that a welcoming and informative approach elicits the development of more agreeable and knowledgeable editors if they a) know there are many watching out for wikipedia, b) have quick and good resources offered to allow them to know how things work, and c) feel welcomed into the process and community. I believe that I am generally level-headed, calm, patient, and collaborative in my work here in Wikipedia. Editing here has actually developed into a favorite pastime of mine, as I can learn while being constructive. I generally do not get upset when other users have lapses in their civility. I find that clear responses as well as use of wikipedia protocol help me move smoothly through moments when I seem to be the target of another’s ire. Kukini 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Out of your 12,000+ edits, how do you make only 88 minor edits to the article namespace? Also, please explain your 3RR block of 2006 on 6 January. Naconkantari 04:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A: Thank you for the questions. Answer A: As minor edits are generally a matter of personal judgment and serve to allow those doing RC patrolling to choose to not review another's work, I normally do not mark my work as "minor." Up to this point at least, I have not seen reason to mark edits as such. Perhaps I should do this more in the future? I am open to learn more on this issue, but honestly, this is the first time anyone has mentioned it around me. Answer B: As for the 3RR block on 2006, I tried to explain this issue above. Basically, I was brand new and believed at the time that something that was broadly considered a "current event" also belonged listed in the events of 2006. I actually did not see the 3RR warning prior to making the third revert that brought the block. I look back at the experience as a good learning opportunity wherein I felt guided towards more productive work. Let me know if this answer still does not clarify the issue. Best, Kukini 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(Not a response from Kukini, but something I found when I was checking this out: User talk:Kukini/Archive1#POV_Edits_in_Current_Events contains a record of the block and some outside comments from joturner (talk · contribs · count).) --Elkman 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions from Ambuj Saxena, considering that an overwhelming majority of contributions (nearly 6000, I believe) is welcoming new users.

5. What is your policy of welcoming new users? Do you look at their contributions before welcoming them? What about anonymous IPs?

A:Thank you for the questions. Answer A. My general perspective regarding welcoming newcomers is similar to that of AmiDaniel who wrote that welcomes serve as “…one of the main deciding factors between the next great admin and the next Willy on Wheels.” I believe that as a community, we should do our very best to encourage productive activity and not only discourage negative activity. Al though I really do not do nearly as much welcoming as I used to, I still find it an important part of Wikipedia citizenship. Also, detailed and informative “welcomes” serve to help new editors have a better understanding of how things work in Wikipedia and how they can bring their own knowledge, experience and talent to help build a better online encyclopedia. Answer B. I look at user contributions when RC Patrolling. It is my current perception that many new users do not realize that all of their edits can be readily tracked and even readily reverted. Many come across as quite surprised by the first message they get from another user. I currently do not see “welcomes” as a sort of reward for good editing but more as positive greetings that clarify to new users that all their editing on Wikipedia does not and will not occur in a vacuum, but instead will consistently undergo public scrutiny. I actually occasionally pair a welcome message with a “test 1” message, if the user has not been welcomed yet. Answer C. With anonymous IPs, I consider the welcome ip message to be information as well as an invitation for anon users to become users with user names. I honestly do not know if that actually works with many IP users, as none have ever let me know that they decided to sign in formally. Kukini 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

6. You see that the user you welcomed has blatantly vandalized a page and got a warning. Do you follow up to make them improve?

A: Actually, I am not sure I am philosophically comfortable with the concept of making someone improve post vandalism. I do not think we can nor should “make” anyone do anything nor that it fits in the mission or culture of Wikipedia. I do agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy behind the system in place to first encourage errant users to change their ways (such as the 3RR and Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, Test 4). I also appreciate that blocks come in varying lengths and are generally not applied permanently or for long periods of time at first, without being warranted by egregious behavior. I also feel that we can all serve to encourage better editing and writing through prompts such as {{references }} and {{wikify}}. That was a long answer to say that a welcome I leave (or that anyone else leaves) in no way impacts my decisions to give feedback within established protocol. I just feel that the carrot and stick approach is better than the stick with no carrot approach. Kukini 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

7. You have mentioned a lot of interests (as the answer to Q1 above) you will persue after you become an admin. Do you foresee a namespace shift after becoming an admin or will your primary namespace remain "User talk"?

A:I believe I may have already undergone the phenomenon of namespace shift in the time I have been here. It is my understanding that this is not incredibly uncommon. Although I will always see value in “user talk” space for shaping the community, I have also moved in my interests into other arenas, a number of which I have listed in my answers to questions 1 and 2. I do know that my current shift has been more to Main, Talk, and Wikipedia than it was on the front end of my time here. I also tend to agree with the following Wikimedia statement: “Percentages for users vary wildly, typically ranging from 20% to 60% of all edits being made in the main namespace. Note, however, that spending too much time calculating — and/or worrying — about namespace percentages is a form of edit counting, which is generally to be avoided” [20]. Kukini 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

8. (An entirely optional question) What percent of users welcomed by you actually follow up to learn something?

A: I have had a number (but no idea how many) of those I have contacted follow up later. I always try to respond to their inquiries in a timely fashion and offering encouragement. I imagine you have not heard back from any due to the fact that such a repsonse is relatively rare. I imagine most people who get welcomes think that it is some sort of automated response from the system and not an actual person taking time to welcome them in and invite them to become or remain productive members of the community. Kukini 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, block) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A: I feel it is important that we continue to develop and maintain a sense of "rule of law" for all users at all levels within Wikipedia. Of course, I would add to this the caveat that to those who much is given, much is expected. In other words, as Administrators have abilities that other users do not, they should be held to standards of behavior. Abuse of power should, at the very least, result in temporary curtailing of some of that power. I am pleased to see that we have a mediation process that functions well as well as bureaucrats to oversee resolution of issues that might arise such as the one you mention in your question. I think the specifics of the issue of “how” sanctions or responses to abuse of power might be carried out, I believe this should be decided ultimately by us all as it affects us all. Kukini 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I?m a bit curious. How do bureaucrats oversee reslution of those issues? I don't see they having power to do such things. -- Drini 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they don't. Honestly this is not something I know a lot about. When I read the following, it appeared to me that they might have some say on disputes..."Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions" (see the bottom of this page). Perhaps the cases to which you refer are a different sort of case. I imagine I am not alone in lack of clarity on the role of Bureauucrats in Wikipidia. It does appear that those who are mediators, including you, I believe, might be the bottom line on these issues. Now I am curious, is there a poll on what to do in the cases to which you refer? I do not recall seeing one as of yet. What do you think of the rest of my response above regarding rule of law? Kukini 03:30, 3 June 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.

---

About RfB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

---

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

Redux

Final (79/1/2) ended 14:48, 12 June, 2006 (UTC)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. Redux 05:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Redux (talk · contribs) — The first statement is that this is not my first RfB. My original RfB did not pass, with a consensus of roughly 80%. In my second RfB, I decided to withdraw when it was a little over half way through, with consensus at roughly 60%. I will expand on that in the next paragraph.

Applying again and RfA record I decided to apply yet again because I remain confident that I can do a good job as a Bureaucrat. And why now? The decision had less to do with the number of months elapsed per se (it’s been roughly 2 months) and more to do with the fact that the opposition I had received was very specific in reason (see next paragraph), and I believe that I have addressed it. I thought that it was ok to reapply now because I believe that I have fixed the one central aspect of my candidature that was raising opposition, by reviewing my decision to remain completely neutral, in all instances, and resuming a normal participation in RfA (meaning: posting in RfA talk and RfAs in general, since I have never stopped visiting RfA — see next paragraph), as I have been doing over these last two months. I believe that I’ve done everything that I could to meet what the community has demonstrated that it expects of me as a candidate for Bureaucratship. But I will expand on my previous course of action and on my experience in RfA.

In my last RfB, almost all the opposition was based on my not posting in RfA, so I’ll explain that first: for a period of time, from when I started considering applying for Bureaucratship until after my second RfB (to be explained), I made a conscious decision to remain completely neutral on all topics, which I thought would be becoming of the position I was seeking. I believed that it would be positive for a candidate to be already meeting the standard to which he was to live up if promoted (complete neutrality). Many users thought that this was not the ideal choice, and opposed me on those grounds. This takes me to the reason that led me to withdraw the last time: a Bureaucrat, the position I’m seeking, is a user whose job it is to be able to identify community feeling and act on it. There was a distinct community feeling that my then- course of action was not ideal for a Bureaucratship candidate. So, as I stated in my rationale for withdrawing, I returned to a normal participation in RfA and RfA talk, thus abiding by that community feeling.

I will also expand on my RfA experience, since I feel this needs to be made especially clear: during the time I did not post intentionally, I continued to visit RfA regularly, keeping myself up to speed with everything that was going on here: the issues, the candidates, everything. I just did not post, since I was striving for complete neutrality. But my experience in RfA goes back a long, long time. In fact, and I believe this says a lot, there is only a handful of users around here that have been involved with RfA consistently for as long as I have. Although I am not the most prolific contributor (time limitations), I am one of the most experienced users around in RfA. During this time, there were also spells when I went without posting here because I was going through busier times in my life, being able to spend only a few minutes a day in the project. I didn’t have the time to review the candidates’ history then, so I didn’t vote (I do not do it lightly), and it was difficult for me to join ongoing discussions because I didn’t have the time to follow up on the posts. But I always “popped my head in”, and kept myself aware of the main issues that were going on around here.

Participation in RfA talk As I do throughout the project, I join discussions whenever I feel that I can contribute a view point that can help with the issue at hand. Another key aspect of my participation is brainstorming. Whenever I feel that I have an idea that might benefit RfA, I submit it for community review. I believe that this has an importance for RfA. I also find that other users’ feedback helps me with putting my own ideas in perspective: maybe there was a flaw in my line of thinking that I never noticed, or a modification that would make the idea even better that didn’t occur to me. When submitting an idea, however, I am always attentive to the fact that things only get done with consensus, so if there is none, or if it is against my position, I back off, and either move on or go back to the drawing board. I’d like to believe that even the users who have disagreed with my ideas consistently appreciate the effort that I put in aimed at the good of the project.

As a user I'd like to think that I'm always friendly, flexible and open for suggestions. I always strive to be polite and thorough in my remarks, and I believe that civility is one of the keys (if not the key) for the functioning of the project.

I am particularly proud of the time when I worked directly with Jimbo to address a story that was run by Brazilian magazine VEJA and which all but slandered Wikipedia in Brazil. Unfortunately, the magazine decided to ignore us, but they had to listen (or read) to what Jimbo had to say.

As an Administrator I have been one for roughly a year. During this time, I am very proud to say that my record has been next to spotless. I have been proactive to perform whenever I spotted a situation where an Admin would be required, but never acting without a previous attempt to reason with the [often multiple] parties involved.

Need for Bureacrats I believe there is still one to be met. First, despite the list at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, the factual reality is that only about three or four Bureaucrats are active with some regularity, and on RfA, of those four, there’s still an uneven distribution of tasks, since only half of those are doing the large majority of the work. In addition to that, there’s a very interesting characteristic: all of the Bureaucrats that are active regularly are the Bureaucrats that were promoted more recently. This means that we are in actuality recomposing our Bureaucratship, since the Bureaucrats that are picking up the slack are those who have been chosen in the last year and a half, and they are only the four I mentioned (and with only two doing more than half of the work). Since Cecropia’s departure from the Bureaucracy, there seems to be no more exceptions to that trait.

The Bureaucracy and how will I proceed if promoted I suppose this is second nature to any serious candidate, so this should be no surprise. As I understand it, Bureaucrats are, first and foremost, servants to the community. A Bureaucrat’s job is to uphold community decisions, reached by consensus. Although only a technicality, I sometimes wonder if we should even use the expression “Bureaucrat’s discretion”, since it is not the Bureaucrat’s will that should be done, ever. It is the community’s decision. In those situations where the Bureaucrat has to “decide”, as it is normally put, I feel that what the Bureaucrat does is only to investigate further, in order to determine the true, underlying will, or decision. And once that is determined, the Bureaucrat then acts as mandated by that communal will.

Furthermore, Bureaucrats answer to the community, and that demands that all of their actions be transparent and justifiable, so that the community will always know why a Bureaucrat proceeded in any given fashion. A Bureaucrat must also be completely neutral in any instance s/he is going to perform. This is a fundamental part of my pledge if promoted: I will always maintain a neutral perspective, acting only in the interest of the community. As a result, if I were to post in any RfA expressing a point of view of any kind (such as supporting or opposing a candidate), this would mean an unequivocal recusation from performing as a Bureaucrat in that RfA (i.e. closing it).

I also subscribe to the position that a Bureaucrat should never interfere in the consensus-building process of an active RfA. His job is to determine the outcome of the discussions that lasted for seven days, and s/he cannot have any influence in the workings of those discussions, because, as I said, it is not the Bureaucrat’s will or opinions that are to prevail.

Finally, I’d like to say, since this is often asked of candidates for Bureaucratship, that my pledge to work as a Bureaucrat is not limited to RfA. Even though Requests for Adminship is the main occupation, and the most important, I will pledge to work in username change and bot flagging, which are also attributions of Bureaucrats. Furthermore, if promoted I would remain prepared to do my share of the work if Requests for rollback privileges ever became policy and Bureaucrats were charged with the task (see also my answer to the second extra question, asked in my original RfB, below).

Support

1. Support - answers make me feel good about Redux -- Tawker 04:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per Tawker. Naconkantari 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, and I almost stayed out of this, as I've been an admin only a short time. After reading the candidate's self-nom statement and the answers to the questions, however, I find the approach to be the correct one. RadioKirk talk to me 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, per Tawker. Redux looks like a good candidate for the job. --digital_me^(t/c) 04:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per Tawker. --Rory096 06:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per Tawker. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 06:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Support as I did in your 2nd RfB. Personally I agree that a bureaucrat candidate should stay out of RfA's for a couple of months before putting themselves up for RfB so that they are neutral. I think that you were unlucky to be opposed on your last RfB because of your "inactivity" on RfAs. Great admin! DarthVader 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Capable for the job. No reason to oppose. Thank you for your application. --Ligulem 09:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Support after reading questions and the above statement – Gurch 09:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --Terence Ong 10:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Support for the same reasons as last time. Redux has clearly put a lot of thought into his applications, it is obviously not a whim, and this greatly reassures me that he will be a good bureaucrat. Rje 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per Tawker. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Support He will definitely be a good bureaucrat. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Very well written nom. ^juppiter talk #c 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, agree with Juppiter. Royboycrashfan 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)\
16. Strong Support The candidate's statement and answers to questions are extraoridinary in their thoughtfulness. I don't know when candidate "mind melded" with Cecropia, but I'm glad to see the result! :) Xoloz 17:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per Xoloz, seems to be a worth addition to the ranks. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per nom. --Tone 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. A very thoughtful set of answers. Redux has obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this, and knows what he's getting himself into. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. per Nom. (It is clear that this user cares tremendously about the future of Wikipedia by simply looking at the nomination text)--SomeStranger (T | C) 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. My concerns in the 2nd RfB have been truly laid to rest by reading (and learning from) what Redux has said since, principally on WT:RFA, but also on other discussion pages. His responses have been consistently alarmingly accurate, and I am made very happy by the detail of his lengthy opening statement above, not to mention the precision of the answer to Q1. Normally, I'd have become wary at this point of a third RfB in a (comparatively) short time-scale. But in this case, there is no question that what has occured in the interim is laying to rest of concerns and of demonstrations of the candidate's knowledge and skill. -Splash - tk 20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Support based on reading the above and Redux's contributions over time on WT:RFA. --W.marsh 21:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
23. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Support based on answer to my question, #8. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Weak support. Since RfA is being hadled quite well and only a few BCrats are needed to very well keep up the RfAs here, I'm not confinced that there is any short or mid-term need for more. On the other hand, the chances of Redux sckewing up are far less than the chances of 2 crats suddenly having to leave and causing BCrat backlogs of any sort. I have a lot of confidence in this user as an admin and editor, and his question answers give me an equally optomistic view of his ability to look into close RfAs. Remember to look out for needy bots that will need to be flagged too :).Voice-of-All^Talk 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per the answer to question 8. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Support --Jay(Reply) 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per Tawker. Looks good and worthy of the rare RfB support vote. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
29. Support excellent answers to questions -- Samir धर्म 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per answers and all above. G.He 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Looks good --Tarawneh 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Congently written nom & good answers given below. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. In spite of the horribly long acceptance essay, I have no reason to believe he would misuse the community's trust, and that he would reserve his bureaucrat status only to promotion-related activities. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - Richardcavell 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - Well thought out. Great work.--Dave Boven 09:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
36. Support - again. BD2412 T 17:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
37. Support this project needs more bureaucrats. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Crazynas 00:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
39. Support per his answers abakharev 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
40. Support I see no reason to oppose. The Gerg 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
41. Support; we need more bureaucrats. Ral315 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. --TantalumTelluride 03:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - after being a little worried after reading about 2 previous RfBs, I've been full convinced. Best of luck! --james_{(lets talk)} 12:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Answers are comprehensive, well-written, and display both an understanding of the process and the maturity required of Bureaucrats. Good luck! -- Avi 12:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
45. Support - Could use another Bureaucrat. Redux seems to be mature and aware of policy from the answers to questions. --Scot^t 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
46. Support look good! —Khoikhoi 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
47. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Geo.plrd 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Redux seems to have the right motivation and has given reasoned responses to the questions relating ot his candidacy and in his nomination.--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. He is a great editor and a great administrator. Will certainly be a great bureaucrat. Carioca 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
51. Support. A class act all around. Bucketsofg✐ 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. I feel very comfortable with the answers to the questions below and the dilligence shown in his statement above. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
53. Support -- With your credentials, and your explations, I do believe that you are needed, and your become a bureaucrat. Danl 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
54. I think the candidate could have been a bit more detailed in their essay and answers (KIDDING!). Seriously this is an extremely thoughtful candidate who has an excellent grasp of what it means to be a 'crat. While I agree with HappyCamper in sentiment (and applaud HC for bringing it up), I'd like to see 'crats move in this direction as well, I don't think it's a reason to oppose this particular candidate. Strong Support ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. I studied the edits and made up my mind for a definte support. --Bhadani 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. Seems a bit desperate for job (too much like a politician) but I'm sure will be a great bureaucrat. -Reuvenk_{T C E} 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Will make a great b-boy and lord knows we need more of them.--Alabamaboy 17:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
58. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
59. gidonb 19:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) just making sure you will not fail again to reach the 80% gidonb 19:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Agathoclea 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
61. Support A great admin. Good answers! —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
62. Support from a less active (but not inactive) bureaucrat. Warofdreams talk 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
63. Strong Support Wonderful attitude and intelligence that speaks of experience, dedication as well as determination. Rama's Arrow 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
64. Support Good admin, excellent candidate for B-crat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
65. Support Joe I 08:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
67. Support per Tawker. --Yarnalgo 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
68. You know, I've read over your userpage, your answers below, the supports above and the solitary oppose. I happen to like your answers, and I'm hardly enough of a "personage of note" here to make a difference, but I think I'm going to go with Support. You seem to be able to fill the shoes of Bureaucrat well, neutral when you need to be, and you've learned that you can't always be neutral, but know you have to always be fair. I hope your mop gets a couple extra buttons put on it soon. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
69. Support - Should make a good b'crat. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
70. Support Looks good.--blue520 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
71. Support, well reasoned answers to questions show the right mindset for the position. Gwernol 11:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
72. Support, of course. NoSeptember 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
73. Obviously, Support. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 14:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
74. Support, naturally. Misza13 ^{T C} 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
75. Support, like his record as admin, like his responses to questions, think he will be a good b'cat. Sandy 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
76. Oui - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
77. Support. Although unsure if we need another, if there is to be another then Redux is Ok with us. --hydnjo talk 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
78. Support, without reservations. Sango123 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
79. Support good record as admin, can be trusted further --rogerd 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would like to see the next bureaucrat promoted not to just to maintain the RfA process on Wikipedia, but to take a more interactive role with the community. The bureaucrat (in some sense) is in a symbolic position of influence and authority, and what I would really like to see is a candidate use this in a more positive and visible way to help those who contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis. For example, I feel that RfA candidates are often promoted without subsequent followup from the experienced, and this has lead to an increased amount of heterogeneity in how administrative tasks are handled on Wikipedia. Granted, I have mentioned before there are advantages to such a system, but lately, I have been inclined to feel less so. I am also waiting for a candidate to adequately address the political nature of administrators and in particular bureaucrats (since this is an RfB) - sometimes, I am not convinced that it is simply "trust" that is required - this is a quality that is elusive and difficult to qualify. Perhaps more concretely, at present it would be my wish to see something done to address the unhealthy aspects of the RfA process. These issues in my mind, are still not handled with the grace that they deserve, and moreover, many of the subtleties at present are still handled in an stochastic or ambiguous fashion. There are times when I felt a certain amount of leadership was needed, but was not present. I wonder whether the system is set up in such a manner, that this appears intrinsic at times? I would not mind if someone were to simply say it is what it is, but so far, it has not resonated in a convincing fashion. Let me mention in a cursory way that I do remain unconvinced that we need more bureaucrats. In my mind, I think many Wikipedians have used this rationale to oppose because it is in some sense, a respectful, and more euphemistic way to address concerns that are difficult to verbalize on Wikipedia. Ideally, I would like a bureaucrat to be sensitive and conscientious to these issues, and especially so when opinion seems superficially polarizing. Finally, I do not feel it is essential that bureaucrats remain neutral in all decisions they make - what would suffice is that the choices they make remain ethically sound and noncontroversial. --HappyCamper 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Very, very tough one. Neutral for now until more arguments sway me. Good luck. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:33 UTC (2006-06-05)

   Neutral for now, awaiting question 8 response below -- not sure where it came from but I sure view it as important. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

   Changed to support after response -- Samir धर्म 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

2. I'm going to vote neutral. He sounds to me like he's got the qualifications, but I'm going to wait until he gives us a bit more. Keep it up! :)-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Add Stanley Kubrick on to your userpage list of Great Ones and I might support... ;) --Osbus 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• See Redux's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username	Redux
Total edits	5489
Distinct pages edited	1783
Average edits/page	3.079
First edit	21:41, March 7, 2004
	
(main)	2523
Talk	569
User	214
User talk	667
Image	322
Image talk	2
Template	269
Template talk	34
Category	34
Category talk	2
Wikipedia	606
Wikipedia talk	217
Portal	10
Portal talk	20

 G.He 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I have. I would not dare requesting Bureaucratship without having full knowledge of the criteria. A consensus of at least 80% is required for promotion. A consensus between 75% and 80% may result in promotion, but only bearing the verification of extraordinary circumstances that might influence the outcome of the RfA. Anywhere under 75% means that the RfA was unsuccessful.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. I will make the decisions that fall to me and take full responsibility for them. In order to make those decisions, however, I will make sure that I will be able to defend them should they be questioned. That is to say, I will only make decisions the accuracy of which I am extra positive about, and that I know I will be able to explain fully. If I were to be questioned on any decision I’ve made, I will explain my reasons thoroughly. If it ever happens that I don’t feel equipped to make a decision (maybe in my early days at the job, although I have been watching Bureaucrat decisions for a long time, especially Cecropia’s and UninvitedCompany’s, so I have a very good understanding of how to proceed appropriately), I will do the right thing and step aside, leaving the decision to a more experienced Bureaucrat. I will then see to it that I learn from the experience, asking other Bureaucrats questions if necessary, so that I will be prepared to make a similar decision if/when a similar instance presents itself in the future.

3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I expect and accept nothing less of myself. People who have been in contact with me in the project know this. I have always been fair and polite to users throughout the project; the importance of being civil, open-minded and fair has always been very clear to me. The very few users that I have wronged, for any reason, have received a full-hearted apology. Furthermore, I believe that my extensive experience with this project has taken me to a level where policy and community interaction have become second nature to me.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?

A. Absolutely. I don't use IRC or any other means of communication outside of Wikipedia to discuss Wikipedia-related issues. Transparency is not negotiable. It is a requirement. As a corollary to it, I can say this: even though I am able to communicate in several languages, I do not post in any language other than English on the English-language Wikipedia. On occasions, I have been contacted in French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian on this Wikipedia, and I have responded to those all in English. I have refused to discuss how to best handle a troublemaker via e-mail, preferring to address the issue on Wikipedia talk pages. There is no compromising transparency. There will never be. As answered in my original RfB. Redux 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?

A. Yes. I would not be requesting Bureaucratship otherwise. I am willing to do more for the project, and if promoted, I will deliver it. All the forums that pertain to Bureaucrat duties and discussions will be added to my watchlist immediately.

The following are the two extra questions that were asked during my original RfB. I thought that it would be useful to repost them and my answers here. Redux

6. I'm just curious, but according to Interiot's Tool, it took you over six months since you began regularly editing to edit a project (Wikipedia:) namespace, and in the past four months your project namespace has also been relatively low. Could you explain this? (I know that most users don't edit Wikipedia: much, but I just wish to hear your response to this.) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for the delay in answering your question. Well, there's a combination of factors involved in this. First, it must be noted that my "pace of contributing", if we can call it that, was never particularly high (there have been only a few periods when I was able to pick up the pace for a while). When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, I was doing it more like a hobby. But then I realized that this project was something really especial, and a priceless asset in a world where we can't even find out what the wheather is going to be like without providing a credit card number first. So I started contributing as a matter of principle. This transition did not happen as fast for me as it does for some other dedicated users that we have here, mainly due to time constraints. But once it happened, I understood that I wanted, and I should, do more for the project than just contribute to the article namespace. That didn't take that long to happen though, but I was never one to rush into something I don't understand fully first. As best I can remember, I was always bold in editing articles, but I took my time before getting involved with the other aspects of the project. Still, we are not talking about as long a time as six months, no where near that in fact. That it had taken that long for me to actually edit a project namespace, I did not even know. I do remember that by the time I had been here for six months I was already a big enthusiast of the project, so it might have been more of a coincidence that it didn't take five, or four months instead of six. And it could have just as easily been even less. Besides, content contribution has always been high on my list of priorities (and that, in my view, includes discussions on talk pages and user talk pages, which, as I said, I view as an essential part of the process of building this encyclopedia), so this is probably related to the reason why it might have taken me a little longer to get around to contributing in the project namespace.
And this is also the reason why my level of contribution on that front has dropped in the last few months: as I said in my statement, time constraints forced me to cut back on some of my activities, and I privileged content contributions (and discussions associated). Now I'm hoping to pick up on all of those again. I am, however, proud that whatever "real life issues" I have had over these almost two years that I have been with the project, I have never taken extended leaves of absence, never leaving it — I took my first wikibreak only in mid 2005, and even that was only because I went to Yosemite, and shockingly, they didn't have internet access in the park. Have I addressed everything? Regards, Redux 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. By the way, I left out a word in my question above (I know that most new users...), but I think you got the gist of the question. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

7. What is your take on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges? If adopted policy, is this something you would participate in? Do you think it necessary for BCrats to be involved at all? Are BCrats too busy as it is to take this on as well?

Philosophically, I have no reasons to oppose the bestowing of rollback privileges onto users who have already demonstrated their commitment to the community. In the talk page, it was suggested that maybe a procedure would not be necessary, and rollback could be an automatic privilege of all registered users after a certain number of edits. With that I cannot agree. Although rollback action can be easily reverted, unchecked access to this tool would make a vandal's life a lot easier, and that's never good. A willing vandal would not have too much difficulty working around the minimum number of edits. The points raised by Talrias over there are also of great pertinence, especially the part about the risk of compromising edit summaries. If a procedure similar to the RfA is implemented, however, there's the practical problem of making it almost as tough for a user to get as Adminship — although the general requirements would not be as demanding, and a lower percentage for required consensus could be set.
As for the Bureaucrats' part in this, yes they should be involved. Rights setting is the task reserved to Bureaucrats, so I cannot see how it would not be them the ones responsible for carrying out promotions. It's an increase in the work load, but there's no reason to believe that the Bureaucrat community would not be able to adjust. The only technical catch in the proposal is that, currently, Bureaucrats can only increase a user's access level. Demotions are a privilege reserved to Developers. This means that the proposal also involves an increase in the privileges reserved to Bureaucrats (even if related only to rollback rights), which is all the more reason for them to be involved.
Finally, for my part in this. As a user, I would be willing to participate there and vote. If I were to be promoted and become a Bureaucrat, then my pledge to be of service at the RfA forum would be extended to the new forum with the same diligence, provided that this proposal had become policy, of course. Redux 03:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Demotions are a privilege reserved to Developers." Actually, stewards (some developers are able to flip the switches but generally aren't allowed to), and that only until recently. Bureaucrats now have the privilege of granting and revoking bot flags, and that could always be extended to whatever is necessary. A minor point there, though. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. This is from nearly six months ago, and it is already outdated to some extent. Bot flagging was not done by Bureaucrats then, for instance. The developer/steward quid pro quo was a slip of the tongue. When the first stewards were created, in 2004, and took over those jobs, I was already around, so it was a blast from the past. Redux 17:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

8. What is the right course of action to take with an active RfA that may have been polluted with many apparent bad-faith votes, motivated by, say, racism or nationalism?

A. As most will remember, this was a central complication during HolyRomanEmperor's latest RfA. Speaking strictly from the point of view of a Bureaucrat (therefore, not as a user or an administrator — of course, a Bureaucrat is both, but when performing as a Bureaucrat, the specific duties must come first), and as I mentioned in my statement, a Bureaucrat should not intervene in the consensus-building process. RfAs must be allowed to progess and the community to discuss freely whatever issues are raised. Noticing that addressing abusive behavior of any kind can and should be done by any user from the community. The correct course of action for the closing Bureaucrat (hence, only when closing the RfA), is to evaluate very carefully the rationales for each participating user as well as the history of any problems that might have found their way into the RfA. Of course, the exact action would only be determined upon examining each case. Redux

Speaking of HRE's RfA, what would you have done in that specific situation? Looking in retrospect, what have you learned from that specific example? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A. Well, I can say that I have always understood that a fundamental aspect of a Bureaucrat's role is his neutrality. If this is ever compromised, in however small a way, then the Bureaucrat cannot perform as such in the RfA concerned. Given that, intervening in an active RfA as a Bureaucrat is not a course of action I would adopt. This has always been my position, but HolyRomanEmperor's RfA could be said to have provided a piece of hard evidence that even if things heat up considerably in a RfA, the Bureaucrat must still maintain a completely neutral perspective, which is what will allow him to perform his duties and guarantee that community consensus prevails in the end. Redux

9. What is your view on non-admins closing Requests for adminships? Is it acceptable in a certain area or under certain conditions, or is it never acceptable? (question by Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)}, posted 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

A. I'm assuming you mean non-Bureaucrats, yes? Bureaucrats are appointed to determine consensus on RfAs and then act on the decision made by the community. That is their job (combinated with the technical ability to promote when it is the case). As such, it can be said that determining consensus (which is done when closing RfAs) is the Bureaucrats' attribution and it should be perfomed by them. That being said, there is, however, an instance where non-Bureaucrats may close RfAs: when the candidate withdraws, because then there is no determination of consensus. In addition, any user could delist a RfA that has been set up as a blatant hoax or joke (example: suppose a one-day-old account nominated Willy on Wheels for adminship). Redux

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.

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 at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals.
• 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.