Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

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

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 02:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 02:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC). —

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	RfA	Successful	15 Jun 2024	201	0	0	100
Elli	RfA	Successful	7 Jun 2024	207	6	3	97
DreamRimmer	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	31 May 2024	45	43	14	51
Numberguy6	RfA	Closed per WP:SNOW	27 May 2024	5	23	2	18
ToadetteEdit	RfA	Closed per WP:NOTNOW	30 Apr 2024	0	0	0	0

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 02:49:33, 30 June 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.

Qwghlm

Final (50/1/1); Ended Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:42:36 UTC

Qwghlm (talk · contribs) - Qwghlm has been a major contributor to WikiProject Football where I first encountered him. His contributions range from wikifying articles, categorization, and cleanup, to major article edits, including helping to drive Arsenal F.C. and FA Premier League to featured status and maintaining them vigilantly. Always civil in his discussions, whether they be article talk pages, Afd or WikiProject talk. Large amount of experience in all namespaces. Administrator status would simply improve Qwghlm's ability to contribute to and improve the Wikipedia project. Nominate and support.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by QmunkE (talk • contribs).

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do Qwghlm 15:02, 23 January 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: I think I would work a lot on image backlogs - when tagging images for deletion because they are copyvios or have no source/licence I've noticed there is often a backlog of images that have passed the seven-day limit and not yet been deleted. Similarly, I'd also work on speedy deletions - especially early morning UK time when it is still the middle of the night in North America, candidates for speedy deletion can take some time before an admin gets round to removing them. Qwghlm 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

A: Getting Arsenal F.C. to WP:FA status and as the day's featured article is no doubt my proudest contribution - getting something which is held up as an example in other PRs and FACs was very pleasing. I'm also pleased that I have assisted others in producing football (soccer)-related FAs and GAs through the peer review and FAC processes such as Manchester City F.C. and Sheffield Wednesday F.C. Also, I'm quite pleased with the photograph currently used in is:Lofsöngur (an FA on the Icelandic Wikipedia), which I took after a request from an Icelandic Wikipedia member at Talk:Edinburgh - the photo's not a great one, but the process was a nice example of how collaboration between people who would never otherwise meet can work. Qwghlm 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

A: Once or twice I have had very heated discussions with other Wikipedians; I recall one very early on in my experience here at the (since-deleted) page Chinkies which I thought was unsourced and mildly racist opinion masquerading as fact. With no compromise possible straight away, I just did what I thought the sensible thing was and walked away from it before it got out of hand; eventually it was uncontroversially deleted anyway. Often (though not always) very heated discussions can be defused by the passage of time - Wikipedia's going to be round for some time to come, so you can afford to let things be for a few weeks and then revisit them when tempers have cooled, and get other members of the community involved if need be. By and large I've stuck by that guideline since, and I hope to keep on sticking to it. Qwghlm 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Diez2 (talk · contribs)

4. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and WP:SNOW?

A. I preferred it when IAR was a concept or philosophy to be borne in mind, rather than a guideline, which is to be conformed to. In my view IAR is a way of saying we can choose to abide by the spirit rather than the letter of the law on Wikipedia in difficult circumstances; that said, life is much easier when we have a set of rules to work with, and use of IAR should only be sparing and if there is no alternative.

As for SNOW, I see it should only be used when there are only two irreconcilable outcomes and one is highly improbable. In a situation where compromise is at all possible, or a third way of solving it, even if it hasn't been mentioned yet in discussion, I would not invoke it; its usage is best restricted to debates over issues such as keep/delete. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Do you have a history in working with Images for Deletion?

A. I haven't worked much with IfD - my image-related work has generally been to do with copyright violations, unsourced images and misuse of Fair Use tags, rather than nominating or discussing images that are redundant or poor-quality. Therefore my image-related contributions have usually been over at WP:CV instead of WP:IfD. That said I am at least familiar with the process and more than willing to work with it. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

6. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?

A: Aside from welcoming them to Wikipedia, I wouldn't do a lot else, until they did anything that breached WP policies. If they were editing it to whitewash or make misleading statements then I would courteously inform them of WP:V and WP:NPOV, or if they were behaving disruptively I would remind them of WP:3RR and WP:VAND, and if they continued to break those rules I'd take the appropriate admin action. In short, I would treat them like any other editor here. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?

A: When it's not being vandalised. :) Or, if it is being vandalised, then if the vandalism is coming from one user or one IP, in which case an appropriate ban is far more judicious and refined way of dealing with the problem. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

8. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A: I would ask myself several questions, including: "Does this look like a cut 'n paste job?"; "Is the tone encyclopaedic?"; "Is it at all wikified?"; "If it is wikified, then are there lots of redlinks?"; "Do any other articles link to this article?"; "Does it repeatedly link out to the business's website?" The vast majority of speediable promo or business vanity articles would fail more than one and usually the majority of these simple tests. And if in any real doubt, then I would prod it or even AfD it. Qwghlm 10:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Qwghlm's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• This RFA was announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. QmunkE 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Conscious 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support this candidate is all things good, run into him a few times in Wikiproject Football and have no worries about him receiving the extra buttons. The Rambling Man 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support no problems here. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per nom and looking through contribs- a solid mainspace editor and no visible issues. No doubt can be trusted with the tools. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support per history and answers above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. S.D. ¿п? § 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Would make good use of the tools - good luck :) --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support With the amount of edits you've got...there's jsut no way to oppose. Ganfon 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Seems fine--SUIT⁴² 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - good experience, no real reason not to. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Seems a goodie. --Dweller 09:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Good answers, good contributions — Lost^(talk) 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support per nom – PeaceNT 14:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support, thought he was one. Punkmorten 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Terence Ong 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support, seems good to me. Diez2 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Good edits, answers, has an FA, etc.--Wizardman 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support: Nice contributions, Keep it up. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support, I have no problem with giving this user the tools. Trebor 18:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support with enthusiasm. A fantastic Wikipedian. Oldelpaso 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support an excellent, helpful Wikipedian who's done great work with the football WikiProject. HornetMike 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support fully. A very helpful Wikipedian. WikiGull 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. Thorough, civil, helpful. I don't remember ever giving a support vote on an RfA before, so perhaps this shows how highly I respect this editor's contributions. - fchd 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. Only had positive experiences with this particular Gooner, though he does need to buy a vowel. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
29. I've worked with Qwghlm since mid 2005 when he signed up for the football WikiProject that I had just started, and I do not have a single negative thing to say about him. Very committed, level-headed editor, with a lot of mainspace experience (very important to me). I could continue to praise him but I won't, because I believe, and hope, he already knows how much I appreciate his work. Support. – Elisson • T • C • 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support You mean you aren't an admin? S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
32. No concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Has demonstrated a solid committment to the project --Infrangible 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support a committed and qualified user.-- danntm ^T _C 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Can't find a single reason to object. A model Wikipedian. SteveO 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support, yes. Proto::► 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - the candidate has identified areas that really need additional admins to help on, and is clearly capable of doing this work. Plus his response below to an edit identified as problematical was exemplary - acknowledge a mistake, provide details for better understanding of the situation, put the matter in the larger context of many other edits. -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support--Rudjek 19:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support, although you still haven't answered (that I can find) the most important question. Inner or Outer? --Quiddity 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Has contributed much to soocer-related articles. A very good editor as well. It is time for him to be a admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support this random batch of letters that I will forget. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{04:22, Saturday, January 27 2007}
42. Support per nomination.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support per nom and per my own impressions when doing Qwghlm's editor review. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Inverted as duplicate vote. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{00:13, Monday, January 29 2007}

43. Support. I think this user has made many contributions as well adding quality to the encyclopedia. I think it will only make Wikipedia better if this user becomes an administrator! I also think this user would make good judgement in using the tools, take responsibility for mistakes maken, as we all make them. I agree with the canadate that she/he uses good faith, and that is very important! I don't see why this canadate wouldn't be a great sysop!--Wikipedier 04:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier--Wikipedier 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier
44. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support The candidate helped produce two featured articles, and his answers demonstrate that he "gets it." YechielMan 03:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support was actually gonna nominate him myself. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Good user, would make good use of the mop. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support We need admins who do lots of editing.--Newport 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Support As per nom. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose • I am not entirely convinced you need the tools, and the area you express a desire in using the tools in is outside of your expertise. I have somewhat of a fear that you wish the tools more for the fact of having them, over the desire to actually use them. No person "has a right" or "deserves" to be an administrator- it is not a status symbol nor some milestone to be achieved. We are all equal on Wikipedia, even bureaucrats and arbitrators, administrators simply take on different duties, and I do not feel that you are really offering to take on duties that you are suited to. Try again in a few months when you have more experience with images. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Firstly, I have never stated anywhere that I believe I "deserve" adminship automatically (I was nominated by another user, not myself) not do I believe it a mere status symbol; I would like to strongly clarify that point. Secondly, as per my comments below, many of my edits to images - chasing up copyvios or labelling as unsourced/unlicenced/mistagged - do not show up in edit counts as they would have since been deleted, and I have much more experience than the initial impression the editcount tools would suggest. Interiot's tool states I have 951 deleted edits, I can't say how many are Image namespace only but I am sure a sizeable proportion of them are. Qwghlm 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral (moved from Oppose) You express interest in working on image backlogs, but your experience in image namespace is extremeley limited (18 image, 1 image talk, about 10 image uploads, no WP:IFD involvement, about 20 posts at WP:CV over a year). I also noticed the latest entry in your upload log, Image:James.jpg, you reverted the image from a self-authored image with a free licence to an obvious book cover, but didn't change the licence tag to {{Book cover}}. The image was later deleted for incorrect tagging. That doesn't instill much confidence in me that you have enough experience in Wikipedia's Byzantine image policies. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. No one should ever feel obliged to make a fair use claim, even on something as innocuous as a book cover. Jkelly 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think you understood my point. After reverting the image the old tag certainly does not apply anymore, since the images had nothing in common. Whether the book tag applies can usually be determined by a quick Google search, but keeping the old tag up is certainly not proper process and indicative of lack of experience. ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   I did minsunderstand, but am now clear on what the real problem was. Thanks for the explanation. Jkelly 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment In my defence, I have tagged many more images as copyvios or mistagged fair use, but as they have since been deleted, they will not show up when you inspect my contributions to the Image namespace, which only covers images that still exist right now; secondly many of my posts on WP:CV have covered multiple infractions at once (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]).

   However, with Image:James.jpg, you are right; I did indeed revert the image binary but failed to update the accompanying tag, and have only just realised that. It was a genuine mistake and I regret it - I promise to be more careful in future, but I feel it was a rare single error amongst many other successful good-faith edits. Qwghlm 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Yandman

Final (62/8/1); Ended Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:49:13 UTC

Yandman (talk · contribs) - In the half year that Yandman has been with us, he has quickly established himself as an excellent Wikipedian. He is a good article editor, firmly committed to article quality and NPOV. He has amassed an impressive 4000 edits, well balanced across all namespaces. He has participated in a lot of admin-related areas recently, on the admin noticeboards, in dealing with vandalism, and on AfD and similar discussions. Whenever I've seen him around, his contributions have struck me as exemplary of what we need in an admin: sound of judgment, mature in interaction, precise in argumentation, always strongly anchored in Wikipedia policies and principles. I have seen him in controversial AfDs and other hot debates, and every time (even when one might not always have agreed with his opinions) I've found the things he said well reasoned, rational, and beneficiary to a resolution. This guy seems responsible and trustworthy.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do. yandman 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional Statement

I've tried to be as honest as I can, if you don't think I (deserve/need/can be trusted with) the mop, please feel free to be verbose in letting me know why (or just tell me which of the errors I mention below is too serious). If you want me to answer your oppositions, be sure to tell me. Oh, and I'd like to thank Fut.Perf for his deeply flattering nomination. yandman 13:22, 23 January 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: The backlog at CSD can be rather horrendous when our friends from across the Atlantic are still asleep, and I'd like to be able to avoid having to keep re-tagging playground ("Bob Jones smells, cos he has no life", "Ollie is simply the coolest guy at St. James") and blatant spam pages until an admin comes along. The same applies for AIV: reverting linkspammers and serial vandals is a tedious business, so the quicker they're offline, the easier it is for everyone. I participate a lot in AfD's, and think I've got what it takes to close most of the cases slowly fermenting in the backlogs. I also do quite a bit of welcoming and congratulating (if you're a new editor, there's nothing nicer than a "jolly good work, old chap", it helps to know that someone out there has noticed your work), sifting through the red links at RC and seeing if they're "doing good", so I often get requests for uncontroversial things that I then have to pass on to admins. I'm a regular contributor to AN and ANI, and I often see requests for administrative help that go unheeded for too long which I can't do anything about. Basically, I want to save my, and others', time.

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

A: Well, I have no problem admitting I've been more of a handyman than a builder, my mainspace edits being mainly popup-based, but I've written a few stubs here and there (a film, a dead Hamas leader and a numerical analysis method), I've cleaned many articles up, GA reviewed a few, and I'm quite chuffed over my total rewrite of Day trading. I've helped save more than a few articles from deletion, especially since I discovered how hard it is to write a decent article... I'd like to think I've played a part in bringing quite a few controversial articles up to standard, mainly by acting as a buffer between the various factions involved. This type of contribution is where I spend most of my time: I'm sure you've noticed that my article/user talk page edits are disproportionately high. In my opinion, the only way we can get these types (Religions, Wars, Countries etc) of articles up to the standard is by making sure everyone is in the same team, however long it takes. If a new user finds people from his own "clan" (country, faith, whatever) agreeing with the others, he's much less likely to start brawling.

My main pride and joy is helping keep this project free from advertisers, spammers and the like. I created the "advert" series of templates (for cases that aren't covered by the "spam"s), and I do quite a bit of linktrimming and advert-paragraphs removal.

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

A: Of course. As long as you stay neutral and civil, avoiding controversial subjects for fear of being disliked by some is a very bad idea. I recently nominated an ex-esperanza page after this discussion at ANI, hoping that the users of the page in question wouldn't see it as an attack on their conception of the wikipedia community (an MfD which stayed remarkably civil, I must say). I've been present in quite a few of the rumpuses between Turks/Armenians/Greeks/Kurds, trying to calm things down, and I've also been watching the GWOT/Israel related articles (a good troll-spawning zone) for quite a while, as well as the Scientology pages. Apart from that, there's the usual death threats and other assorted sillyness from various socktrolls, as well as a fair number of unethical SMB marketing directors that would like to see me hang (my watchlist has far too much red in it). However, I've stayed away from edit warring, and as an admin, I'll have to be even more careful when debating so as not to give the impression that I'm arguing from wiki-authority. If you're looking for skeletons, here's my closet:

• The first time I came across Wikipedia (before that, I thought h2g2 was the ultimate online reference) was when a good friend told me to look up "Xenu". I was interested, and read through every page on the template, and then started looking at the histories, which is when I came across Terryeo. Fascinated, I looked through the various talk pages, and not being a regular internet user, I thought that sternly telling him what I thought of his way of acting would help things. How innocent of me... I quickly came to realise the best thing was to not feed the troll, and I've stayed civil with other scientologists (and anyone I disagree with).
• In a dispute I had with a user over some inflammatory userboxes on his userpage (which I originally wanted to blank completely), some editors said they didn't agree with wiki-censorship, so I was bold and pushed a solution wherein he could keep the userboxes as long as he put the "not an article" disclaimer up. An admin came across, and the user in question told him I'd given "permission" to have the userboxes, which put me in a rather awkward position.
• I sometimes bite promotional article writers, especially when they've recreated their article for the third time, because I think it's hard to assume good faith from someone who is, basically, being paid to break the rules. I've calmed down since I realised that there's a (very slim) chance even they could be coaxed into editing.
• Being blissfully unaware of "The History", I got slightly annoyed with MONGO at one point, and told him so, because I felt he was being very uncivil with administrators who were less trigger happy than him, but then I saw the ED page, and softened my tone somewhat.
• This edit was a slight mistake, I thought the policy was slightly more lenient than it is. Images aren't my speciality, and I doubt I'll do much administrative work concerning them, but I've carefully read through the relevant pages so as not to be caught out again. However, I still don't think putting hidden tags into articles is the right way to do things.

Optional question from Diez2 (talk · contribs)

4.Having seen your history with Special:Recent Changes, do you have a history with Special:New Pages?

A.I always considered Special:Newpages to be part of the RC patroller's beat, and I spend a fair bit of time there. However, it's not as overwhelming as the torrent that is RC, and I've noticed that most of the blatantly unacceptable pages I tag are deleted before anyone could possibly have come across them through CSD, which leads me to surmise that it's not the most efficient place for a non-admin to spend his time, at least for the obvious adverts. Now I try to focus more on the borderline cases that an admin in a hurry would overlook.

Where would these borderline cases be? In Special:Recentchanges?

I mean borderline as in the cases where a bit of googling is necessary to find out whether the "assertions of notability" presented are valid or not.

Optional Question(s) from: S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

5.Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?

A. No. No. The latter. <cliché> I mean, this guy's a bureaucrat </cliché>.

General comments

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

---

Discussion

Support

1. Beat the nom support. Have seen this candidate around a lot and have no doubts that he is knowleable of policy and sufficiently trustworthy for the mop. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Beat the nom? No, please don't beat me! ... Ah, okay, I'm supposed to list my support here too, am I? Okay, so: support as per my nomination, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support --Majorly (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - very good responses, especially Q3. Has good experience in the project. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 14:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I've seen nothing but good work from this user.--Húsönd 14:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong support Smart, civil, with a firm grasp of both policy and community standards. An ideal admin candidate in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Charming answers, especially the skeletons in cupboard section. This user fills me with confidence that when he makes mistakes, he'll clear 'em up with humility and not repeat them. --Dweller 15:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support for many, many reasons. A shoo-in. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Admire the openness of the candidate. Seems, above all, approachable. Bubba hotep 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Looks good with constructive edits in all of the main areas. (aeropagitica) 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Seems reasonable, don't see why not. Coemgenus 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - Comes across as a reasonable person — Lost^(talk) 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support good contribution and good answers to the questions. PeaceNT 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Support definitely trustworthy. I like the answers. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. Has my trust. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support as a very constructive editor, and seems very trustworthy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - an excellent candidate for the mop... Addhoc 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Good answers, the right attitude, and a solid track record. No worries at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Solid contributor. --A.Garnet 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support per above :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Sure. Kusma (討論) 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support per above --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. Michael 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
25. I looked at some of the AfDs were a part of or nominated. If you can keep a cool head in THOSE crazy ones (The kurdish one looked insane from the third I read), then there's no way you'll be a problem. Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardman (talk • contribs) ([5])
26. Heh, I loved the honesty in your answers --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Yandman's not an admin? S.D. ¿п? § 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Well balanced edits, nice answers...best of luck. Ganfon 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Mature and trustworthy attitude; willing to admit it when he makes mistakes. Raymond Arritt 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - Solid set of contributions to contentious articles and AFDs, great de-spammer, and of course the recent de-assification of Day trading Kuru ^talk 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - Fine user--SUIT⁴² 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Proto::► 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. A solid contributor. Shimeru 11:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Terence Ong 16:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support - decent user, adminship not a huge deal, will not abuse or misuse the tools. Slightly unreasonable opposes:) Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support good editor. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support: Yeah, Good contributor.--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support this well balanced and trustworthy contributor. Yamaguchi先生 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support based on who's doing the opposition, I cant help but support.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support per above. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support looks like a good user.-- danntm ^T _C 04:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Weak support Good editor, cool head. Would have liked to see a bit more experience but he should do fine and is unlikely to abuse the tools imho. Pascal.Tesson 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support fairly weak based on the userbox mistake and Sir Nick's concern, but I like what I've seen myself. Eluchil404 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support Actually thought he was an admin. Has comported himself whenever we've crossed paths. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support: He may be a bit unexperienced in some fields (and I ask him to hold back on that ones until there's enough experience) but more than 300 deleted edits and over 1100 edits on user talk pages (in the first 5.5 months on wikipedia) are a clear sign he'll be a good admin when it comes to cleaning up vandalism. --32X 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Weak Support because of your answers to question three, especially the userbox problem you had. However, this wasn't yesterday, so I won't oppose. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support This guy is a big fan of neutrality. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Strong Support per watching him in action. We have been through hell and back together, and I know that he will be a good admin. He is a great editor, vandal fighter, and stays cool when things get hot. He keeps everything he does grounded in policy, and never Wikilawyers policies; meaning that he never goes against the spirit of a policy when there isn't a good reason to. I was also involved in the Cerebral Warrior dispute, and though he did make some mistakes with it, which is understandable because we were defining where to draw the line between what is suppression of freedom of speech and what is necessary censorship, which is a very fine line to walk, but he obviously recognizes those mistakes and has learned from them. He is a great, mature Wikipedian, he could really use the tools, and he will use them well. -- The Hybrid 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support --mikedk9109^SIGN 04:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. I have an overwhelming feeling of not caring, which inclines me to support, and seeing the "quality" of the opposition inclines me to support him quite strongly. I like admins that interpret policy fairly narrowly. It's the ones who "interpret" it exactly as they please that are the problem round here. Grace Note 05:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Those who have opposed thus far have failed to provide any substantial reason for doing so, and I would not be surprised if they were discounted as a result. Silensor 05:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support - good interactions with user. MER-C 08:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Strong Support. Level-headed and conscientious. Always has a good grasp of the spirt of a policy, and in all my interactions with him has seemed to make the wisest possible decision. Hell yes. --Tractorkingsfan 10:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Support. Nice, civil contributor with a good knowledge of policy.--Yannismarou 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. My first hand experience with Yandman leads me to believe there is little to no chance for abuse. Definitely a candidate who will be beneficial to the project if given the tools of adminship. auburnpilot talk 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Support. The candidate has shown experience in dealing with admin-type problems. YechielMan 03:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Support as unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that one can conclude with a high degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of his be(com)ing an admin should be positive. Joe 07:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
62. Nick of time support --Newport 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose - Disagree with too many of his opinions that I feel are narrow interpretations of policy. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Elaragirl stole the words from my mouth; I have been a witness to some comments that might look like "policy-wonking". However, I like this user very much. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Diffs? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - On the grounds of one of the answers to question 3. After wanting "to blank completely" someone's userboxes, on their userpage, simply because he didn't like them, he "pushed a solution wherein he could keep the userboxes as long as he put the "not an article" disclaimer up" ........ Too patronising. No no no. - Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose per Nearly Headless Nick, Gardener of Geda, and Elaragirl. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose per Nick Geo. 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Diffs? Anybody? What's going on? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Not sure I'd oppose for this, but this edit raised my eyebrows a bit. I thought Osama bin Laden was a self-proclaimed jihadist. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   I believe "jihadist" has certain "freedom fighter" connotations, so in the same way that I (and others) have strived to remove the T word from the intro, I thought this was inappropriate. "Militant islamist" is the most beautifully neutral expression I've ever seen, and I don't think it needs more precisions, at least in the intro. yandman 08:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Weak Oppose per the userbox issue and Alkavar's comment. Just H 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think there's been a misunderstanding concerning the userboxes. My error was in not requesting their removal. Being, at the time, a bit wet behind the ears, I should have taken the matter to ANI immediately, and asked for the opinion of the "the community". I let my love for free speech overrule wikipedia policy, which is that userpages stating "muslims kill people" are unacceptable. That, as I see it, was my mistake. Several admins later removed the offensive material from the page. Apologies if I didn't make this clear in the original answer. yandman 08:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Just H: That is pretty unfair. Alkivar's comment is in no way connected with yandman. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Unfair or not,Alkivar is also completely out of line. Votes like that have moved me to strong oppose.--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 11:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   This is an RfA and is not supposed to be a vote. If I "voted" on the lines of ILIKETHISUSERSOYAY! I would have definitely supported him. He is here for fair criticism as well, and has shown a great willingness to improve upon himself. Give him a chance. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Elara, please forgive me if you feel pestered, but I can guarantee I have had no contact with Alkivar (or any other editor) regarding this RfA, be it on or off wiki, so I don't see why their comments would change your assessment of my capabilities regarding administrative duties. yandman 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, Alkivar is way out of line but Elaragirl's move to strong oppose is even more spectacularly lame. How does Alkivar's personal attack affect Yandman's capacities as a potential admin? Pascal.Tesson 14:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Nick and Pascal, you're right. Yandman, I apologize, two wrongs don't make a right and this rfa is about you, not Elaragirl or Alkivar. I'll cross out that part, but i'm still on a weak oppose due to the userbox answer to the question. Just H 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Okay, let me address this whole userbox issue. Apparently it involves this user Cerebral Warrior who was in conflict with several other users including yandman himself. It seems that Cerebral Warrior has made disparaging comments about Muslims off userspace, and has made various personal attacks toward other users. Hateful userboxes/messages were contained within Cerebral Warrior's userpage, which resulted a heated debate on weather CW could or could not have them. This whole issue has gone straight to the administrator’s notice board found here, and eventually resulted in a admin removing the content and protecting the page. You can find his old userpage here. You can compare it to the new version here. Take a minute to review the history of that page. Should hateful speech be deleted off of userpages? Well maybe it would be best to discuss that issue on WP:USER. Did Yandman and others do the right thing, asking CW polietly to remove it, or put up a disclaimer after CW made poignant attacks againts Muslims and other users? I beleive they did. From my perspective, the issue was settled constructively RiseRobotRise 08:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose per the answer to Question 3. I have a good feeling about this candidate, generally, and I admire a willingness to admit one's errors. However, some of those issues of contention/mistakes were quite recent. I think the candidate would benefit greatly from another two months learning prior to mophood. Xoloz 10:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Still possibly a bit inexperienced. Maybe later. --- RockMFR 07:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Not a bad user, but I'm concerned about length of time he's been on the project and the lack of a user page. I've come accross him before (though I don't recall where) and all I recall is that my opinon was that he seemed good but inexpereinced. I'm sure if and when he becomes an admin he'll be a good one. I wouldn't promote him yet, but I wouldn't stand against it either. --Robdurbar 14:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Please note that Daniel's first RfA is located here. Sarah 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel

Final: (233/3/3); Ended 06:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel (talk · contribs) - Daniel has been a regular editor since May, 2006. During this time, he has accumulated in excess of 15,000 edits. Since July, Daniel has been a prolific, dedicated editor, averaging 75 edits per day. His edits have been well spread through the main spaces, across a broad range of subjects, and include significant contributions to three Good Articles [6] [7] [8] and one Featured List [9].

However, Daniel is probably most well known for his extensive, tireless work as a checkuser clerk. A month ago he was appointed by Essjay to the position of head clerk. In this role, Daniel is responsible for organising and coordinating seventeen clerks, liaising with the checkusers, helping and advising editors requesting checkuser and ensuring the RFCU pages run as smoothly as possible without developing backlogs. As head clerk, Daniel was responsible for writing the checkuser clerk's guide.[10] As an administrator, he would be far more productive in this role with admin tools giving him the ability to help implement checkuser blocks and the ability to edit protected pages. Daniel currently tags hundreds of userpages as a result of checkuser investigations, [11] but he is forced to stop and ask for admin assistance in tagging protected userpages. [12]

Daniel is also a prolific contributor to admin areas, such as WP:RFAR [13], WP:CHU [14], AN [15], WP:ANI [16], WP:DRV [17], WP:MFD [18] and WP:AFD [19], [20] [21]. Daniel's contributions in these areas are always insightful, reflecting a clear understanding of relevant policy and guidelines. Daniel also helps close clear keep, merge and redirect AFDs. ([22],[23], [24], [25], [26])

Daniel is an excellent communicator, a highly valued quality in an administrator. In addition to providing checkuser assistance,[27] Daniel gives other editors feedback and encouragement [28], welcomes new users [29], alerts users to relevant discussions [30], warns appropriately [31] and he has the maturity to know when to ask for help and advice [32] and when to admit his mistakes. [33] [34]

In December, Daniel ran in the ArbCom elections. Though he didn't make the final selection, he achieved over 60% support and qualified for the committee, a truly outstanding accomplishment for any non-admin with less than 12 months on the project. [35]

Daniel is a sensible, intelligent, mature and reliable editor and I believe he will make a fantastic administrator. I ask the community to consider granting Daniel administrator status. Sarah 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Co-nominations - currently seven - Newyorkbrad, David Fuchs, Dfrg.msc, MichaelBillington, Lostintherush, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Tdxiang.

Co-nomination by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Often, as here, there is little that can be added to a nomination by Sarah, but I am happy to add my co-nom on behalf of User:Daniel. He has done excellent work as head clerk for the Checkusers, makes constructive and useful comments on the administrators' noticeboards, and provides useful clerical support as well as well-taken substantive comments in arbitration cases. He was a very credible candidate in last month's Arbitration Committee elections, in which his lack of adminship was counted by many against him, and I expect that he will be a formidable candidate indeed this year. Daniel had an earlier RfA, which ended with a consensus that he needed some time to attain further wiki experience and to demonstrate that some isolated newbie mistakes that he, like many of us, had made were things of the past. Since then, he has stuck with and redoubled his efforts for Wikipedia, demonstrated growth and maturity and dedication, and I consider him fully qualified for adminship. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Co-nomination by David Fuchs (talk · contribs), 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Mr. helped me a great deal with a case at the checkuser space and has always been a good model whenever I see him around the wiki. He certainly could use and deserves the tools. The last RfA for this user stated he needed more experience; the ArbCom nomination narrowly failed, due to concerns that simply because he wasn't a admin, he wasn't good enough. Daniel has been the gold standard for a user before and after that, (hell, he has had vandals named after him!), and perhaps most importantly, learns from his mistakes and has grown as a user, and I feel compelled to lend my support to this user both on the goodwill of the nominator and my own experience. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Co-nomination by Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs), 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC) His dedication is absolute, as shown by his article contributions and extensive work on FIFA World Cup hat-tricks (Featured article), Central Coast Mariners FC(Good article), 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies (Good article), and July 2006 Java earthquake (Good article). Daniel frequently makes posts to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Requests for checkuser and Administrator intervention against vandalism; showing that Administrator tools would be of great use to him. Daniel has helped me personally more than I can say, and has never "been found wanting" in any area. Although failing his first RfA due to his relative newness, Daniel has become a major editor and subsequently declined nominations for Adminship several times since. Daniel has proven himself to be a responsible, friendly, dedicated and reliable editor with strong experience in all fields. Any and all failures have made him work harder and furthered his ambition. He is a great editor who deserves the chance to become a great Administrator. Daniel.Brant is an editor that truly makes his own luck and I wish him all the best in this request. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Co-nomination by MichaelBillington (talk · contribs), 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I first ran into Daniel on a user talk page, some 5½ months ago. He fist appeared on Wikipedia in mid-May 2006, and has been editing madly ever since. He's contributed to just about everything, and wading through his contributions you'll see he's written a featured list and 3 good articles, as well as many shorter or stub articles. (and when I say many I mean it :D) Daniel is the head clerk over at requests for Checkuser (which he does a bloody good job at) and has clocked up over 15,000 edits in his time here. He also regularly discusses issues on WP:AN/I, and is fantastic at teaching clueless users how to use Wikimarkup :-) He's been fending off the admin nominations for too long now, and I say it's about time we assign a sysop flag to this mad dedicated editor :) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Co-nomination by Lostintherush (talk · contribs), 08:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Even though there is nothing left for me to say after so many co-noms, just thought that I'd say my two cents anyway... I first came across Daniel when he caught me plagiarising his page (without any attribution to him!). He helped so much with redesigning my subpage that I became his fan!! Have noticed him ever since and he seems omnipresent everywhere from RFAR to RFCU to ANI. Well no point in going on repeating all the above noms so I guess I'll just shut up here. — Lost(talk) 08:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Co-nomination by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) I was going to write an extensive co-nom, but due to my delay and Sarah's brilliant writing skills; I must say, Brandt is teh next big thing. Supportize this evil Ozzie and make history! — Nearly Topless Nick 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Co-nomination by Tdxiang (talk · contribs), 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I have seen Daniel here for a long time and I must insist that Daniel's the best bet.--Tdxiang 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Thanks to Sarah for taking some time out of her currently-busy real life schedule to write this flattering nomination, and to all those who co-nominate and give their opinions in this. Due to the already-high number of co-nominations, I've used some blue drop-down boxes to minimise the text clutter. Cheers, and thanks again Sarah and everyone, Daniel 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional statement: Currently I'm writing up my answer to Q3, which is sitting on a piece of paper in front of me. Hopefully I will have it done inside the hour, as it is pretty long, and I have to quickly run off and do something in a second. Q1 and Q2 are done, and I added them. 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Q3 done - I had a couple of more important things to do before I could type it up, sorry. Q4 shouldn't take too long, and I'll publish it hopefully shortly. 09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Q4 done. Feel free to ask me any more, however you may not get an answer until tomorrow afternoon (ACST) because I have commitments tomorrow morning. Cheers. 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Q10 Done. Any more qustions, feel free to ask :) 04:30, 27 January 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: I must confess my love of Wikitables.

Admin task	Prior experience	Notes
CAT:RFU	Answering blatant "declined"/{{autoblock}} etc. requests	I also have been in communication with Luna-San on a variety of mediums regarding action taken on {{unblock}}s, and participate in Unblock-en-l
WP:AFD	Closing AfD's per WP:DELPRO#Non-admins closing discussions	I guesstimate I have closed over 150 AfD's under that section of WP:DELPRO
WP:RFCU/C	Being "Head Clerk", as appointed by Essjay	Rather than have to annoy fellow RFCU clerks that are admins, I'd like to be able to enforce blocks as the result of checks; see [36] (which I wrote)
CAT:CSD	Tagging CSD-able articles with the appropriate {{db}} tags	Again, guesstimating, I reckon I have nominated upwards of 600 articles for SD, as shown by the ungainly number of user talk edits - {{nn-warn}} etc
WP:RPP, CAT:PER	Occasional foray at WP:RFPP, and a good understanding of WP:PRO/WP:SP	I help out occasionally at RFPP keeping things neat and tidy; I've seen how it operates etc.
WP:AIV	Some solid periods of vandal-fighting	I often go through AIV when I get a chance and remove already-blocked requests; I also sometimes add notes if a user has stopped etc. to help the Admins
WP:DR, WP:ANI	Two cases with the MEDCAB, general participation at ANI	What I mean by this is, where appropriate, I could use my tools wisely to try and improve the encyclopaedia in times of disputes between editors
WP:AN3	General cleanup, extensive reading of this board	Naturally, you can't do much on this board as a non-admin except general formatting etc., but what I have done is read a lot of cases as knowledge-building

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

A: There has been some recent conjecture over whether this refers to mainspace only, or every namespace on Wikipedia. Due to the fact that I don't want to bore you with a novel, this answer is only regarding the mainspace. If you wish for me to respond to a similar question for a different namespace - ie. Wikipedia:, User talk: etc. - please ask me a question below and I'll be glad to do so.

Mostly, I like to clean up articles pretty heavily, and I'm a member of Wikiproject Wikify. However, I do also enjoy writing, especially related to football (soccer) related topics, and natural disasters. Most of my article creations are what I would call "extenda-stubs", for example Bellot Strait - just longer than a stub.

I was the creator and sole contributor to FIFA World Cup hat-tricks. It was promoted during October, 2006. The promoted version was my initial creation (before anyone else had edited) with a few minor formatting fixes to the table (width etc.).

However, my favourite article is easily Central Coast Mariners FC. It was, and still is, my main editing project. GA status was awarded during November 2006 after I rewrote basically the whole article and referenced it.

My first ever architecture article was Beaumont House, and it's probably my favourite creation. Didn't take very long, but it seems to read all right. I created the Samuel Davenport article straight afterwards, and I hope that I can keep writing like this. TSS Kanowna was straight after it, and I'm kinda liking this article run. Three DYK's in a week, and my first three of 2007 :)

Earlier in my Wikicareer, the mantle of my "best" contribution was probably 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies. It was my first real edit project, and with the help of Errant (Tmorton166), MyNameIsNotBob, NThurston and Mareklug, this article was rescued somehow from the depths of AfD. It was promoted to GA on August 13, 2006 however still needs some minor work.

I enjoy writing about Geography, especially natural disasters. I wrote most of the article on the July 2006 Java earthquake, mainly while it was still "in the news". It was classified as a Good Article on 29 August, 2006.

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

A: Short answer: yes. However, RfA Q3 is not meant to be "storytime", but rather for me to tell you how I have improved as a result of these disputes.

Honestly, I was a total idiot when I first came on to Wikipedia, and probably acted like a dick a lot. Actually, I know I did. However, when I noticed, I made a promise to improve my general behaviour. Since my early Wikidays a number of people have commented that my behaviour in my first two months here was so out-of-character that it was as if it wasn't actually me.

However, I learnt from my first two months here more than I have in any other period since - I learnt that this isn't a game, Wikipedians are real people, and this project is serious. Basically, respect is required to make this a success. Since, I have upheld myself to an utmost level of civility and courtesy, and I have every reason to believe I have done so. I have faced a number of stressful, confrontational and/or anger-inspiring situations, and I have used what I learnt from my first couple of months and applied my knowledge of what's going to benefit the situation, and what isn't.

I run on the principle that I try to find middle ground with people whom I am in a dispute with. Saying "You're totally wrong, I'm right, desist" does the situation no good. What does is "Your contributions have merit, however you really need to do Y to make them acceptable on Wikipedia - see WP:X for more information". People who treat others with respect and act in a mature and civil fashion generally reach more amicable solutions compared to those who take the "I'm right, you're wrong, stop it" blunt approach.

Other than the idiocy of my fist month on Wikipedia, it's been generally pleasant. I've avoided some controversial topics where my input would add nothing new to the discussion; however, there have been a number of situations where it was. Three of distinction in the recent times are:-

• An A-League template dispute. In the end, after some quality discussion, myself and an IP reached a compromise that we were both amicable to.
• Neutralizer, a trolling sockpuppeteer and harasser of my good friend and nominator Sarah Ewart. In the end, after I proposed it, he was community banned. Even so, I continued discussion with him after the ban, and eventually convinced him to stay away from Wikipedia.
• Fyslee and Ilena, which is currently going to RFAR. Read all about it here - my summary (with diffs to my contributions) is the second statement. Basically, in this situation, I disagreed with a couple of users, including an administrator, on a matter of community banning someone. I then proposed we take the dispute to ArbCom when we exhausted all other options

Regarding my block log, there's an explanation here about it. UC and I have always been on good terms, and both acknowledge this as an error which was certainly not his fault, and only partially mine (for not running Spybot: Search and Destroy more often!) :)

Other than that, there's been some minor things, as well as a couple of similar things a bit earlier than those I listed. I pride myself on giving neutral and insightful statements when I believe my thoughts would make the discussion better, both for the participants, resolving the dispute, and for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. I follow Essjay's now-famous quote "“everytime you click ‘save this page,’ be completely convinced that what you are saving will make Wikipedia a better, more friendly, and more successful project, and if what you've typed won't do that, don't click save" closely in this regard. Respect, civility, finding a middle ground, trying to remain detached, and realising that on-wiki disputes aren't the be-all and end-all of your real life are all important traits I have learnt from my disputes.

In addition, if you are a third party, you must remember all of those things, plus to remain neutral and not show bias either way. My first ever conflict as a mediator showed me the harm of perceived bias - it stops mediation, and most DR, in it's tracks.

Optional question from BigDT (talk · contribs)

4. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 06:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A: I believe that administrators should never speedy delete pages if they aren't sure they should; if they second-guess their decision (impending or completed), it probably wasn't best to speedy delete it. Speedy Deletion is designed to root out absolute rubbish, but anything that makes an assertion of notability, or anything you're not sure about, shouldn't be speedy deleted.

If I'm not sure about something - if it's on the borderline of speedy deleting/prodding or AfD - I may resort to tagging it myself to allow another set of eyes look at it. Although the {{db}} tags generally serve as janitorial pointers for admins to find articles that should be deleted, they can be used by admins to get a second opinion if they aren't 100% sure.

Other than that, I'll never speedy an article that has survived AfD, and will immediately restore an article if I erronously did so under this situation (eg. there was no {{oldafdfull}} template on the talk page). The obvious ones - if there's an ArbCom remedy regarding an article's deletion for whatever reason, office circumstances - are probably not the intention of this question.

I would always prefer to stub articles. This is especially possible for some G11 candidates, and especially not possible for some A7 articles. Common sense, as always, prevails.

Optional question from Cyde (talk · contribs)

5. What is your single favorite non-article page on Wikipedia? --Cyde Weys 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A: WP:RFCU, easily. However, CAT:RFU and WP:DRV run a close second. I see so much of myself in RFCU - process is important, but it can be bent to get a desired outcome; all neat and tidy, and well formulated.

Optional questions from mcginnly (talk · contribs)

6. What did you learn from this? [37]

A: I learnt a lot from that; so much that if I hadn't learnt a few key things from that, I would more-than-likely be blocked from editing by now.

Firstly, for all those who aren't aware, this was in the letdown of the RFAR regarding Giano (I believe; if it wasn't, please correct me) I have been reliably informed that it was in fact right after Carnildo was resysopped; not that it makes much difference, really, but meh. I saw what I characterized as a personal attack on Kylu, and gave Giano a warning (using one of the templates - my first error). It was later pointed out to me that Giano is one of the best contributors we have, a point I now not only know but acknowledge, and in giving a template message this was a Bad Thing to do. Previously, I had no knowledge of Giano, mainly because I hadn't developed an interest in writing about architecture :)

So, I gave Giano a warning, with the generic "your personal attacks and edit warring" wording. I would hav removed it if I had have known about Giano before this, and it was an error in judgement not to check about him extensively (now I do for any user who I am warning - lesson learnt number one). Giano wrote something in an archive about me that I didn't appreciate, and things deteriorated, more out of stupidity than anything else, all of it on my side (lesson number two was that if people say you're acting like a dick, you probably are).

I apologised after I was educated, a trait I pride myself in - I don't get on my "high horse" and stay there if I know I am probably wrong.[38] Giano later stated that "Please don't worry about apologising, when one stirs up a hornets nest as often as I seem to do, one has to expect to be stung once in a while", and we both shook hands mutually and moved on to improve the encyclopaedia.[39] I later found out we share a passion for cricket, and despite my half-hearted appeals (bad pun intended), he couldn't be turned from WP:ARCH to WP:CRIC.

The two lessons marked inline were important, but more importantly I learned to respect other people's views on differing topics on Wikipedia. WP:BULL I disagreed stronly on at the time, however I have grown to accept it, and even possibly adopting it (with some revised criteria, ie FL's as well).

Actually, I might as well pledge right now that I will follow this criteria if this nomination is successful: I will write one Featured Article or two Good Articles or one Featured List every year for the next two to retain my adminship. If I do not do so, I will ask a steward to voluntarily remove will not use my +sysop bit until such a time that I have met this threshold, and then I will ask to be "speedy reappointed". I do this in an attempt to become less like a policeman and more like an article writer.Modified per advice from a steward, 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?

A: Basically, the answer is never, if my action is undertaken unilaterally or without discussion. By discussion, I mean ANI/AN, not IRC or email - a discussion where everyone is invited to contribute. The main point to remember in these discussions is that blocks are preventative, not punishment.

The only, extremely marginalised, situation where I will block an experienced editor for a lengthy period of time is if it is clear the account has been comprimised; therefore, I am protecting the Wiki. "Clear" means no doubt; I'm not referring to little disputes or anything, but rather mass-blanking of articles/blatantly vandalising userpages with personal attacks etc. I always believe in assuming good faith.

Optional question from Majorly (talk · contribs)

8. Will you run for ArbCom again?

A: Maybe, possibly, probably, maybe not - I'm not sure eleven months out :) Ask me again in seven-eight, and I'll be able to answer your question. However, I can say I would like to, because some recent ArbCom decisions have astounded me, and some other actions I totally disagree with. Naturally, given I am a human with a point of view, these things are going to occur, but I'm all for helping a process improve, if that's what the community wants.

Sorry I can't give you any further information in answering this question, but it is just too far into the future.

Optional question from Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)

9. As an admin, you are expected to deal with and try to resolve conflicts between other users. How would you handle yourself in such a situation, and how would you go about solving the issue? (This is a general hypothetical, so I'm purposely not providing specifics here)

A: Every situation is different, and requires different methods of diffusion, depending on a number of factors: subject, namespace, editors involved, experience of said editors, prior history etc.

However, there are two general rules: attempt to reach a comprimise and an agreement to be civil whilst they work out how to solve their problems, and to never, ever, be patronising or blatantly in favour of one side compared to the another. If people are going to respect your comments, you have to be totally neutral and detached from the ideas the users are "fighting" over. Disengagement is a good tactic if things start getting too heated, as well.

Rather than repeating the details I gave further to this question in Q3, please read the last two paragraphs of my answer of said question.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

10. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. More information about efforts can be found at this handy page.

A: I suspect every administrator hates "spam" to some degree. Personally, I'm around the 6-out-of-10 mark (not extreme, but still non-tolerant). Wikipedia spam links are becoming more and more of a problem, for the same reasons G11's are: Wikipedia is becoming bigger and better, and (sadly) corporations big and small think they can exploit the setup of Wikipedia.

External links are useful to link to external pages directly relevant to the subject of the article. They are also useful, in limited topic areas, to link to further reading material - for example, a link to a transcript of a famous speech by Mr. X.

We most certainly should not be allowing every Myspace, Youtube etc. link into Wikipedia. Although not all are, some are spam in the clearest definition of the term. We should use vigilance and resilience in preventing Wikipedia from being used as a spam database. However, more importantly, is common sense. Always assume good faith without evidence to the contrary, and choose your options right: revert, caution, warn, block, blacklist etc.

I recently participated in an interview with a writer from The Age, and my answer to the question "What is the biggest threat to Wikipedia's functionality and quality in the near future?" was "Corporate exploitation". We are establishing ourselves heavily in a lot of areas, and this makes us a target, both for spam links and spam articles. Each must be dealt with in an attempt to combat, and deter, this kind of behaviour which expliots Wikipedia's reputation and lowers its' quality.

General comments

• See Daniel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Daniel's first RfA [40]
• You may view Daniel's edits here Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• When I first saw this RFA, the name rang an odd bell and I didn't understand all the support. Just in case anyone else is similarly confused, this person is definitely not Daniel Brandt. Congratulations on breaking 200.--Kchase T 13:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. I'd like to see more mainspace edits, but I'v seen him around and he's a reas asset to Wikipedia. Needs to be an admin.--Wizardman 05:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support KazakhPol 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support; user has contributed quite well. Ral315 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Jpeob 05:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support I don't care about mainspace edits if this is his Wikipedia record. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support Absolutely! Glen 05:31, January 23, 2007 (UTC)
9. Always level-headed, great editor, and devoted soldier in the war against sockpuppetry. --Slowking Man 05:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support! Khoikhoi 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support It looks like giving Daniel the admin tools would only benefit the project; I can't see them being misued in the performance of his duties. (aeropagitica) 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong support - Daniel has been doing a lot for the project for a while now. --BigDT 06:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
13. He has too many co-nominators, but I won't hold that against him :-) Kusma (討論) 06:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Well duh -- how possibly not? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support, absolutely. Mainspace edits aren't a concern given this user's record, and I've worked with him quite a bit recently. Definitely an excellent candidate. --Coredesat 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support, of course Shhhhh, he's already in the cabal anyway --Cyde Weys 06:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Hard not to, given these nominations and his record. Sandstein 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support per common sense, this user is a bloody legend, let's face it. [41] Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support for outstanding contributions to, and by extension, understanding of, Wikipedia policy. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Yep Spartaz 06:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. He clearly needs the tools and will use them well. --Bduke 07:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Devoted editor Alex Bakharev 07:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support alphachimp 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support (EditConflict) per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support--MONGO 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Pile-on. Go for it! --tjstrf talk 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
27. ¡Sí! For the irreplicable and beneficial contributions this user has done for Wikipedia and the community. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support there's something nagging at me about this guy, he either did something I either really loved or really hated, either way he seems to pass my criteria and looks like a solid candidate †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support This user would be an outstanding addition to the custodial staff. Give him the mop! Somitho 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. If he wants to mostly work in the unglamorous precincts of the back office, that's fine by me. --Calton | Talk 07:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Wow, er... I mean Support — Lost^(talk) 08:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Awesome user. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. I don't know what I should say here... This is a no-brainer. Grandmasterka 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Unreserved Support. Daniel has done excellent work since arriving, and having the twiddled bit would definitely assist greatly in his work on the site. Pass out the mop and bucket! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. Absolutely no reservations; short of a psychotic break I can't see the user abusing the tools that come with the mop and bucket. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Merge and Redirect to RFB Support, the perfect user. yandman 09:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Støtter Robdurbar 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - no real reason not to. Great user. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 09:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Strong Support - agree entirely with Sarah's nomination, and also because I've seen him in action, helping out in a volatile situation, specifically sticking to intelligent decisions instead of "siding" with people. But mostly because of Sarah's nomination. Milto LOL pia 09:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Steel 10:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Strong Support Yes, very yes! Thε Halo ^Θ 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Clichéd thought you already were one support - just don't stop contributing! The Rambling Man 11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong support - Aksi_great (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Dedicated editor. Good luck with the tools. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
45. I wanted to nominate him like two months ago... anyways, I expect that he knows plenty about the structure of Wikipedia due to his experience writing a bunch of articles, having something like seven billion edits in four minutes, and if he's trusted to do clerical work for the CheckUser page then I think we can kick it up a notch. Bam! ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Weak support The behaviour that brought down the first RfA still worries me, but seems an excellent contributor and people can act out of character. --Dweller 11:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
47. <insert RfA cliché here>. --Deskana (request backup) 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support: No doubt. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support --Rettetast
50. Strong Support A legend, an inspiring user. Good answers to the questions too. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support - Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Definitely strong support. S.D. ¿п? § 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
53. An easy decision - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
54. I expect WP:SNOW closure :) MaxSem 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Ofcourse. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Absolutely. Conscious 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Strong support per my co-nom and everything above. A strong contributor on both the administrative side and to content. Who says there's no second chances on Wikipedia? Newyorkbrad 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Support, no objections here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Support. Peacent 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Support certainly Agathoclea 13:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Strong Support Absolutely trust this guy. And please nominate yourself for ArbCom again next time. --Majorly (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
62. Oppose: user is intent on bumping me down the WP:100! Meh, strong support per nomination way up the top there. And Cyde, I hate to fight over cabalists, but Daniel's a lifetime member of the Aussie Cabal! Sarah 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
63. I really have nothing to say Support ~ Arjun
64. Support, per the illustrious nominators. Coemgenus 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
65. Very Strong hey-I-wanted-to-co-nom-too-Support Daniel is a very experienced, dedicated and friendly user, will definitely make an outstanding admin.--Húsönd 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
66. OMFG YES. Long long overdue. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Support - Would make an excellent administrator --Borgarde 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Support #include pile-on.cliché Guy (Help!) 15:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
69. Going to sleep now more than likely means I'll miss WP:100 SUPPORT, so I'll do it now. – Chacor 15:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Support - excellent and very helpful contributor, will be a great asset as an administrator. Warofdreams talk 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
72. About darn time! He's dedicated, experienced, level-headed, civil... what more could we ask for? :) Srose (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
73. Support- He uses tables to explain! Definite support... glad to see the community agrees! Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
74. Support Need I even say anything? He's too good it scares me. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
75. Support, of course. Overwhelmingly sane user. Won't kill anything with the new buttons, so hand them over already. =) ♠PMC♠ 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
76. Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
77. Support - seen him around everywhere, and seems to be very strong in policy and editing both. Anyone done the "thought he already was..." cliche yet? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
78. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
79. Support impressive contributor.--cj | talk 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
80. Support Because of that table. In my ideal world, Wikipedia will be nothing but tables, and I look forward to Daniel's adminship in that glorious future. Heck, I may even rewrite this vote as a table! :-) Just H 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
81. Support. Most certainly deserves it. —LestatdeLioncourt 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
82. Support <cliche>I thought he already was one!</cliche> --Akhilleus (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
83. Support deserves the community's trust. Pascal.Tesson 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
84. Support as above, even though I am highly skeptical of tables. Bwithh 19:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
85. Support Excellent candidate; excellent (plethora of) nominators. Xoloz 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
86. Support. I've been wondering why Daniel hadn't gone up yet. Welcome aboard! Chick Bowen 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
87. Support Well earned.--CJ King 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
88. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
89. Support The most helpful wikipedian I have come across. This is the man to go to for help or advice on wikipedia. Judging purely from contributions (75 edits AVERAGE!), it's safe to say he is one of the most devoted wikipedia members currently active. Mehmeda 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
90. Speedy Support ~ trialsanderrors 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    Speedy? At #91? :) --Majorly (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

91. Support - We needed you at arbcom.Bakaman 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
92. Support per above :).--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
93. Support. G.He 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
94. Support. Michael 22:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
95. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
96. Ja, you betcha. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
97. Go Go Superclerk! PTO 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
98. Strong Support Contribs. speak for themselves, answers are pretty good too. Ganfon 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
99. No duh Support! Great editor and fantastic answers! Ha-ha Daniel, I've been waiting for #100, thanks to Brad's updates! Cbrown1023 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
100. ♪He is the very model of a modern wikipedian♬ Support Bucketsofg 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
101. Support Number 101!. Obvious. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
102. Moments too slow for WP:100 support. I consider Daniel a friend, to myself and to the project itself, and I'm always happy and proud to work with him, on Wikipedia. He has an in-depth understanding of policy, a commitment to achieving consensus, and the knowledge to recognize when he needs help or a second opinion. I supported his ArbCom candidacy, before, and I'll happily support his adminship candidacy, now. I do respect NishKid64's oppose (in fact, I applaud him for standing, apparently alone at this time, for what he feels is right), but I also feel that I've seen people crack under less pressure, and that the important thing (at least for me) has been DB's ability to get up, dust himself off, and learn from his past mistakes -- that, more than anything, leads me to believe he will be a fine administrator. It's past time we gave this user the tools to do the job. Luna Santin 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
103. Oppose as 5 co-noms is just silly Support. Strong answers and contribs demonstrate good knwoledge of policy. Am confident he'll use the tools well. WJBscribe 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
104. Support. It's only appropriate that his declared favorite page has a rather large Wikitable at the top. Oh right, as for why the support (since that is what this is all about), good answers to the questions, and it seems like he's pretty much done all the adminy tasks that a non-admin can do. Something about an admin by osmosis comes to mind, but that logic might only make sense to me. -- Natalya 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
105. Support Very impressive contributions, hard-working, helpful and civil. Daniel will do a great job -- Samir धर्म 02:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
106. Strong support. I have been very impressed with Daniel - he's a hard worker, has gotten involved with many of the key tasks an admin would have to address, and those combined with his answers to the questions above suggest someone who will do a good job IMO. Orderinchaos78 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
107. Support - good, dedicated user. Of course, I support. Danny 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
108. Hell yes support! Suxh fantastic candidates coming through at the moment, Daniel and Kuru! Viridae^Talk 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
109. Support, I thought he already was an Admin. Kyriakos 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
110. Support. - Merzbow 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
111. Support, after some thought about Konstable's !vote.-gadfium 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC). Change to Strong support after reading his response to Konstable.-gadfium 08:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
112. Support. Time to give him the mop. - Mark 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
113. Support A dedicated and intelligent user. Culverin? ^Talk 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
114. Support he is not an admin yet?! Flyingtoaster1337 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
115. Back to support per below.--KonstableSock 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
116. Strong Support Absolutely an ideal candidate, would not abuse the tools and is strongly aware of Wikipedia policy.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
117. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
118. Support level-headed and thoughtful work on DRV, firm grasp of policy. Thought he was one already, actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
119. Support - what?! Not an admin yet? Gosh, I only thought that happened to other people. Well, you wouldn't abuse the tools, that's for sure, and are well versed in policy. Patstuart^talk|edits 08:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
120. dvdrw 08:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
121. Clearly there is enough consensus at this point in the game. Can someone find a 'crat to go to Special:Makesysop and promote Daniel before we have to make this page even bigger so it won't crash my browser anymore. Seriously, just promote here, keeping this on for 5 days is pointless -- Tawker 08:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

     And rob Daniel of a potential record? 120 supports in under 36 hours is something. – Chacor 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

     No way. There's a good chance this might make WP:200. Who knows, maybe we'll have to create WP:300 before this is all over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

122. Weak Support While I take issues raised by Nishkid and mentioned above very seriously, I know that Daniel would make good use of the tools. Given the time that has passed and the quality of the supports above, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Eluchil404 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
123. Strong Support • As the head of the CheckUser clerks, an occasional helper on RFCU, and general Good Guy^TM, Daniel has been trusted with many peices of information that are a lot more damaging that anything that a sysop could do. I've only known Dan for about 5-6 months, but during that time, he has always been professional, calm, and respectful towards everyone on Wikipedia. He has always acted with the decorum expected of him as a clerk, and has never stepped over the line. He has been in disputes and fared well. In short, 0% probability of abuse, 100% probability of Good Things^TM. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
124. Support - Daniel seems to have had a genuine Damscene moment on wikipedia. I for one believe this is genuine and welcome him as a representative of an admin culture shift. Good luck Daniel. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
125. Support. I thought he had been an admin for ages already. Jon Harald Søby 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
126. Support. Duh. Proto::► 10:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
127. Strong support - I've always seen him doing good work around the place and fixing things too where they go wrong. Great for an admin position. JROBBO 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
128. Tony Sidaway 13:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Good chap.
129. Support -- is willing to get his hands dirty and pick up the slack where it's needed. - Longhair\^talk 14:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
130. Support – user is obviously trustworthy, has obvious use for the tools and has the glowing recommendations of several high-profile co-noms. — mholland 14:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
131. Support No reservations about this, though I did hear a rumor he eats puppies[42]... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
132. Support. Warmly and without reservation. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
133. Support, without reservation. Terence Ong 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
134. Support Great work, Daniel, and I am very impressed in your ability to learn from your mistakes. IMHO, your story is a great example of the potential in today's "problem users." TheronJ 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
135. Support - seriously, WTF?? Genuine case of RFA cliché number 1. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
136. Support good editor. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
137. Support: Daniel has already earned the necessary trust through his exemplary work at WP:RFCU, and the presence of another administrator within RFCU will be a help to the whole community, as well as the checkusers. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
138. Support: Though you help to block me. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
139. Support: I thought he'd been here much longer. Deb 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
140. Support - thought he already was an admin. Savidan 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
141. Not that my support is needed, but I'll offer it anyway. I think the project will be better off with you having the mop. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
142. Support. To think I almost missed this one. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
143. Support fully qualified user.-- danntm ^T _C 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
144. Support Dedication to the site clearly demonstrated. --InShaneee 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
145. Support: If he is an Australian and likes cricket - he has two advantages in my book, so he can only be only be an improvement on the rest. If he keeps away from IRC and refrains from telling me I'm uncivil - and ignores that stupid comment above from Cyde, he may well be on the arbcom next year. Giano 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
146. Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
147. Support I believe I'd say that I'd nominate DB myself in December or January, but it seems like you lot did all the work for me! Seriously though, great guy, and he could certainly use the buttons Gaillimh 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
148. It would be a disservice to Wikipedia to not support Daniel. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
149. Support Very co-operative on IRC--Doc^g 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
150. Support. Jonathunder 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
151. Support The wiki table thing is awesome! Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
152. Support. Wish that this person could have become a part of arbitration committee, maybe next year. Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
153. Support. Any Mariners fan will get my vote. Great user and deserves to be an admin. Boltonfan22 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
154. Support. icelandic hurricane #12 _(talk) 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
155. Support Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
156. Support strong candidate. --rogerd 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
157. Support Get to mopping. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
158. Support WoW. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
159. Support. Do have concerns per Nishkid64, but overall record suggests any rare errors in judgement would be outweighted many times over by the excellent work this editor is doing and will, I have no doubt, continue to do. Rockpocket 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
160. Support another about-time candidate. Opabinia regalis 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
161. Support a great candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
162. Support - Pile on support. Great candidate, would be a great asset with the mop. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
163. Support. Although I have disagreed with many things he has said or done, I believe he would make a good admin. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
164. Support Carpet 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
165. Support Nothing to fear whatsoever. -- tariqabjotu 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
166. Pile on Support. No reason not to give him the mop if he wants it. -- MarcoTolo 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
167. Support. Most definitely. One of our best users. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
168. Support --Ixfd64 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
169. One day he will be Chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation support Rcm 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
170. Number 7 on WP:100 Support! — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 10:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
171. Strong support as co-nominator!--Tdxiang 10:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
172. Support: if he can cope with my insanity he can cope with anybody. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
173. Support obviously this is going to be close! ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
174. Support does a great job at checkuser, and I'm pretty sure will do a great job as an administrator. Mop away! --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
175. Support. While I think the "non-admin=/=non-arbitrator" thing last month wasn't the best of ideas, he's a good editor and he'd be a good admin (although it ruins his slogan for the next AC elections). Will ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
176. Support. the wub "?!" 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
177. Support, per nom. --Carioca 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
178. support this person to be a administrator very positive and helpful yuckfoo 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
179. support &ndash:OK, I'm on the bandwagon now too... -MrFizyx 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
180. Support an editor whose opinion I trust and respect Gwernol 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
181. Support, per the exchange between the candidate in me in the "neutral" section, below. Has need, has trust, will have mop. Agent 86 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
182. Happy Australia Day Support remember this on my next RfA, nah just kidding :) T. Kewl the First 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
183. Support I usually resist pile-on, but for Dan it's different. He's a great editor, and will make a great sysop. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
184. Geez, amongst all the nominations and questions it was tough to find where to support. Teke ^(talk) 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
185. JoshuaZ 03:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
186. More support yet. --Kukini 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
187. Support. Thought he was already an admin! Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 06:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
188. Support. Kncyu38 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
189. Support; hate to use the cliché, but I really did think he was already an admin. Good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
190. <sarcasm>I was going to co-nominate you, but you had to go and get nominated while I was on holiday! How dare you!</sarcasm>.^{Please don't take that comment as uncivil.} Seriously though, its about time! I'll shut up now before I start using random, obnoxious cliches, lol. JorcogaYell! 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
191. Overkill support Great user. —Mira 10:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
192. Support good answers looks to be trustworthy ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
193. Suggest indefinite block as sock puppet or impersonator of banned user Daniel Brandt. (Please don't implement that suggestion, though.) I know Daniel mainly through IRC, and I find him to be a friendly and helpful user, unlike those who insult me on IRC (I name no names). Upon my request, he has occasionally helped clear the RFF backlog. In short, support, for he makes IRC not suck, and we should try to help him break Phaedriel's record. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
194. Sure -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
195. Support. Good answers to questions, good work overall, plus everything everyone else said. Fram 14:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
196. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
197. Support--Rudjek 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
198. Support Yonatanh 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
199. Support A lot of good stuff from you, Daniel. Just do please try and take the time to count to ten when you encounter stuff that makes you mad. IronDuke 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
200. Excellent article writer, superb communicator, awesome clerk, courteous guy... I'm running out of adjectives here --Srikeit 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
201. Support - combined janitorial and editorial duties is the perfect combination: GA/FA articles have been developed by Daniel, and then there is his RfCU Clerking which is top notch. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
202. Support One of the best editors of this project. Ni questions asked. He deserves to be given the extra tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
203. Support Don't really think what I have to say will affect this RFA, but I support him per excellent reply to questions, and no issues that I can find that are recent. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
204. Support - Top-notch user. I thought he already was an admin. --Czj 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
205. Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
206. Support, a thousand times over :) One of the best. riana_dzasta 12:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
207. Support, a number bigger than 200 next to my name on an RfA for the second time this month :). I guess my vote comment on Daniel's ArbCom election page no longer applies. NoSeptember 13:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
208. Strong support - He not only has the intelligence, thoughtfulness, and insightfulness needed to be an administrator, but his posts continually demonstrate his ability to convey these things in ways that are clear and diplomatic. A highly qualified candidate deserves strong support. -- Jreferee 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
209. Pile-on support. Has a good head on his shoulders, will be even more of an asset than he is now. —bbatsell ¿? 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
210. Pile-on support per above. No problems here and helps out where necessary with the admin backlog. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
211. Support - need I say any more after the above? MER-C 08:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
212. Support - Come on lets go for WP:300. Up for it? — MichaelLinnear 08:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
213. Support—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
214. Support Prodego ^talk 16:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
215. Support just had to come here during my limited time online and support a great candidate. Martinp23 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
216. Support. good editor. —dima/s-ko/ 20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
217. Support Someone who I believe could use the mop well. Plus, he removed the hierarchy from Motto of the Day. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
218. Support Incredible editor who is qualified for the mop. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
219. Support Incredibly well qualified. Time may prevent a WP:300, but I think he deserves one.--Anthony.bradbury 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
220. Complete pile-on support. Notice how this is only my third edit in ten days? It's because I unconditionally trust Daniel to use the mop well. -- Kicking222 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
221. Support - I support, however I do agree with a couple of the opposing votes below. Althoguh I think you've had time to change, saying you may edit destructively is never okay, & I also feel that some (althoguh maybe not this one) RfA's turn into popularity contests... I'd also like to see an FA in the future too. But in any case, DB, you are a good editor & I stand by my statement on your older editor review, that you are indeed someone newbies can look up to... :) Spawn Man 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
222. Support. When I saw the candidate's name on this list, my initial reaction was, "You mean he's not an admin already?!" Well, I hope he becomes one at the end of this process. YechielMan 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
223. support. A lot of experiance on Wikipedia. This canadate has proven a good help, and has went above and beyond the call of duty. Although this user may have had stress, I don't think that means he can't control it, even with the extra stress that adminship may have. I think we all have some stress, and I trust the canadate to prevent that from getting in the way of helping Wikipedia. --Wikipedier 06:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier
224. Support What is the point in voting when the tally of support votes is already overwhelming and there is no chance of the request failing? Are you just trying to make friends or something? -Lapinmies 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
225. Support. I've never seen this editor cause trouble. -Will Beback · † · 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
226. Support.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
227. Support This guy makes me feel unqualified to be an editor, let alone run for admin. He is a reminder to all of the ideal candidate and a reminder to me of why I need more experience. He just made me promise myself to wait at least another 2000 edits. Honestly. TonyTheTiger 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
228. Support I honestly thought this user was already an admin. Oh well, he deserves to be one. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
229. Support Jay(Talk) 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
230. Support, of course. Joe 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
231. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
232. Support SatuSuro 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
233. Support How can you not? BJ^Talk 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Your previous RfA in early August failed because of certain comments (such as: "Until Wikipedia learns to stand up for its' policies, I will refuse to edit constructively, and may even end up editing destructively, if it comes to that.") that you made on your user page and your response at the GraalOnline AfD. Despite the great progress you have made, I have to say that I'm still a little bit worried about how your emotions will affect your admin capabilities. Over a simple AfD, you blew up, and I just can't help but imagine what would happen if you encountered a far more severe problem in the future. I've had some contact with Daniel before, and I think he's a great guy and would make a good admin, but I really can't overlook his actions since they weren't that long ago. Nishkid64 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Over 5 months ago actually. He was newer then as well, and has admitted his mistakes. If you think he's a great guy and would make a good admin, why oppose? --Majorly (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   In general, I think he would be a good admin. However, you have to look at the small things, and how the candidate will react in such situations. My only concern for now regards how he dealt with himself in a prior tough situation. Who says that if it happened once, it won't happen again? Remember, history repeats itself, and this also applies for people and their actions. I'm concerned how Daniel would handle himself in a tough situation with all that admin wikistress. Nishkid64 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   May I ask if you read Q3, and the circumstances outlined, as well as the explanation of progression? Oh, and from my understanding, this was not "a simple AfD", because simple AfD's don't involve the Office, Danny and Brad Patrick. 61.88.163.26 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Did he actually do anything destructive, or was he just saying that to blow off steam? He didn't exactly stick to his word - he came back, after all. Milto LOL pia 23:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   61.88, I saw his answer and I understand his situation. Stuff happens. That's all. In regards to the AfD, I understand the logistics of the AfD, but as admin, he will deal with far more stressful situations. Also, Miltopia, he did not do anything, but I take the people's comments very seriously. Had the event occurred eight months ago or so, I would have disregarded this anomaly in behavior, and supported this user. Nishkid64 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Generally, things that end up at OFFICE tend to be very stressful, especially for new users that don't understand what's going on - and Daniel was a new user, because upon reading I saw "ban" and "block" mixed up often, WP:V mistakenly used to linkt to WP:VAND, and many other "newbie" mistakes. Out of interest, I checked Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nishkid64, and saw that you made a couple of interestng and much-frowned-upon comments during the RfA itself, and yet asked to pardoned. Balance would say that a rash and terse comment during an RfA is worse than a doubley-bad one five months ago as a newbie, but maybe that's just me. Ah, well, doesn't matter. 61.88.163.26 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, and for all those wondering who I am, I used to edit under an account up until two months ago, when I decided to quit Wikipedia due to time constraints. I am an in-real-life friend of Daniel, and when he mentioned he finally had decided to run for RfA, I couldn't help but have a peek. I said I'd even power up my old account and vote for him, but he respectfully requested I didn't as it would be skirting the bounds of meatpuppetry, even if he didn't mean to actually canvas my vote. A cryptic hint is I used to spend a lot of time around RfAr, as well...if anyone can guess, I'll give you a cookie. 61.88.163.26 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   I know things dealing with OFFICE can be frustrating. I know what I did in my RfA was wrong, and I even acknowledged it multiple times, and apologized for my actions. Just because I got too emotional in my RfA means I cannot oppose another user? Daniel first went up for RfA after nearly three months of experience. And how is he still considered a "newbie" after racking up 3,000+ edits on Wikipedia and showing a clear understanding for Wikipedia policy? By the way, bringing up my personal RfA has no real relevance to the RfA at hand. We should be discussing Daniel, not my actions in my past. I opposed Daniel because I felt a bit uncomfortable with this RfA at this moment. I still do, and trying to badger my vote won't do anything. Nishkid64 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   I agree -- you've both made your points, and I doubt either of you will change the other's mind. Let's not heckle the oppose vote(s) excessively -- that may not be your intention, but that's how it's starting to come across to me. Luna Santin 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Just to clarify for folks, the AFD in question was only the final battle of a long nasty edit war which included legal threats, mediation results subverted by the Foundation, etc. The AFD was just the tip of the iceberg. If someone would like to see any of the eight talk page archives which were all deleted, let me know. You can also look over the online site owners' talk pages to see some of the nastiness directed at Daniel at the time. It will quickly become clear that the AFD was nowhere near the entire issue. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   If the situation resulted in extensive WP:OFFICE involvement, dwelling on it extensively here would not be in anyone's best interests, and pulling up deleted archives relating to the matter is, to say the least, not recommended. I think it's sufficient to say that this incident involved a highly charged controversy and, more important, arose much earlier in the candidate's wiki-career. Newyorkbrad 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   (<-- reindenting)

   STOP! This is ridiculous on the part of the IP (who I won't name - see below). Nishkid64 is entitled - and encouraged - to give an honest opinion, and it has always been one I deeply respect. I've just spent 5½ hours down at the Supreme Court of South Australia assisting a team of five litigators, and I come home to find this? I'm writing up a full response to the developments here at present, but in the meantime can we leave the validity or otherwise of Nishkid's !vote alone, and stop badgering him, please? It seems to have died down after Luna's intervention and my friend let it go (thankfully - I don't my RfA to become a battleground), and I'm about to ring my friend and ask him to stop with whatever gripe he has with Nishkid (I'll explain more in my full statement). I appreciate constructive comments, for example (most recently) NYB and Wknight's, but not the badgering. Daniel 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   OK, I've been busy, but here's a quick rundown. Nishkid sent me an email regarding our friendship despite the !vote, which I've paraphrased below to be applicable to this:

   Hrm. I know who the IP is, and I'm about to ring him up and tell him to cut out the slight against you. You have my sincerest apologies for the badgering he has been doing; as he said, it came up in a conversation we were having in real life, for which I now feel kind of guilty for given what has happened to you.
   I'm not at a liberty to reveal what his username was prior to when he stopped editing, as he may want to reuse it when he has more time, I believe. However, I must say you and him had a dustup over an issue, again which I'm not at a liberty to mention because it's his right to privacy, and it seems he has held a grudge ever since. Sorry for having you subjected to that crap - he'll get a boot up the ass (proverbially speaking) from me when I ring him shortly.
   Back on to your email, and I hold no objection to your oppose. You may have noticed the quote which has been on my userpage from day one, which states "Stand up for what you believe in, even if it means standing alone" . It sometimes gets me into trouble - it did with the whole GraalOnline/Office/BradPatrick saga - see Wknight's comment, who was the admin closely involved in the whole thing (and sunk my first RfA, practically, although it's clear neither of us hold that fact against each other from his support of me and my statement right now). Danny's support is also notable, given the fact it was he I was so angry with, and he probably returned the favour with a new editor acting like a dick :)
   I have always believed RfA was broken for the reason evident by your email - no one should be pressured, cabalised or negatively harassed about voting either way, especally when it's around 100/0, and to be quite honest your !vote was a sanity check to say "people do actually evaluate me at RfA as opposed to piling-on".
   Again, apologies for that farcial nature of the responses by my friend, and I hope you can forgive my lack of foresight when I told him that this RfA was going. I felt compelled to tell him I didn't want him to !vote, as I consider off-wiki communication to swing concensus close to the lowest thing you can do, so he took it upon himself to batter you with slights. I honestly can't believe he'd do that, and he probably wouldn't if he didn't have a prior experience where he disagreed with you on something. I hate "revenge"-related and "grudge"-related actions, and I fear this was one of them. Sorry again.

   I won't publish Nishkid's original email without notification of assent to such an action. Basically, a lot of people who I have acted like a dick towards in the past, especially during that first two months - Danny, Wknight especially - have given favourable opinions in this RfA; I also fully endorse Wknight94's summary of events - this wasn't a simple AfD, but an event that encompassed every possible problem in a situation like this - as well as Brad's suggestion that WP:OFFICE matters are sensitive and there'd be no benefit in revisiting it again.

   As such, I believe this discussion is now moot given I totally accept Nishkid's opinion, and he respects mine, and I'll convinced my friend to stop, as I put it, "acting like a wanker" towards Nishkid. Unfortunately, he's not answering his phone at the moment, but I'll get him tomorrow before I get to court...again... Daniel 07:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Geo. 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Why Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Jaranda, you didn't give a reason for your support. You shouldn't be asking. --Majorly (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, granted that this is consensus not a vote and there is a standing tradition of oppose reasons being requested whereas support is considered to mean, "I agree with the nominator's statement." Granted that the 'crat reads rationales and not vote counts it's hard to to utilize a "vote" with no rationale to determine consensus. -- Tawker 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   If there's a "standing tradition" of saying "support" with nothing after it, perhaps it would be good to Assume Good Faith that the likewise would be true for opposing opinions. Just H 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, there is a difference. Support means I agree w/ the nom. An oppose does not hence the request for a rationale. When one says oppose, you have no idea what the oppose is on whereas the support is the "I agree w/ the nom" - it's not assuming bad faith to ask for an explanation, it's just trying to build consensus -- Tawker 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   We'll have to agree to disagree then. Discussion standards should be equal for both sides in a discussion if a consensus reached is to be respected as a true consensus of the community. If one side has to explain its reasoning, it's only logical that the other side must as well, and likewise if one side does not. Just H 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Not speculating too far, but I believe it may be because of what I did here - I, after overwhelming concensus was formed and backed by policy, removed the heirachry from Geo's "project", Motto of the Day. This, in effect, removed him from the position of "Chief/Senior Overseer", where he had a "special veto" or override concensus (this was all self-appointed). As Quiddity stated, "Geo does indeed have a long history of inventing hierarchies and pseudo-projects, and joining everything in sight". I have a number of examples, but this isn't the time, nor the place, to discuss them - this is my candidacy, not his.

   If he wishes to object to my candidacy, and not give a reason, I will take, because he should not be badgered into giving a reason. Most of the supports didn't either, and I dislike people being scared off giving their opinion at RfA because they don't want be a attacked for giving a reason which is closely scrutinised. Yes, RfA is not a vote, but I don't mind in this case. Daniel 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   I voted oppose because you immediately distanced yourself from MOTD when it became unpopular. this to me, shows a politician type. You may not be one, in which case you can prove me wrong. Geo. 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

   Frankly, it makes you look more supportable since you're willing to take on the challenging tasks. Nice job. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Too many co-noms from people whose judgement I question. I don't trust people who don't have the restraint to say, thanks, but one or two is enough. RFA should not be a popularity contest. pschemp | talk 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   RFA should not be a popularity contest - I agree with this totally.... Spawn Man 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

   Although it shouldn't be a popularity contest, we should not punish people solely on the fact that they are popular. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

   No indeed. My oppose was based on lacking the guts to say no. pschemp | talk 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: Who says the large number of people voting is support is because of popularity? There is no way to discern the motive from a vote. I have'nt seen:

   #Support: 'Cause he's popular.

   ...anywhere. I agree with Cbrown, it is not Daniel's fault that others hold him in high standard. Dfrg.msc 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Strong Support the incident during his first RfA is in the distant past. Per my interactions on Wiki and his requests on IRC, I can confidently say that he can be safely trusted with the tools.--KonstableSock 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)In light of your participation in a recent IRC "discussion" about me behind my back (which included nothing more than calling me bad names behind my back) I am no longer convinced about you. I will not elaborate as you know what I mean, and discussing back-room IRC conversations could just give justification to those itching to block me. Though you weren't the one venting steam and spreading rumours about me, I do not think other administrators (or potential administrators such as you) should condone such actions (which could have resulted in blocks if they were on-wiki) and even help out to an extent. I am sorry to withdraw my support, as I had one of the highest opinions of you; I am not going to oppose, but I am just no longer sure of your nature.--KonstableSock 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Konstable, I think there is a mis-understanding here. My input into that discussion was to firstly comment about the fact that you are under no ban/block/probation from the ArbCom when someone implied you were; then I said that Freak could revert your addition if he felt it was intended to bait, although it probably wasn't a good idea as a number of people (myself included) respect your opinion highly regardless of recent events; and then when the topic of blocking you came up, I made an informed decision that this was probably heading in the direction of "discussing an experienced contributor and blocking them for dubious, controversial behavioural issues", and so I made sure I did my utmost to redirect the discussion to ANI immediately.

As I stated in my answer to Q7, I strongly believe no discussion about blocking an experienced, semi-experienced, and/or controversial user should take place on IRC, especially when this block would be hotly disputed. Blocks for "incivility" reasons on experienced users I especially hate, and even though I believe that every user should remain civil, I appreciate that "cool down blocks" on experienced users is a Very Bad Idea, and when "concensus" (despite it not being concensus) is formed over IRC, it becomes a Totally Horrible Idea. Blocks are preventative, and these type of blocks actually make the situation worse, rendering them pointless.

I agree totally, utterly and fully with Giano et al on that issue (blocking of experienced contributors through IRC discussion only). If I called you names, then the leak you're getting isn't accurate fully, or at least pulled out of context. I hate people who insult me behind my back - I know a couple who do it via email regularly - and it would be hypocritical if I did so. If you have particular phrases/quotes of me doing this, I acknowledge that you can't quote them on here (and would be disappointed if you did, as that would have no context), so please email me at killfest2[at]gmail[dot]com and I'll be happy to further discuss this with you.

Konstable, you know I gave my full support to you when you were going through the troubled times, and you were a great sysop, and probably still would be. For me, a neutral from you stings because I respected, and still respect, your opinion highly. Although we haven't agreed on everything, you were, and still are, a good friend of mine. I would chop off my right hand before even contemplating insulting you, especially over a confidential medium, because by cutting off my right hand I wouldn't have the ability to insult you any more by typing. I fear this is a big mistake, and I would really appreciate discussing it with you, as what you have said goes against my base principles of respect and courtesy, as well as my strong opinion on IRC slander and blocking discussions via the medium. I normally quit IRC alltogether when discussions like that [the discussion about you] occur, but I wanted to stay as I saw you were being misrepresented (ie. the myth about you being restricted in any way). Cheers, Daniel 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I was not getting the full discussion in detail, but I heard of you mingling and supporting the jokes of people who at that very time had been sitting on IRC and telling some strange fictional tales about me over the period of several hours - which was the root of my suspicions. Well thank you for clearing that up, and now that I'm convinced you were not part of their cabal, I have switched back to support, I hope there are no hard feelings. :-) --KonstableSock 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite what Sarah and Cyde would tell you (jokingly, of course), I'm in no cabal :) No hard feelings, of course - I hold no negative feelings against anyone who makes a constructive point against me, regardless of whether it is later revoked as a misunderstanding or not. Cheers, and thanks for your reconsideration, Daniel 06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral, you'll probably not be a bad admin, but I really wish you'd try to cull the stupidity of adding pointless one sentence co-nominations, instead of encouraging it. - Bobet 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Bobet, I don't think it is a reason to oppose a candidate, so I'm glad to see you here in the neutral section. However, I must say that I would caution people against having lots of unnecessary co-noms because I do tend to agree with you. I think one or two is fine but it is unnecessary for people to add lots of co-noms for the sake of it unless they are adding something unique that the nom or other co-nom(s) failed to mention. I can't understand why anyone would write a short and redundant co-nom rather than just writing it in their support !vote because, as mentioned below by Maxwell Smart, it doesn't do the candidate any favours at all. This was a matter of some lengthy discussion in the archives back in November. [43] I'm also not in favour of people adding co-noms without asking the candidate first. I think it puts the candidate in a rather unfortunate position. Cheers, Sarah 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   No comment on the merits of the candidate or whether this RfA should pass; in fact, I had deliberately not posted an opinion because it completely turns me off when a nominee has multiple nominators, no matter how good the candidate might be. I only toss in my $0.02 because Bobet raises the issue. While multiple co-noms are almost always a sign of over-enthusiasm for the candidate, as it clearly appears to be in this case, I am always left with the feeling that it comes across as peer-pressure (at the very least). Multiple co-nominations are rarely, if ever, necessary. If a quality candidate has an exemplary record, let the record speak for itself. Anyone beyond a single co-nom can simply add their comments to the "support" section. This is absolutely not meant to disparage the candidate or his nominators, as the nomination is clearly in good faith. It is just a comment on this practice, which happens with too much frequency for my liking. Agent 86 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   You both make very good points, and ones I'll remember in the future if my input is required. I will attempt to plead innoncence, given this was the first time I had to deal with co-nominators, and apologise for any possible lack of foresight I showed in making said comments. Nevertheless, hinesight is a beautiful thing, but even more is learning from your errors :) Cheers, and thanks for the thoughtful comments, Daniel 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think you've got much to apologise for. You were not the one doing the co-nominating, and there's no "error" in accepting the multi-noms. Neither do your co-nominators, only because their actions are clearly in good faith. I just find the practice unnecessary and that it does not always come across as intended. Agent 86 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'll be sure to remember your comments here if I was to ever consider giving a pile-on co-nomination to a candidate :) Daniel 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   This response made me laugh on a day I didn't know I needed one. For that reason, and for your thoughtful response to this issue, I'm happy to toss my (less-than-necessary!) "support" into the pile. Agent 86 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral No hard feelings, but I (1) Don't know you well enough to support; and (2) Reading through the RfA, you smell like the "model" candidate. By that I mean you seem to be fiercely popularist. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it makes me nervous to see somebody who appears to be so desperate to please absolutely everyone. In my opinion, pleasing everyone means that either you're not making bold enough decisions, or you're doing it deliberately. Neither of these are, in my opinion, helpful to the project. I would like to see administrators willing to do what they think is best, rather than what the community, or RfA community (let's face it, neither of these groups know best) thinks. — Werdna talk 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   I strongly disagree with this !vote, but at least it proves there is no Australian cabal.... Newyorkbrad 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   And I must strongly agree with Werdna, but sadly, if you don't follow the example given by Werdna above, RfA is often impossible pass, as evidenced by the difficulty in some RfAs in passing and more especially in the difficulty admins being reconfirmed after a recall etc. -- Heligoland 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I have to agree with Werdna to some extent (considering that I happen to be reading Profiles in Courage, coincidentally), but there must be a sensible mix of sensible conscience and selective responsiveness to be an ideal admin. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral You appear to be a fine clerk and contributor, Daniel, with the 1FA "mark" met and several other substantial article contributions. And Checkuser is invaluable. However, I'm rather worried about the nature of this nomination, particularly the comments of your IP friend. I just do not think that a candidate with any possible influences of this nature on him or her can be safely entrusted with the tools of adminship. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

MoRsE

Final (37/14/11); Ended Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:49:05 UTC

MoRsE (talk · contribs) - This is my second attempt. I would like to nominate myself again to the admin position. The first time I tried, was by the end of September 2006 (link), but my RfA failed, mainly due to the fact that I was relative unknown to the community at the time. However, almost 4 months have passed and as my record show, I am a far more active contributor now, with about 250 edits/month. As for experience; I am not new here, I have been around enwiki since the beginning of May 2005 and I have been a major contributor to other language wikipedias too (mainly the Swedish and Finnish ones). I have about 1,700 edits on enwiki, 21,600 edits on svwiki, and 140 on fiwiki.

I would also like to mention that I am not unfamiliar with the tasks of an administrator. I have been one since February 2006 on svwiki. Last November, I was elected into the Swedish Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. I do not wish to use this as an argument to get elected here, but it might show that I am an responsible editor and that I enjoy faith from the ones who have encountered me there.

I am involved in the following projects on enwiki: Military history, Nordic military history, WWII, Weaponry, Aviation, and Maritime warfare and that is also where you most likely would find me, I have an active e-mail address and I am also active in some IRC channels - I am not hard to get a hold on. Furthermore, being in Sweden/Finland, I can be active when e.g. US/Australian administrators aren't.--MoRsE 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self nomination --MoRsE 22:22, 22 January 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: Administratorship for me, means the tools to be able to work more efficiently with the structuring of the Wikipedia and maintaining it an Encyclopaedia. I have been active in reporting abuse on enwiki and I would especially use the tools in the WP:AIV process. I would also participate in the WP:SD and the ones listed in CAT:ABL. With time, I would become more familiar with the specialties of enwiki and also participate elsewhere, where needed.

I often scan new edits when I have the reason to suspect there might be malicious edits and I undo the damage when I find it. I would also block pages when there is repeated vandalism or never ending edit wars going on.

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

A: I am a writer and I do a lot of translations, mainly Swedish and Finnish to English, but sometimes also from German and French (as far as my knowledge of the language go). I have also been involved in the translation of metawiki pages into Swedish. As for examples, I can give you a few articles that are all mine: Jorma Sarvanto, Finnish torpedo boat S2, I have also largely been involved in the restructuring and remaking of the Battleship article. On the Swedish Wikipedia, I recently had my seventh article reaching "Featured article" status and I have also written four of their "Good articles".

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

A: Yes, I have been in some minor conflicts or disagreements, but I do not wish to get entangled into the never-ending ones. I have always tried to avoid breaking the 3 revert rule - I am de facto trying to follow the 1RR - and I would say that I am doing my best to stay civilized. I always try to solve the matter through discussion.

Optional questions from Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs)

4. What is the difference between a block and a ban and under what circumstances would you apply either?

A: Blockings are used to temporarily prevent an IP-range or a user from e.g. vandalizing an article, treathening other users, revert articles excessivly, prevent inappropriate usernames, to prevent abusive sockpuppets, to temporarily stop a bot that is not following the rules set up for them, or to block a user that is making personal attacks whick places users in danger.

A banning means that a user's is restricted to edit parts of, or all parts of Wikipedia. An administrator can not directly ban a user, the decision has to be taken through a decision, either by the Wikipedia community, or by the Arbitration Committee. Further, both Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation have the right to ban a user.--MoRsE 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Under what circumstances would you protect or semi-protect a page?

A: Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only reasonable option left to deal with vandalism on a page or to stop a banned or blocked user from editing it.

Apart from the semi-permanent full-protection of high visibility pages, site logo's, press releases, and key copyright and license pages, the full-protection can also be used to cool down edit wars and to prevent abuse of the {{Unblock}} privilege or other disruptions from a blocked user on their talk page while they are blocked. There are also other uses, but these are some examples.--MoRsE 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:BigDT

6. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" an article. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete an article that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A :No, the general criteria sums it up pretty well, and the rules are here to be followed, I would not become a rogue administrator. There are other means to deal with more uncertain cases, e.g. WP:AFD or WP:PROD--MoRsE 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. As a follow up question - what about other kinds of pages? As an example, a user in good faith creates a poorly named template (for example, {{my infobox header}}) that is an exact duplicate of an already existing template. Would you delete this template and refer the user to the correct template, {{infobox}}? Are there any circumstances where you might delete a non-article page not specifically covered in WP:CSD? Thank you. --BigDT 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A :I would inform the user that a similar template is already existing and in use. I would kindly ask permission of the user if I could delete it. I have also an AWB-account here so I could easily change the template into the one already being used. I believe that I could consider the same if I find another template that is some sort of "forgotten experiment", or sometimes, for instance, users on other language wikipedias come up with some great template and it is simultaneously copied here, but under two different names. Then I would contact the ones involved and try to make some sort of agreement. If all that went well then I could erase the redundant one.--MoRsE 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

7. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs.

A :I want Wikipedia to be free from advertisement. Until now, I have erased spam whenever I have stumbled upon it, and I have also warned the user who uploaded the information using the {{Spam}} and an explanation, plus the tagging of the article accordingly with {{Cleanup-spam}} or {{advert}}. From my experience, good faith spammers usually will take notice of that and stop their behaviour. In more severe cases of spamming, where simple warnings doesn't help, I report the user to the WP:AIV. I do check the contributors other edits to see if anything else has been done that follows the same pattern.

Youtube and Myspace links might pose copyright problems (for example links to a bootleg video of some artist), therefore I do not really consider them proper here. However, I consider Imdb to be fine with me, as the site usually provide good information on their content.

I have a long watchlist of articles that I watch over (mainly in the projects that I participate in) and I try to see to that no harm is done to them.--MoRsE 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See MoRsE's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I am very frustrated with admins just focusing on urgent request tasks, that they have forgotten Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit, which is 1,119 articles at the moment. I guess admins are too bored with copy editing? --Parker007 15:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I understand that copyediting can be done by any user, and there is no need to be an admin to do it. Thus it is not especially relevant to an RfA, because being an admin doesn't make it possible or even easier. Well the problem is no normal user cares about copy editing. --Parker007 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. Support per editor who needs admin tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Evidently trustworthy editor with good judgement. No reason for him not to have the tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. I opposed last time due to inexperience, but he has plenty of that now. Good luck. --Majorly (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Full support (edit conflicted) This time I see no cons about this user who'll certainly make a fine admin. Good luck.--Húsönd 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support While I'd like to see a bit more activity, that would be a poor reason to oppose you, as you're obviously qualified for the job, and I have no qualms about your handling a wiki-mop for the English project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Seems to be a good solid candidate who I believe will do a good job with the additional bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Good editor, plenty of experience. --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
8. A very well qualified editor who will, I am certain, use the tools as well here as he does elsewhere.--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, excellent candidate, and we need admins. ST47Talk 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - last time around I seem to remember there was consternation about your low edit summaries - pleased to see they are now 100%! Having an overall edit count of 20,000+ is very impressive and you have sufficient edits here to demonstrate understanding of our procedures. Addhoc 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I supported before, and nothing in the intervening time convinces me this editor ought not be made an admin. Agent 86 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support again; I believe he has addressed the main concern of opposers to the previous RfA, namely his inexperience in english wikipedia. Roadmr (t|c) 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Obviously a fine choice. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. He's a Swedish arbitrator! Certainly familiar enough with tasks. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Trustworthy and dedicated to the spread of information, regardless of the language. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. The only concern for me was lack of knowledge of English. You can be trusted with the tools. If you make a mistake due to lack of knowledge specific to the English Wikipedia, I dare say as an arbitrator you can be trusted to learn from the experience. --Deskana (request backup) 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Weak support per above. Those opposing your promotion have a point, but I think you are responsible and reasonable. Cheers. Yuser31415 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Weak support - I won't count anything on other language Wikipedias because of possible slight variation in the policies, but I can still trust this user. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 09:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support let's give him a chance --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Weak Support Answers are alright, tons of contribs., but as an admin. I'd like to see you boost that Wiki. Edit count. Good luck, Ganfon 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
21. - Obviously a user that could use the tools and is trustworthy enough to use them properly. Arguments per his low mainspace contribs are ridiculous - mainspace edits do not have any bearing on someone's usefulness as an administrator. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support, clearly trustworthy, which is all that matters. His English is certainly better than certain admins who are 'native' speakers yet can't string a coherent sentence together, and to oppose on those grounds is ludicrous. Proto::► 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. Since there's no reason to think he's gotten himself into trouble with the tools on other wikis, it seems clear that he can be trusted with them here. I can't see why perfect English is necessary for adminship; if someone doesn't understand something he writes, the reasonable thing to do is ask him to explain what he meant, which I think most people would. I can't think of that many situations where poor English alone (not that I think his is very poor!) would get him into trouble in the first place, and I don't see why having admin tools would really exacerbate that extremely hypothetical situation. delldot | talk 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support (edit conflict) he has clearly demonstrated his dedication to Wikipedias, of various languages, and he meets my guideline for number of edits.-- danntm ^T _C 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Geo. 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per delldot, Proto, ToaT, et al. Policies may not be identical across wikis, but process is broadly similar, and good judgement is always in style. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support unlikely to misuse the tools. Flyingtoaster1337 10:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong Support Has experience with adminship tools in Swedish Wiki, & member of Swedish Wiki Arbitration Committee. Thus I believe he can be trusted with the tools. --Parker007 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Strong support. I am utterly unpersuaded by the oppose votes. This candidate is an admin of good standing (and arbcom member) on Swedish Wikipedia. Re: the Serbian example- what extreme POV might a Swedish Wikipedian have? From my knowledge of other language Wikis, differences in policy are minimal- unless someone demonstrates that Swedish Wiki policy is very different from ours I see no reason not to grant the tools. WJBscribe 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Has plenty of experience. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support per WJB. Khoikhoi 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Has enough knowledge of tools and proceedures, good english ability, seems trustworthy. Doe's he have enough time to attend to en and swedish wiki's? Fr33kMan 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Support 1700 edits is adequate for a user who is clearly trustworthy and willing to learn the rules before enforcing them. In my day (it's crazy that I sound like an old fogey already) admins were just trusted users who learned to use their new tools while "on the job." -- SCZenz 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support: admin tools can only help a good editor. Stephen B Streater 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support as last time. While our policies are probably somewhat different then Swedish WP's, he's certainly shown he can be trusted. BryanG^(talk) 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. His English is fine, he seems very reasonable and measured, his articles are of good quality, and his experience on sv.wiki, though not entirely applicable here (after all, he can learn about any differences while on the job), is enough for me to trust this user. Biruitorul 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No doubt he is an outstanding person, but his English is not good enough to be an admin on the English Wikipedia. (I know, it is no doubt vastly better than my Swedish or Finnish!) --Holdenhurst 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Certainly a fine user, but the enwiki contributions both in the mainspace and in projectspace are simply too few. Each 'pedia has its own distinct policies, and besides, adminship requires lots of community interaction, for which achievements on another wiki cannot make up. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose - as others have said, you are an outstanding editor, but have little participation in any administrative process. If you are going to receive a block or delete button on en, it is important to see that you understand en's policies for blocking or deletion. --BigDT 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. Knowledge of policy does not transfer across Wikipedias. -Amark moo! 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - not enough proven experience on the English Wikipedia. I generally do not believe that automatic transfer from one Wikipedia to en.wikipedia is correct. En.wikipedia has a very diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious user-base, so that any user will need to have a nice, well-rounded world-view and NPOV sense to become an administrator. However, on the small wikis, there is only one ethnic group and one religion usually, so somebody who is a terrible POV pusher - fascist/fundamentalist POV, does ethnic/religious hate speech etc on en.wiki could be considered mainstream on another Wikipedia. I am not saying this about MoRsE at all, but simply to point out why I value en.wiki participation. I can give two examples. I can remember the banned User:Bormalagurski - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bormalagurski - who was a senior admin on the Serb wikipedia, was banned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, for using multiple sockpuppets, continuously taunting and flaming Croatians, Bosnians and Albanian users, pushed strong POV using words like "terrorists" etc, kept on whitewashing articles like Srebrenica massacre, etc, called Muslims terrorists, AfD vote stacking along ethnic lines, etc, etc. There is another current user, who is currently under a multi-week block, who is an admin on another small mono ethnic and religious wiki, who does the same whitewash blankings, insults other religions, edit wars incessantly, and on an off-wiki forum has called for a "keyboard jihad" and engaged in other inappropriate speech about Wikipedia conspiracies and admins along religious lines. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose I must apologize, but you simply don't have enough experience on This Wiki to prove that you would be a good admin. Even though, as mentioned above, your english isn't so great, if you showed more tried and true enwiki edits, I'd be happy to support. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Very low level of participation in wiki-space suggests unfamiliarity with process of the English Wikipedia. As others have said, wiki-process in each language is different, and one needs experience here before being given the mop here. Xoloz 05:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Low contributions to all of WP, including little demonstrable process edits. Participation in XFDs would definitely help the candidate. The Rambling Man 11:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I've not been impressed by his behaviour at Treaty of Nöteborg , I'm not clear that hius English is really up to admin duties, and he just hasn't done enough here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think hius English is fine. Proto::► 11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   [Blows prolonged raspberry.] --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   ;P Proto::► 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose per enwiki edit count. Diez2 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose. His ability to communicate in English is adequate, but I would like to see more experience here on enwiki. I'm quite certain that tools wouldn't be abused, but I'm afraid they might be misused due to lack of experience and knowledge of policy. SuperMachine 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per all of the above, except those that don't believe his English is up to standard. I think it's fine. JorcogaYell! 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    The applicants comments : I am currently on a business trip and I haven't been able to follow the voting process until now. I would also like to answer a few of the questions that have arised. As I have understood it, the RfA is about trust and I would like to contest some of the reasons given against me - I consider myself to enjoy trust and that I have proved that. I would certainly not misuse the tools - otherwise my participation in the svwiki arbitration committee voting process would have been a very short one - we also have the system there that every administrator is only elected for one year terms. So far I have been re-elected very year...without any "oppose"-votes. I would say that the language issue is a minor one. I do know English, and I understand the language to its full extents. I know where t find the admin information and I do know and understand the rules. (also, for the minor spelling errors, I am a quick typer and right now I am typing on an unfamiliar laptop (where the key pressure is different from my regular one) and that might partly explain the missing letters.) --MoRsE 19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose - adminship is not a reward, I'm certain you wouldn't abuse the powers however you show no actual need for them, you are hardly active and you don't contribute to the encyclopaedia much either. We really do not need another administrator who doesn't do anything to compliment the 1,000 or so we already have. Sorry! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose far too limited interaction in Wikipedia space to demonstrate that we should trust this user. --Dweller 13:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose has created many new articles and left them uncategorized. Last of them today. Julius Sahara 20:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral a per my comments at your previous RfA, I still think that you are a good editor but I don't see a lot of participation in admin-related tasks such as vandal fighting and associated user Talk page warning edits or a lot of XfD participation on the English Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral He seems a fine user, but I see no need to give him the tools, as I see little evidence he participates in the areas where they would be useful. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral per above two comments. I think he'd be alright but does not show a particular need for the tools and wonder if he might get confused with differences of policy between here and svwiki. Trebor 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral good editor, but need a lot more participation in admin-like tasks such as xFD participation, vandal fighting and the like. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral (leaning toward oppose) - Was going to oppose, but saw your large edit count on sv. I don't have a problem with international editors (I think we should encourage it), but I believe you need more experience in projectspace: you have <100 edits to critical pages. But, with some more experience, I would gladly support, as you have shown yourself trustworthy on the other wiki. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Netural per Patstuart. Carpet 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral for now. I think you would make a great admin, but don't want to see you getting to it just yet. You may know enwiki policy well, but you haven't demonstrated your knowledge of it. Personally, I like to see some more Wikipedia: space edits… though I'm not sure the entire community feels that way. That being said, I believe you have much potential! − Twas Now 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral definitely experienced and trustworthy, but your low activity here is the problem. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Your edits and answers are quality-wise very good, and I'm not going to oppose someone. However, you seem to lack expericnce in the XfD areas. Take out FA's in other languages and the new artices and you have under 100 wikispace edits. I'll certainly suport you at a later time, just not yet.--Wizardman 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral: Good answers, but low activity keeps me from a support. S.D. ¿п? § 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral: per langauge issues. Voice-of-All 06:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    Neutral per language issues72.159.134.195 17:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    IPs may not vote. Flyingtoaster1337 10:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

12. Neutral. I think the candidate understands how to be an admin, given his Scandinavian experience, but he has not earned enough stripes on the English edition to receive my full support. YechielMan 03:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Serpent's Choice

(31/15/5) Ended 08:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nomination, although a little under a month ago, Quarl graciously provided a standing offer to nominate me for adminship. Citing editcount and time-on-project, I declined, advising that I'd prefer to try my hand in RFA near the end of January. Unfortunately, Quarl has been inactive since the first of the month.

I have been with the project since 2 July 2006, and have accumulated over 1500 edits. I recognize this edit count is lower than many successful RFA candidates. In part, I do not use AWB or similar tools to facilitate speedy edits. Each of my contributions is a measure of my personal time and commitment to the project. Serpent's Choice 07:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted as self-nomination. Serpent's Choice 08:09, 22 January 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: All things in time, and each in their measure. I recognize that there are a great many administrative tasks available, some of which require more familiarity with the tools and the project than others. In time, I hope to sample them all, assisting where my time and skills can best apply. My first focus, however, would be AFD (and, by extension, CSD and prod). I am a regular AFD participant, entering discussions where I feel my opinions will be valuable to the debate. It concerns me to see backlogs of 150-200 articles becoming more common. Frequently, these articles either show a consensus for deletion that a non-admin can not attend to or have long, complex debates that seem to be the last to close (and where non-admin closure seems a sure ticket to DRV). Once I feel more established in adminship, I foresee work on other research-oriented administrative duties, such as page-move processing, unblock request research, and a more active role in DRV and the other XFDs. I don't mind the rote processing; as it stands, I stub sort in my spare time.

I'm not looking for the tools specifically to fight vandals, however. Because of my AWB-less approach to editing, others are far better suited at RC Patrol than am I. I'm not averse to the blocking or dispute resolution side of adminship when needed (and I've cleaned up my share of complex vandalism, including quite the mess involving Lydian articles), but I'm not asking for the mop in order to have the power to block.

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

A: I am proud of each of my contributions. When I edit articles, I strive for quality. Much of my intermediate work is either in a sandbox or off-wiki; when I can avoid it, I do not like to present my work half-done. I have had major influence over relatively few articles (see my userpage for a list of sorts) simply because the research needed to reference articles appropriately is not a fast process. Recently, I'm fairly happy with my reworking of fairy painting and shared universe, although I hope to revisit the latter further. I also take particular pleasure in saving deserving articles from AFD, such as my current work at retrocausality or Public Netbase, which is a complete rewrite of an unsuitable (and copyvio) article that was deleted by prod.

Regarding policy familiarity, I was heavily involved in a general cleanup and slight modification to WP:NPA. I'm pleased that process went as smoothly as it did, and I look forward to more policy discussions in future, whether as an admin or otherwise.

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

A: Obviously, I've had disagreements with other editors. I think anyone seriously working on the project has; it is the nature of wiki. But outside my online presence, I'm in a managerial role. Often, I have to deal with angry people who have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line under circumstances I often cannot control. I know the value of calm discussion, even with people who seem irrational. I worked to establish consensus and satisfy concerns at WP:NPA. I found compromise and middle ground at centauroid creature following this related AFD. I'm sure there are other examples, but the disagreements do not stand out as clearly in my mind as the other aspects of my work here. I'm not under illusions that this community is always cordial. I've seen the vitriol and diatribe, too, but my real-world experience has given me the perspective to avoid being "caused stress" by something I read on the Web.

Optional question from User:BigDT

4. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A: It is important that speedy deletion within the speedy deletion process ("on sight", in the words of WP:CSD) sticks closely to the listed criteria because that minimizes the possiblity of human error on the part of deleting admins. Of course, several of the criteria leave some room for administrative discretion (G11, A1, A7 in particular) -- from an AFD I remember seeing, there was some debate about whether a housing development could qualify under A7. When in doubt, dealing with an article through prod or AFD does no harm.

Applying a slightly broader interpretation of CSD for articles undergoing AFD that have demonstrated a clear outcome may be acceptable. Under these conditions, other people have seen the content and been able to make determinations about its nature. For example, an unquestionable hoax article, once identified with reasonable certainty, damages the integrity of the project and might be a valid G3 at that point, although I would not typically CSD a hoax article as G3 directly. This is a recent deletion performed in exactly this manner.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

5. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs.

A: This question addresses what are in my mind two separate issues. The first of these is spam in the traditional sense: accounts which drop links to an external site into every conceivably related article (or sometimes not related) for the purposes of advertising and SEO. In my mind, these are the easiest situations to deal with from a policy standpoint, although the cost in manhours is significant. This form of spam is vandalism; it seeks to compromise the integrity of articles and provides no benefit for our encyclopedia. Like any evaluation of vandalism, it is important to judge whether EL inclusion is actually spamming rather than good-faith edits. But many of these spam accounts (User:Arunjesche1 as a quickly located example), leave no question as to their nature. Ultimately, heavier-handed approaches like sitebans are the only recourse for the most dedicated spammers.

The second, more complex question relates to the purpose of external links in general. My philosophy on external links is that they are valuable when they provide direct context for the article topic in a manner that does not satisfy the requirements of references. As WP:EL notes, official sites and material in greater detail than WP covers are ideal choices for external links. Although the guideline also suggests links to reviews and interviews, I prefer using such sources to develop the article more fully, citing them as references. When there are more such sources than reasonably needed for references, it is an editorial decision about which to include. Wikipedia has no obligation to link to all content about a topic; it is not a web directory. I also feel that a "directness test" is important here. An external link to the official site of an online game is appropriate and valuable in that game's article. It is highly suspect in broader topics like online game or even computer and video games and universally unacceptable at unrelated topics.

Sites like YouTube and Google Video are no different from any other, save that the likelyhood of copyright problems are greater. It is the onus of the editor advocating inclusion to demonstrate that copyright is not an issue with these links.

General comments

• See Serpent's Choice's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Unless specifically requested, I will not respond to comments to Oppose. Adminship is "no big deal", but RFA is a serious matter because it measures the trust and respect that the community has for a candidate. That must be earned, and the first step to earning that respect is offering it in turn. I have a low edit count and little counter-vandalism. I know that some editors may wish to oppose me on those, or other grounds. Those are valid opinions, and I do not feel it is my place to dissuade others from them if they feel these are honest objections. However, I do encourage "additional optional questions" and will answer any and all to the best of my ability (although my responses are likely at odd hours). Serpent's Choice 08:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• See edit summary usage for Serpent's Choice here.
• See edit count and breakdown using Wannabe Kate and Essjay's on the talk page.
• Random diffs are available on the talk page.

---

Discussion

Support

1. Support. I've liked what I've seen out of this candidate and a quick survey of the contributions shows good involvement in AfDs and other admin processes. Grandmasterka 08:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak Support. I will look past editcountitis in this case due to some evidence of good experience. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support for a fair balance between mainspace and wikipedia space. He is also active in articles for deletion discussions. Finally, I would like to make a point of giving this editor my support because of his relatively low edit count (compared to others vying for adminship). There is too much concern about "low" edit counts — 1,500 is a damn lot! − Twas Now 08:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak Support trustable and reliable user. I would have to stress that your somehow low activity is the major issue here. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, seems trustworthy and experienced enough. Kusma (討論) 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, I looked through your edits, they looked good to me. That coupled with the answers show that you'd probably help more than hurt with the admin buttons. And for the record, I disagree with the reasons of both oppose voters. - Bobet 13:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support, your edits appear good ones to me. (And to speak only for myself, I like your answers to the questions.) I think you would make a good administrator. Seraphimblade 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. Nothing wrong with this user. yandman 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support --Majorly (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Seems like a good someone to trust with the buttons. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support per above, although please get your talk edits up. Cheers! Yuser31415 19:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Weak Support Your edit count is a bit too low for my liking, but as Adminship is not a big deal, you're minimally qualified in my book. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
13. SupportGreat contributor, has done a lot of helpful things. No real problems as far as I can see.Ganfon 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Weak Support. While the low edit count may be of concern, in going through your contributions (including those linked on the talk page of this RfA discussion), it seems we should look to the quality rather than the quantity. The nominee seems to always offer reasoning in support of any position (s)he takes in XfDs and other similar forums, and is an active participant across many of the namespaces. A need for the tools is apparent, and the nominee certainly appears trustworthy. Agent 86 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support per user we can trust.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Weak "good faith" support. I really have to grit my teeth since I'm an edit count guy, but lookign through all your edits, they are clearly very constructive. You've contributed strongly to AfD and to the articles you've edited, and you've done enough that I feel comfortable giving you the tools.--Wizardman 03:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Always friendly and reasonable in every interaction I looked at. For example, responded very well to this IMO. In addition, a serious contributor to the encyclopedia. And tons of policy and XfD experience. Some opposes focus on edit count, which is not a reliable measure of someone's experience and is easily gameable. After a pretty thorough look at talk and contribs, I'm convinced this user won't abuse the tools. delldot | talk 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Serpent's Choice's work on AfD shows an excellent knowledge of policy, a willingness to research topics over and above the call of duty, and a very professional and responsible approach to controversial issues. Tevildo 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support: I trust Serpent's Choice. S.D. ¿п? § 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support low number of edits but reviewing them I do trust the user's judgement. James086Talk 07:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support A remarkable editor whose XfD activity shows a strong knowledge of policies and guidelines and a talent for ferreting out sources for articles that might otherwise remain in question. Edit counts? Quality is preferable to quantity, in my opinion. Serpent's Choice is a valuable contributor, and I see no problem in giving him the admin tools. Shimeru 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support a good editor who satisfied my guidelines.-- danntm ^T _C 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Good edits; in perusing them I don't see anything that would indicate untrustworthiness. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support quality beats quantity every time. User is active at AfD and would make good use of the tools fighting the backlog there. Eluchil404 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support A good and trusted editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - I believe this user can be trusted with the mop. Also, 1,500 non-AWB edits is far more acceptable in terms of garnering experience than 15,000 mindless AWB edits. Proto::► 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support per nomination.--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support per nom. —mikedk9109^SIGN 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Despite the low edit count, I'm quite impressed with this candidate, particularly the depth of his AfD comments. The non-admin closures there have been good and I'm actually comfortable and confident enough in him that I think he'd be able to tackle all but the most controversial and acromonious of closures without problem. My one piece of unsolicited advice is that if you ever do decide to start counter-vandalism, please do so as an editor first to get a feel for actual blocking practice at WP:AIV.--Kchase T 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Edit count matters not. This user is definitely trustworthy, I believe he's got what it takes to be a good admin. – PeaceNT 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. for your activity level I can't see a large need to grant you the powers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - answers to questions are a bit weird, almost as if you consider yourself too important to respond. Also, why are you telling everyone how important your day job is? And do you seriously believe that 'argument by reference to a big number' is persuasive? However, my oppose is mostly because you have less than 100 article talk and less than 100 user talk, which indicates that you have not gained sufficient experience in consensus building. Addhoc 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Very few edits and I am particularly baffled about the excuse that "the research needed to reference articles appropriately is not a fast process." Not to to toot my own horn but look what I did to the Michael Jordan article in a 24 hour period from January 15th [44] to January 16th.[45] Here is a breakdown of the user's edits using interiot's tool.[46] Quadzilla99 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose. I'm not convinced by the above oppose votes (this is, of course, only my opinion), but I do feel you need a bit more experience before becoming an administrator. I'd anticipate supporting you should you reapply in a few months. --Deskana (request backup) 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'd like to see some more experience in different areas. Michael 21:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per lack of experience in areas vital to being a good admin (various talk pages, mostly). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Modest Oppose Self-nom aside, editcountitis aside, above comments aside, I think that you could use a few more months here before we hand you the key to the toolshed. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. You have some projectspace participation but little community interaction evidenced by low talkpage activity of all kinds. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per the commenters above, needs more experience. Yamaguchi先生 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose don't like responses to the questions, and like the commenters above, I feel that he is too inexperienced.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose 1500 edits is lower than what I have, and yet I'm no admin. Also, per above, the question responses sound like they come from an inexperienced person. Diez2 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose But please do not be discouraged. If you address the above concerns, you will have a good shot next time you run. IronDuke 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per edit count. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{10:25, Saturday, January 27 2007}
14. Oppose per above; sorry, I think you need a little more time. Trebor 21:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I'm going to pretend that the candidate has double his actual number of edits, based on his method, but it's still not enough. He needs more experience, and he needs to familiarize himself with administrative tasks outside the deletion process. YechielMan 03:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral This user seems to be a active and good editor, the only thing what concerns me is the edit count but except for that he/she seems like a really good candidate. Tellyaddict 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Regretfully Neutral. In addition to the above concerns with tone I would be inclined to oppose a user for admin powers with SP's level of experience. Still, my personal dealings with SP have been very favorable and he is an excellent editor. I'm always happy to see him active on an article and he has shown himself to be a very "project first" type, even in a situation where others might be inclined to let their conflicts of interest or personal feelings color their judgment. I think that in some time SP will make an excellent admin, just not quite yet. NeoFreak 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Very weak neutral only because of a lack of experience. The bulk of your Wikipedia-space edits are within the last month, which is kindof lowish. As others above have said, I will support next time. --BigDT 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral Keep editing Wikipedia, and come back in a few months when you have a lot more experience. Hopefully be able to support you by then. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Netural per Arnzy. Carpet 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Wizardman

Final (60/4/3) Ended Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:31:10 (UTC)

Wizardman (talk · contribs) - I have been in the Wikipedia community in all areas for nine months, and have been very active over the past 3 months. Even in the months where I had a low edit count, I made sure those edits were of use to the Wikipedia community. I have attempted especially recently to be very well-rounded in m edits, and I feel that I am ready for the admin tools. Plus, I have been extremely active this month primarily to se if I can handle doing work on here for man hours at a time. I feel that I can work for a long time each day on here without a problem, and I believe I can truly help wikipedia. Wizardman 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It's a self-nom, so of course I accept. --Wizardman 02:17, 22 January 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: One of the biggest thing I would love to help with is C:CSD. Often I see articles that clearly should be speedied, but sit there for 4 hours, which isn’t exactly speedy. Plus, I have been helping out at the lesser-traveled XfD’s (RfD, CfD, etc.), and would love to help close those and help out there, which I have been doing. Obviously I’d just start with ones that are pretty much unanimous one way or the other before looking to find a solution to harder ones. Of course I want to help reduce the backlog at WP:AIV, but that’s secondary as one can warn and report users there without needing admin tools. Most importantly to me would be the ability to semi-protect and unprotect pages on WP:RFPP. Often I’ll see articles there not get semi-protected when they clearly should be, and vice-versa. I didn’t add everything for admins to do up, but that doesn’t mean I’ll ignore other aspects; I will contribute to wherever I am needed as an admin. For example, I have not contributed much to WP:AN/I, but I look at the topic relatively frequently so that I would know what to do when a matter arises that needs my attention.

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

A: I managed to make the 2004 NFL Draft and the 2003 NFL Draft into featured lists almost single-handedlySome of what I contributed to the 2004 Draft. The 2002 NFL Draft is also hopefully going to become my third featured list. I have created many articles as well, including getting 2 under the Did You Know section, but I still consider my list-improving and vandal fighting to be my two strong points. I have been recently trying to improve a few choice articles, mainly the 2006 Cleveland Browns season and John Baldwin, which I’m trying to expand as much as I can. Lastly, I’ve been working on WP:BIGTEN, the Big Ten WikiProject in hopes that some of the other colleges in the Big Ten system can become featured articles as well.

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

A: I’ve had a couple problems that aren’t too big of a deal. I contribute to WP:3 and WP:RFC when I can, and there are some groups of users who just refuse to compromise. If I ever realize that I’m even close to having trouble following WP:CIVIL in any debate, I just pull back, re-evaluate my position, and decide if I should continue discussing my position on said article. Parma, Ohio is a good example of my attempts to resolve a debate. Parma was in a 2-sided edit war for many months over the Economy and the Police Force. I felt that the economy read as an advertisement and that the police area was pov. Neither side would give in, and after 2 semi-protections and a complete protection, I finally was able to create a compromise that both parties accepted. Since then there have been 0 problems at that article. I had a similar problem at Keeley Hazell, where there was an edit war between the wording of British or English. I just eliminated the word and no one’s put it back in, so it looks fine. But again, I will deal it with a cool head, and would rather not get involved in a dispute that I may end up hurting more than helping.

4, an optional question from Picaroon. On your userpage, I quote you saying "I tend to be more serious on warning vandals than others, so vandals, don't cross me" and "I hate vandals" (emphasis yours). Are you aware that most vandals aren't out to get us, they're just bored people surfing the internet? How can I be assured that, with this attitude, you won't take to biting newcomers?

A: I understand your concern based on that statement. When I say I hate vandals, I do mean I hate ones that not only continue to vandalize after a warning, but then start attacking my userpage and my talk page. Bored people surfing the web I have no problem with, and generally just throw a subst:test1 tag on their talk page. Basically if i ever do bite (which i may have done once or twice back in June when I just started using Vandalproof), I only do it if they have bitten first, and even then I try to be civil. Let me know if you want me to explain that further.

5, question from Ed. You say that on your userpage that you are a freshman in college. Is this step from high school to college challenging or too much of a big change for you in any way? If so, how do you balance your Wikipedia and real life activities? Also, do you let real life stress spill into Wikipedia and vice versa? Do your activities affect your overall performance as a Wikipedian?

A: Good question. I could take the easy way out and say that my edit count actually shows that I have now successfully balanced the two, but I'll explain in more detail. It was certainly a challenge, but once you hit college you are on your own in terms of time management. It took a little work at first, which is why my September and October edit counts are low. I actually have no problem balancing the two. Part of it is that I'm in a lot of lecture classes where I basically just come in, take notes on my laptop, and leave after an hour. That being said, I make sure to edit Wikipedia when I don't have a lot of work to do, but I was also given a college that, in all honesty, there's very little to do on campus. This means that I can edit Wikipedia for several hours and literally not be missing anything. I try not to be too stressed out on anything. If I ever get stressed, I'll change those meters on my userpage and just take a break from wikipedia. I can't say that my activities have changed my wikistyle though honestly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wizardman (talk • contribs) 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

6. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs.

A: The main problem with spam is that not only is it increasing, but it becomes hard to get rid of because most newer users are unaware of the spam policy. (WP:BB on welcome templates doesn't help that situation). Myspace pages should pretty much be removed. They only have any usefulness for band pages, and if someone wanted it that badly they could just look through Myspace for it. Youtube's a little harder to define, but in general if the youtube link is vital to the article's notability (i.e. lonelygirl15), then that's fine. However, a video clip of, for example, Steve Atwater's hit on Christian Okoye would not be useful at all because it's not notable, and doesn't contribute to either player. Of course, if any clips violate copyright they should be removed, that goes without saying. As for advertising, that was one of the problems in the Parma, Ohio article, as the Economy section sounded like an advertisement, and it was the one thing that I didn't back off of in the long debate. What I would also do is watch the #wikipedia-spam channel and look over external links that came through there to make sure nothing was spam. It basically comes down to warning spammers, educating new users (I plan to ake my own version of the welcome template that will add in WP:SPAM), and making sure that links in articles actualy contribute to the articles themselves. The purpose of External Links is to provide slightly more general references that would be of interest to someone who wants to learn more. Said person's not going to learn much from a 10-second Youtube video, but they will from a related site. I hope this answers your question.--Wizardman 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, you may want to have a look at {{welcomespam}}. Though improving the general welcome template can't be a bad idea. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WEll, that template could certainly come in handy. Of course that would be used for a new person who was spamming, but I think adding some of that into the general welcome template (or just knocking out the mentions in the spam template that the user did anthing wrong) and welcomign users with that would certainly help.--Wizardman 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:BigDT

7. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A: Looking through WP:CSD, the page does a very good job of outlining both what should be speedied. I can't say there would be any circumstances for deleting a page that's not covered under the CSD policy for that reason. If it appeared to be a hoax or neologism, that's what the AfD and prod tags are for (non-speedy deletion in hopes that the article can be improved) --Wizardman 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

Discussion

• Wizardman, I see that you have done quite a bit of WP:BIO work, tagging things on article talk pages. Just eyeballing it I would guess that you have done at least 1000 of these. Were these done by hand? If so I would say amazing dedication! That is something I would have done by AWB. How many more of those remain to go? Just curious more then anything :D.

Yea, 1000 sounds about right actually. And yeah, they were done by hand. There's actually over 100,000 to assess, and despite my 1000 the backlog's actually increasing every month. --Wizardman 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support basically I trust this users judgement, I have seen him around. I see no reason why not. Arjun 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Great experience, great answers, has use for the tools. I can't believe he isn't already an admin.! Ganfon 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support- Seems like he'll be a good admin--SUIT⁴² 03:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support- I have good faith in this editor.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Michael 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support A fine Wikipedian who will use the mop quite well. --MECU≈talk 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong support - good work, especially at FLC, has displayed good judgment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support I already thought you were an Admin. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. G.He 04:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support per above :). Yuser31415 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support - Very good, I like the replies to the questions above. As the mop is no big deal, lets give this fine user the mop already! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 05:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support like Eagle 101 says. The Rambling Man 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support- Sterling work, good judgement. yandman 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - good answers, although 'speedy deletion' does not necessarily mean it should be deleted within a few minutes, but rather the admin deleting 'on sight' once it is noticed (apart from checking stuff like page histories). However, I agree that we need more admins to delete stuff there. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - a trustworthy editor, no doubt about it. PeaceNT 09:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support- shows judgement. Agathoclea 09:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Seen this user around, I saw no problems in contribs history. I can easily overlook the CfD when he withdrew it upon further information. James086Talk 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support a hard-working user, answers are good, and not likely to abuse the tools. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. Clearly a dedicated editor. No reason to oppose. Coemgenus 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support--Húsönd 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Tepid Support no big deal - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support: Excellent answers to all of the questions, and there's absolutly no reason not to hand out a mop at this time. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Cautious support - CfD on disaster movies is a non-issue for me, anyone can make a mistake, and Wizardman fixed the mistake, so I don't think we should harp on about that; on the other hand, "it's better than it was" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall men is a somewhat worrying !vote at AfD. Wizardman is a bit new, obviously still learning the ropes in some areas, but sterling work at WP:BLP cannot be denied and in the end I invoke the "no big deal" clause. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support --Majorly (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - someone I've seen around, adminship not a huge deal. Feels as though I can trust this fellow's judgment. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Dedicated user who has shown good judgement. No reason not to trust him with the tools. Pascal.Tesson 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per above... Addhoc 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Strong Support I have had personal dealings with this editor and he is very helpful, courteous, and knowledgable. Quadzilla99 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Weak Support I have some concerns about this nominee's apparent impatience, in that he seems to make snap decisions in an XfD (or even an RfA) that he later reverses, usually because some other editor had done his or her "homework" before !voting, something this nominee could or should have done first. That has me concerned that this nominee could rush to judgment with the new tools a little too quickly. While everyone's entitled to change their mind (especially as these processes are a discussion, not a vote), I find it a little too frequently. That all said, I have noticed the nominee improving in this regard, so it is not enough of a concern that I would oppose. I would also have preferred to see this user gain a bit more experience; pumping up the edit count in the last two months, after rather sporadic contributions, doesn't quite seem to indicate that much learning was done regarding policy and guidelines. Again, it's not enough for me to oppose, because the nominee has become active at XfDs and rarely fails to give an explanation for his !vote. This isn't supposed to be a big deal, the nominee could use the tools, and despite the foregoing I think the candidate will not misuse them. Agent 86 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Weak Support per the *fd concerns. However, I see him everywhere and he always has good ideas. I trust him. Just H 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support as Wizardman has shown a lot of enthusiasm and a willingness to learn from mistakes. He has also been very active in a large number of areas important to using the admin bit, so I think he'll do a good job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support, Questions 1 and 6, and no complaints from me. ST47Talk 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support - trustworthy, won't abuse. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
34. I'm very impressed with the attitude this user has, as exemplified by the comments below in response. Below is reflective of Wizardman's general contribs, from my quick browsing, and I see no other reason not to give him the tools. A perfect candidate, really - one who is able to rationally respond to adversity, and show appropriate courtesy. Daniel.Bryant 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. he is a dedicated contributor.--Yannismarou 13:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support A hard-working Wikipedian, who deserves the mop. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support, but please consider what JzG and Agent86 said: we're not working to a deadline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong support per above. GCFreak2 8:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support As with above I believe this user will be a great sysop. Somitho 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support per above. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support per nomination. S.D. ¿п? § 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support, looks like a good Wikipedian. Kyriakos 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Support, per rational and sensible answers, reasonable temperament in evidence, policy OK, nothing to indicate potential misuse.--cjllw | TALK 07:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support, have seen nothing to indicate user couldn't be trusted with the mop. Proto::► 11:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support looks alright.-- danntm ^T _C 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support good editor. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support from me too, surprise, surprise. feydey 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Dfrg.msc 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Terence Ong 13:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support per nom. VegaDark 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Despite what the oppose votes have to say, I am still confident that this user would become a fine addition to the admin staff. Helping out with CSD deletions at first could probably stifle any doubts that I had about his speedy deletion policy. Nishkid64 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Support per nomination. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support No reason to suppose user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Support- Jorcoga ^Hi!_{02:25, Sunday, January 28 2007}
56. Support I trust Wizardman's judgement. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
57. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. WJBscribe 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Support per nomination.--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Support —mikedk9109^SIGN 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Strongly Oppose — Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_21#Category:Disaster_movies - I have to question your lack of judgement here, the previous CfD closed like 24hrs ago! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   Switched to a strong oppose per rudeness below and lack of policy knowledge. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Good point. I was looking around to find the previous CfD and couldn't find it so I put it up. I just saw the previous CfD now so I withdrew it. I'm not a fan of quick re-additions to XfD, and mine was simply an error in judgment. My withdrawal from that CfD probabl won't change anyone's mind; I just did it because is the lack of a time gap.--Wizardman 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Needs more experience, that isn't to say that he wouldn't do good if he's handed over the tools at the moment. However, wannabe Interiot shows high level of activity only in the last three months – [47], also many of the recent edits – [48], [49], which puffed up his edit-count are wpbio assessments, where he has made edits like this – [50]. Adding stub class as a kind of assessment. Looks like mindless bot work to me. Also good amount of participation in the process works wonders with voters. Will support in 3 months. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   I can see where you'd say I need more experience, I knew I'd get votes like these when I applied. Granted, I wish I could just use a bot for the wpbio assessments, but I see what you're saying in your opposition. Granted I didn't eally need to reply to this, I jus feel that I should explain myself to any opposition.--Wizardman 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   It's actually a good thing that seemingly mindless bot work is done by a competent editor. I'm not sure why one would oppose on grounds that the editor is an active, valuable gnome. Wizardman does a lot of the little things that help Wikipedia function as a whole. Pascal.Tesson 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   I think you did not get what I said earlier. His activity levels have been higher since the last three months; and before that he was not *very* active. His seemingly higher edit-count is due to the assessment work he did. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Four hours is not enough notice for speedy deletions. Argyriou (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Is the point of speedy deletions not to get rid of them speedily? I mean, if there's an article and the text is "HE GOES 2 MY SCHOOL AND HE ROX!", 4 hours is more than enough time to discern notability. If there's anything that looks notable in the least, it would go under AfD or a prod tag because of a longer deadline. Surprising reason to oppose imo, but if that's how you feel then that's fine.--Wizardman 00:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Please be slightly more civil in your approach to people who oppose you, remember: adminship is no big deal! - please also see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, specifically the first paragraph :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't see any incivility in Wizardman's response. Perhaps my complaint is mainly with A7 speedy deletions, but having had to deal with an overly speedy improper deletion on Herbert Saffir, I'm wary of anyone who wants to make speedy deletions speedier. Perhaps we could just abolish A7 altogether, as it's the criterion which seems most subject to error. Argyriou (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Looking at Herbert Saffir's speedy deletion request, I can say that I have no idea why that person marked it, no reason to at all, and if I caught that I would've removed the tag myself. Plus one lok at the edit history would've shown no valid reason for the tag anyway. I really just used 4 hours in my question since that seems to be about at most where it is now, and those are usually for borderline cases that deserve a closer non-speedy look. I can kinda see what you mean, it really ends up being the same problem that Agent and the others had above. And I'm still trying to figure out how what I said above wasn't civil, it certainly is. But yeah, bad speedies happen, that's why I want to keep an eye on them; this way if I catch an ignorant tag quicky, I can get rid of that quickly and the article will remain.--Wizardman 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose - I recall reading some recent Xfd opinions by this user that were a bit... odd. The one I specifically remember was an Rfd discussion in which he wanted to delete a redirect because the target "wasn't going to stay around for a while" (if a target is deleted, it should be db-redirnone'd, but not beforehand). If I recall correctly, the decision was overturned at DR and comments were made regardly the complete lack of policy-based reasoning in the opinions of everyone at the Rfd discussion. I'm not sure this user has a strong grasp of deletion policy. --- RockMFR 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey. Admins should enforce policy correctly or make an informed decision to ignore it for a good reason... that's fine. But I'm not comfortable with a candidate who would enforce an incorrect reading of policy and ignore evidence that their reading is incorrect. On second thought, opposing over one incident is a bit of a jerky thing to do.--W.marsh 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

   I tried to explain what I meant with my "incorrect policy reading", not sure if that changes your guys' stance.--Wizardman 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Netural per W. Marsh. Carpet 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral per W. marsh --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Wildnox

Final (11/18/10); Ended Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:37:18 UTC

Wildnox (talk · contribs) – I first encountered Wildnox when I was creating my first page, I needed help and he was more than willing to give it. He has been registered for only 10 months yet has over 3000 edits, over 1200 coming in the past 2 months. He works extremely hard against vandalism, and has reported over 50 users, as well as fixing many pages. I believe it would be better if someone who works this hard to stop vandals could stop them himself, without having to go through the reporting process. He participates regularly in discussing deletions etc. as well as reporting sockpuppets. I hope he will accept this nomination, as he deserves some status for the work he has done and continues to do Asics^Talk 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Wildnox(talk) 17:22, 20 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: If I was an administrator, most of my sysop work would be in the areas with which I am familiar such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Of those I think Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets would be the most important, as it appears that the backlog there is quite large.

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

A: It would be difficult for me to pick an article with which I am particularly pleased. This is because most of my actual article editing contributions, as opposed to my reverts of vandals and socks, have been small and spread out through wikipedia. I'd mostly say I was more pleased with my vandalism reversions than anything else. Maybe, if forced to choose examples of article writing, I can say either my small rewrite of the Slipknot (band) article[51][52] or the articles I've created Dark Lunacy, Forget Me Not (Dark Lunacy album), Devoid, The Diarist, Baptism (band), and Herod (band).

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

A: Early on I had a handful of edit wars on wikipedia. Most of my early edit warring was cause by my own intial misunderstanding and misinterpretation of wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:VANDAL, and WP:NPOV. Generally I do not get into edit wars in more recent times. The first reason for this being that I usually attempt to discuss or compromise on edits which are reverted. The second reason for this being that a message on the users talk page and a few back and forth afterward can usually solve any problems.

Optional questions from Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs)

4. Under what circumstances would you semi-protect a page?

A: I'd only semi-protect a page in cases of persistent vandalism or disruption from anons and short term throw-away accounts.

5. Would you ever speedily close something per WP:SNOW and if so, under what circumstances?

A: No, I think a discussion should be allowed to run its course, even if the circumstances appear to be overwhelmingly set to one side. The only time I see closing a discussion speedily as justified are if it is pure disruption or vandalism, which can be closed citing existing policies rather than an essay.

6. How do you determine whether a subject is notable or not?

A: This is always a tricky one in my opinion. Usually I assume any non trivial mentions outside of the subject itself(or its website, books, etc) can be a good indicator of notability for anything. For music, major labels are usually what I look for first. With books, I usually look at the notability of the author, publisher, and sales status as indicators of notability. The "Google Test" in my opinion can be very useful also, not as a main point, but as a reinforcement to other arguments.

General comments

• See Wildnox's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• See Wildnox's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool added by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from nominated:I noticed the concern over my lacked of cited sources in a few of my created articles. I can answer for the lack of sources in the Dark Lunacy related articles. In the main, I had assumed that linking, to the pages that I had used as source information, in the external links would suffice, I obviously was mistaken. I have have added <ref>s to the article, to clarify what goes to what(one source no longer has the information up and I had to change one). As for the albums, I thought those needed no sources considering the rather obvious nature of the three of them, I will source them later today. I cannot answer forever about the Baptism (band) article, when I created it, I made the grave mistake of never citing a source in the article, and I don't think I ever even made a link to the sources in the external links.--Wildnox(talk) 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator Asics^Talk 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   Support: Can't see any reason to oppose, and shows a clear need for the tools. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   Convinced by Addhoc. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Support I see no problems - contributions across the main spaces and effective vandal fighting/user Talk participation too. (aeropagitica) 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Weak support. Few overall edits, but your participation everywhere shows I can trust yu with the tools.--Wizardman 18:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Isn't overly focused on one thing, participating, like wizardman said, everywhere, and as a Recent Changes patroller myself, sysop tools are neccacary to stop vandalism on wikipedia, what real good is a test1 template going to do? → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS^C_RS 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support-Passes most of my criteria and per Wizardman. Try to get a little more XFD participation though. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 19:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support You've got a lot of contribs. and your heart seems to be in the right place. Your Wikipedia edits are only a small percentage of your overall edits, but hopefully that will change if you become an admin. Ganfon 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Petr K 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support meets my guideline.-- danntm ^T _C 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Weak support - the answers to #4 and #5 are really rather brief and I would much rather see some more elaboration on both subjects, especially given that WP:RFP is something that you list as an area of interest. I would strongly suggest reading WP:SEMI and WP:FULL and looking over some of the handled requests before diving in there too much. But that aside, I have seen no reason not to believe that you are a trusted user. WP:SSP obviously needs a ton of help and so there's a tremendous upside to you receiving the bit, thus I support. --BigDT 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Moral support • I suggest you withdraw in face of the avalanche of oppose votes. Sorry, I think you had merit, but they are right that it's probably too early. Consider becoming more active and coming back in a few month's time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    I don't really see a point in withdrawing at this point as there are only two days left and it is already pretty much already finished. I'm 100% sure how to withdraw anyway. If anything this nomination has served as a user review of sorts. --Wildnox(talk) 04:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

11. Support Please don't get downhearted if you lose - you'll get there one day.--Osidge 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - sorry but I'm seeing an extremely low amount of contributions to the encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - limited contribution to articles and no real participation in XFD's to show knowledge of policy outside vandal-whacking. Easy to rack up edits with WP:VPRF so 3000 in 10 months shows limited input as well. Not sure if the mop is needed quite yet. The Rambling Man 18:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - the articles that demonstrate his best work are poorly sourced... Addhoc 18:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Low encyclopedic contributions. AfD votes are often WP:ILIKEIT and don't show much policy knowledge. It also doesn't seem the user has much experience in the adminship areas he is planning to work on outside of WP:AIV. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose 3000 edits for 10 months would require something exceptional for gaining adminship(personally, I have around 6,500 in half that time), and that's not the case here. Tools don't seem to be needed or warranted just yet. If he becomes more active, i'm sure he'll stand a good chance in the future. Just H 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. Sorry. Yuser31415 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Nothing very amazing besides the anti-vandalism. Edit content mediocre. Few written articles. Articles written none too amazing. Sorry, dude, but I have to say no. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Using VandalProof does absolutely nothing to convince me you'll be a good admin, the articles you are so proud of are bad, and you don't have enough process participation for me to believe that you really will know what to do with admin tools. -Amark moo! 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per all the above reasons. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Just H. Michael 05:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose, besides the vandal fighting, I don't see much editing in other areas. Terence Ong 11:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose Low amount of encyclopedic contributions, large majority in vandal fighting. Hello32020 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Terence Ong. Carpet9 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Sorry, but oppose per above. S.D. ¿п? § 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose Hasn't made nearly enough valuable additions to the encyclopaedia. Being a good vandal-fighter does not necessarily make one worthy of being an admin. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per concerns of other users listed above. --Deskana (request backup) 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose per above. More experience is necessary, vandal-fighting on its own isn't enough. Address the concerns raised by the opposes and neutrals and try again later. --Coredesat 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose no where close to enough experience.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. 3000 edits for nine months' experience is not very high. While total edit count is not all that matters, there are low Wikipedia_talk edits, and most of the mainspace edits after July are vandalfighting. Vandalfighting is useful, but contribs to improving the encyclopedia is more important for an administrator. However, there is fine participation in the other namespaces, and a good balance. Great vandalfighter, too. –Llama man 18:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral This would be a hard decision for me to make, since I am on the fence I will have to be neutral, I completly concur with both the pros and the cons. Arjun 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral per my struck comments above, but the fact that only two-fifths of the articles he cited as his best work had any sources pushed me to neutral. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
4. I do not like opposing editors unless I think they would do a bad job. I can not support him because of his low amount of edits for the time he has been here (I have around the same amount and I have been here for less than three months), and he has a small amount of edits in Xfd. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I don't think he would abuse the tools but neither do I think they are especially necessary. Trebor 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral, but not going by encyclopedic contributions. Doesn't show too much of a need for admin tools. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral Low activity and participation in the projectspace (XfDs, etc.) and no quality contributions in the mainspace. As Sir James Paul, I wouldn't oppose because you're doing nothing wrong and are on the right track. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral due to answer to WP:SEMI question, as well as various other concerns above. Not enough to oppose, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral I want to support, but you are unfortunately just not quite active enough, and three of the articles you linked to in question 1 were only one sentence long, excluding the infobox and tracklist. Come back in a few months and I will most likely support. Dar-Ape 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral. I wouldn't have accepted the nomination as written - "he deserves some status for the work he has done" - and I have to question the wisdom and understanding of a candidate who did. Perhaps not enough to oppose, but more than enough to rule out support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Dev920

Final (61/37/19); Ended Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:06 UTC

Dev920 (talk · contribs) – I was surprised to find that User:Dev920 is not yet an admin.She has brought 3 articles to featured status, has over 5000 edits, and is active in several WikiProjects.Dev920 is a model of civility and the spirit of collaboration.She is also the author of what may become one of the most famous miscellany for deletion nominations ever.If she has faults, I have not run into them. What I have seen is someone who can be trusted with the admin tools, and someone who has proven that she can successfully take on a difficult and controversial tasks. Samuel Wantman 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm deeply honoured to accept. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:30, 19 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I want to go where admins are needed most – I have noticed there are plenty of admins blocking users, not so many clearing the CSD backlog on a regular basis. I would also like to help out at page semi/un/protection, having been grateful in the past to the admins who do this. I want my time as an administrator to focus more on the article side of things – protection, deletion, that sort of thing, stuff that often piles up very quickly.

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

A: I would have to say that my greatest achievement is my nomination of Esperanza for deletion. Not my best achievement, but definitely the one that has had the greatest impact. I am much more proud of my successful proposal to reduce the size of talk page templates, which has now been added to Wikipedia:Talk page templates and implemented across Wikipedia. You can see the discussion here. Personally, I am most pleased with my FAs Jake Gyllenhaal, and Latter Days, in particular Latter Days, which I wrote virtually single-handedly. I remain phenomenally proud of my ongoing conversion of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E to a referenced informational table, complete with missing entries cross-referenced from List of LGBT composers, List of LGBT Jews, and List of bisexual people. Since I joined in November 2006 and began a “revival”, I’ve also developed much of the look and infrastructure for WikiProject LGBT studies, resulting in a tripling of the membership which I am very happy about.

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

A: Conflict is not something I enjoy, but I’m willing to stand up, be counted and enter the fray if the encyclopedia needs it. I try to keep my cool, and I think I mainly succeed, though, like most editors, I have fallen down on occasion. I am absolutely willing to admit when I am wrong, such as my argument over Shi’a View of Ali, which turned out to have been my fault for not fully understanding WP:MERGE. When a conflict has been resolved and/or dropped, I try to maintain a good editing relationship with the other editors concerned, such as my dispute at the proposed LGBT Barnstar, where Badbilltucker maintained I was attacking other editors when I wasn’t. We now get on quite well, and he even joined the LGBT WikiProject at my invitation (and I joined the WikiProject Council at his). So far, I’ve found actually reading the policies people quote at you usually crushes their own argument. If you stick to policy, however much they bang at the door of your talk page in frustration, you are always going to be in the right.

My userpage says "Cum recte vivis, ne cures verba malorum", which very loosely means, "If you're doing the right thing, don't worry aboutnegative criticism." When Wikipedia or other editors have got me down, I try to remember that.

Optional questions from Larry laptop (talk · contribs)

4. Towards the end of last year, you set up Userproject:Conservatives (the project is gone but interested editors can seem some of the debate on the matter here) - a project that had the aim of producing NPOV but comprehensive articles, assist the Tories in winning elections. There was a rather heated discussion about it, you refered to other editors as "fools" at one stage - my question about the matter is as follows:

No-one but admins can actually see the page in question, so I’d like to address this before I answer the questions. I set up Userproject:Conservatives because I wanted to be able to admit my own bias. I simply wanted to be honest about my reasons for editing Tory articles. For that reason, it was not possible, or desirable, to start a WikiProject. I had no intention whatsoever of using it as some sort of campaign to introduce POV into Tory articles, and as any admin can confirm, I put caveats and disclaimers all over the project to that effect, lest any other editor come to the project with less pure motives than mine. Also, as I pointed out on the AN discussion, the purpose was to bring Conservative-related articles to FA status – a task that would have resulted in any POV, intentional or otherwise, immediately being stomped on. I also had a NPOV checking department to which any concerned Wikipedian could add themselves to ensure that we kept to this aim. I feel I simply couldn’t have put in any more safeguards than I did against POV warriors hijacking the project.

As I said on AN, anyone who wasn’t a Conservative could have joined – but I couldn’t see why they would have wanted to. Why would anyone join a project they aren’t interested in the aims of? This is also why I only targeted Conservatives for invitation to the project. I also said that anyone who wanted to was welcome to set up a Userproject:Socialism and we could have a friendly competition as I was not out on a mission to denigrate Labour-related articles, merely to improve Conservative ones.

The grounds for the speedy deletion given were that it broke WP:NPOV, but as I said, repeatedly, WP:NPOV only refers to the main namespace. You can be as POV as you want outside of it, as long as that does not affect your articles. When I pointed this out, someone claimed it broke WP:USER, "If the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." However, the community did not want the content because... they thought it violated WP:NPOV. It was a very frustrating vicious circle. The admins concerned simply didn’t assume good faith, I don't think. I suspect this was also due to language problems: when an American admin sees the word "Conservative", alarm bells start ringing and they start seeing visions of the Moral Majority storming the wiki. In Britain it’s merely the name of a slightly right wing rather limp wristed political party which has been out of power for ten years.

a) How would you handle the matter if you were an admin looking at the matter rather then setting up the project?

I wouldn’t have deleted it. If I had been an admin at the time, I would have seen a potentially worrying and divisive project run by an idealistic user, in good standing and with an FA article under her belt, who was adamant she was not breaking any policies, which indeed, on further inspection, she technically wasn’t.WP:AGF. So I would have warned the user about keeping within policy, watchlisted it, kept a beady eye on it, and MfDed it the second I saw any attempts to votestack or insert POV.

b) What are your thoughts about your conduct during the discussion on this userproject?

For the first and only time in my Wikipedian career, I insulted someone. I shouldn’t have done that. WP:CIVIL applies to all people, in all situations, forever more, and it was certainly wrong of me to call someone a fool, regardless of how I was feeling. I can only offer in my defence that it was three months ago, I’d never done it before, and I’ve never, ever done it again. In general however, I think I acquitted myself OK. I explained my reasoning behind my project, quoted policy, and until my final slipup, I was civil throughout.

5. You have mentioned that you had a featured article with the Jake Gyllenhaal article - at one stage, you set up this page. Discussion about it can be seen here (scroll down to dispute) - (I feel the sub-title "Because, seriously, they might *not* be gay..." was indicative of a bias - you disagreed). You also said in dicussion: I have now set up a website to pull those pictures I was referring to out of the locked gallery at IHJ. It is available here.[3] I propose that, as these are photos, the provenence is largely irrelevant and we apply WP:IGNORE regarding WP:RS. Dev920 19:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Quick note, I disagreed because “No, that was humourous dig at the fact that I can't find anywhere that says they are friends without adding gay stuff. :D Dev920 20:25, 18June 2006 (UTC)”. I then subsequently added a disclaimer to the front page; “It has been brought to my attention that, in our increasingly sexualised society, people may see the captions I have added to the photos as pushing some sort of an agenda. The captions exist to demonstrate that Jake and Austin's body language indicates that they are good friends, not just random people who have been photographed a few times together. It was NOT my intention to have anyone read anything more into it than that; this website exists to demonstrate Jake and Austin's friendship, and if you happen to see more to it than that on this site, you are mistaken, and my apologies if I have not demonstrated my point more clearly.”

a) What do you think about editors setting up their own sites so they can then use them as sources? --Larry laptop 09:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I set up that website because I couldn’t find anywhere that mentioned Austin Nichols and Jake Gyllenhaal in the same sentence without assuming they were lovers (which, incidentally, it has been confirmed that they aren’t). I knew from the photos I saw on IHJ that they were friends, but it was impossible to find a source that just said that. So I created one. I felt that in regards to WP:RS, what I had done was something of a grey area, as the photos themselves were reliable, but hosted on a locked website. WP:OR even says “However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.” Fortunately, we found and added a newspaper article just saying they were friends (and then subsequently added a paragraph acknowledging the speculation, but that’s another discussion) but ultimately, I don’t think we would have added it. Is it acceptable to host reliable sources on an unreliable source? WP:V says “For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources”, which implies that occasionally, they are. This question is also a major part of the Youtube debate. There’s a fine line there, but I think it is best to err on the side of exclusion, if only because it could undermine Wikipedia’s credibility. I think unless a very good case were made (such as the Youtube clip of Saddam’s execution), generally they should be taken down.

Questions from Aminz (talk · contribs)

6. Can you please explain this general comment of yours about Muslim editors on wikipedia: [53], I have wasted far too much effort on battling with the Muslim editors that I could have spent on something I enjoyed. I thought I might be able to encourage them to actually write at least one article worth reading, but they'd rather edit war, insult Jews, and get blocked than actually contribute anything useful, and I'm thoroughly sick of it.--Aminz 11:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, a number of people have been extremely concerned by this. I would like to assure everyone that I have absolutely nothing against Muslims or Islam (I grew up in Newham). When I use the term “Muslim editors”, I am referring to the group of Wikipedians who publically identify as Muslim, mostly edit Islamic articles and were all members of the Muslim Guild.

When I first joined Wikipedia, I was very concerned to discover that most Islamic articles were of poor quality, and as we do here, I tried to fix them. Up until the 15th December, I was an active contributor to Islam, as I felt that it was a very poor quality article and an article on such a major religion really ought to be FA. The article, while I was editing it, went from this to this. All the while, however, I had to have mile long discussions with Muslim Guild editors in order to get anywhere, as you can read on the talk page. Everything that is even mildly critical of Islam was edit warred and endlessly argued over – the criticism section for example, present on most religion’s articles, was debated because there isn’t an Israeli terrorism section on Judaism. Every edit took hours and hours of my time, patiently trying to thrash it out on the talk page, only to be reverted by someone else. Eventually, on the 15th of December, after we had failed our attempt at GA, someone tried to replace “Some modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation, "for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion." <ref name="Camb"> The Cambridge History of Islam (1970), Cambridge University Press, p.30 </ref> These historians generally decline to address the further question of whether the messages Muhammad reported being revealed to him were from "his unconscious, the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source", but they acknowledge that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind" <ref name="Camb"/>”, that I removed, and I realised that there was no way I could ever improve this article to the level I could be proud of. Like I said on a previous question, I do not enjoy conflict, and this endless wrangling was getting neither me nor Islam anywhere, but simply leaving me stressed. I left, itsmejudith tried to persuade me to come back, and the quoted comment was my reply. I have never edited an Islamic article since. I note that someone below has said that I am too confrontational, but I think by simply leaving Islam articles, I have demonstrated I'm not prepared to argue needlessly.

I have no idea whether the editors to Islamic articles are representative of every Muslim editor on Wikipedia, though I doubt it. But during my involvement with the Muslim Guild, I was shocked by the level of edit warring going on across Islamic articles. Additionally, even just by reading talk:Islam and my talk archives it is obvious that most, if not all the Muslim Guild editors are wildly anti-semitic, with several reprimanded and/or blocked for this, and Bhaisaab has been permanently banned. I tried to stay out of it and just improve articles for the better, but they can’t seem to collaborate to improve an article, even one that is very important to Islam. There are no GA or FA articles that were written by members of the now defunct Muslim Guild. Take a look at any Islam-related article and they are poorly written (though this cannot be helped if English is a second language), with no references, and many consist of extensive Qu’ranic quotes and little else. I do not understand why this is, as many of the editors concerned have been on Wikipedia for months, but I simply didn’t want to work in such an environment, and so I moved elsewhere. My comment to itsmejudith was an explanation why. It is a pity, because I for one would deeply appreciate an NPOV resource on Islam, and I’m sure many others would too, which was how I fell into editing it in the first place.

I'm sensing that some people are concerned that I hate Muslims or Islam, and would like to say that this is categorically not true. Many of my friends are Muslims (and even on Wikipedia I like Alm very much on a personal level), I was brought up in an area where most people are Muslim, and I would not have worked so hard to improve Islamic articles had I detested what I was editing. I apologise deeply and sincerely to anyone who thinks this of me based on my edits here, because this is truly not the case.

Thanks Dev for your reply. I think you are sincere and change my vote to neutral. --Aminz 07:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question from TeckWiz (talk · contribs)

7. Though I voted delete because of how the organization was at the time, why did you start the MFD that lead to the the deletion of Esperanza? Why not rebuild into something promoting community and editing? In the MFD, you and everyone else said that it's not promoting editing at all. However, you're a member of the Kindness Campaign, which doesn't promote editing either. Why not delete that also? And if your reason is that it helps to raise awareness of the positive benefits that a little kindness and recognition can bring (the Kindness Campaign's second goal), that's the same thing Esperanza was doing. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully object to that question, TeckWiz. No one user is responsible for the deletion of Esperanza, it was a community decision, and I would say to blame just one user for the deletion of Esperanza is a little unfair. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to be a little less blameful (though that's not a word.) --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not MfD Esperanza because it didn’t promote editing, those were other people’s arguments. I have no real issue with people starting organizations that have little to do with editing, as long as they are not harmful to Wikipedia. The reasons I gave in my nomination are why I MfDed Esperanza, namely that Esperanza had built itself up to the point that members considered themselvess better than normal Wikipedians, that it had developed an entire community isolated and insulated from the rest of the Wikipedian community, that many Esperanzans themselves were unable to see the problems Esperanza had and those that did did not make efforts to fix them, that a bureaucracy was set up that went against the spirit of Wikipedia, and that ultimately, you cannot promote hope through a monolithic organization. I joined the Kindness Campaign because I liked the fact that it consists mainly of a membership list and some suggestions on how to be kind. Organisations like Esperanza and Concordia try to draw members in, away from the Wikipedia: KCers take their mission out into the community, where we normally work and interact with others.

How can you promote an adjective, an intangible concept, through programs, a seven member council and green e’s? You can only be kind, or inspire others, through your actions – a personal thank you on a talkpage, a barn star for a Wikipedian you really value, helpful answers to confused newbies. I know many people below seem to think otherwise, but I try to be kind to others wherever possible, and I think looking through all my contributions, not just a few, would bear this out. At Esperanza’s heart was a good idea, but it went about it in a misguided and ultimately harmful manner that led to the community being more demoralised. There were attempts to bring it back to an organisation that promoted community, but it fizzled out. That’s why there was a consensus to deactivate.

Thanks for the good answer to my question. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Dev920's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

---

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nominator. -- Samuel Wantman 08:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes! Yes! Yes! Edit-conflict-with-nominator support. Unreservedly, certainly trustworthy. She is the very model of a modern Wikipedian. Just to elaborate - fantastic FAs, calm, level-headed, good XfD participation, and the extraordinary quality of the Esperanza MfD nomination should tell you all you need to know; this candidate can really think as well. Concerns were expressed about when the MfD actually took place - just after Christmas - and it is perhaps a sign of Dev's absolute suitability for adminship that she had actually planned to wait until the New Year: the eventual timing was my fault. If ever an RfA candidate approached maximal excellence in every possible sense of the word, this is it. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Dev920 is an enthusiastic, active contributer who has a very clear understanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. She is active in most important areas of the project, and has changed Wikipedia for the better. Her actions regarding Esperanza were bold, and she kept her cool during the entire process. She has also completely revitalized the WikiProject LGBT studies, and her attention to the project is the principal reason for the exponential increase in members over the last few months. I have complete confidence that she would make an excellent admin. My only concern (with all admins, not just Dev) is that she not stop article creating and editing, due to being burdened with admin tasks. I notice often that admins seem to spend most of their time on bureaucratic functions, and forget the reason they joined Wikipedia in the first place. Jeffpw 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support I don't think we've ever directly interacted, but I've managed to stumble across her great work all over Wikipedia. Besides, she made an excellent choice in the color of her userpage.

—Mira 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Support but don't forget to keep making excellent contributions to WikiProject LGBT studies while you wield the mop...!The Rambling Man 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Support I trust this user with the mop. Switched to Neutral. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Support Great editor. I'd trust her with the mop. Gzkn 13:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Contributions look good.--Eva ^bd 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support: Adminship isn't a big deal, and there's an urgent need for more admins, third lowest ratio of admins to editors on any wikipedia, apparently. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. yandman 15:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. AFter reading this candidate's statement in the Esperanza MfD, I have no doubts about their good judgment. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support, never seen anything other than good stuff from Dev. Proto::► 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (reinserted this support vote--it was removed during another user's oppose vote) Jeffpw 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong support - kind, thoughtful and willing to stand up against problem users. Addhoc 15:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Support A tireless contributor and very helpful to newcomers Hassan2 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC) _{something odd here - the user page does not match with the user contribution and the account was created this afternoon. --Larry laptop 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)}

   _{After he tried ripping off my userpage, he ripped off Larry's userpage. I warned him against doing it again, he said "oh noes!", I blocked him. DS 16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)}

9. Support per Proto - whenever I see her, she's doing something useful and intelligent. Trustworthy and capable of making very well-reasoned arguments. Trebor 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support no problems here. Arjun 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I have seen user maintain admirable COOL when less mature and/or responsible editors would have failed to. Mark83 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. Michael 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
13. No concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Weak Support. Most of the diffs pointed out below don't concern me too much, and those that might be of some concern aren't enough to dissuade me from supporting the candidate. I trust the nominee will take those comments to heart when handed the tools and will make a fine admin. Agent 86 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I'm happy with the answers to the questions and I,on balance (and thinking quite deeply about my frankly too high standards for what an admin should be), think that Dev920 will make an excellent admin. Just make sure you keep up your excellent editing work. --Larry laptop 20:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Your contribs. are great as are your answers to the questions.I see no reason to oppose. Ganfon 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. SynergeticMaggot 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support --Duke of Duchess Street 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)have reconsidered based on concern about incivility.

18. Support; I have disagreed with a few things you have done in the past, especially the Whedonette (talk · contribs) harassing incident, but that was a little while ago now and I see no reason to oppose. Yuser31415 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support No-brainer. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Excellent cantidate, deserves tools. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Unconvincing opposes, clearly a trustworthy user. -- Steel 01:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - I believe the user will use the tools appropriately and has done an excellent job of intraspection regarding her past mistakes anddisagreements with other users. We need more admins with the tools for deletion who will use the tools safely and I belive Dev920 will do a fine job. --Matthew 01:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support -Even though I am also running for administrator, I think Dev920 will make one of the best admins ever.Government07 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support It's all good. Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 06:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support:I have experiences that sometimes she looses good faith very quickly and assume many things which are not at all true (e.g. [54]). There are few other things that bother me about her for examples she gets angry sometimes. However, we have to look good qualities and see if good qualities are more dominated than bad qualities. It is because we all are not perfect. I think overall she act very neutral and tried to work for good reasons in wikipedia. I really appreciate her effort to nominate and work very sincerely and in neutral way for GA status of Islam article. For me being neutral matter a lot. Hence I must support her. Go sister go... --- ALM 12:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support the cabal told me to. Computerjoe's talk 12:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support. I note the valid concerns raised by some of the opposers. But I'm sure if you trawl hard enough through any contributor's editor history you can find an example of one or two occasions where they have expressed themselves unwisely. I am not persuaded that these difs below represent any general pattern of invicility on Dev's part. I have interacted a lot with this user on Wikipedia and find her experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated. In short, she has my trust and I believe she would use the tools well. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Terence Ong 15:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support: An editor who wades into controversial subjects can occasionally get uncivil, and certainly will get discouraged at least once or twice. We need more admins who have experienced the worst of Wikipedia, and who have remained civil and constructive through the vast majority of that experience.The only "perfect" admin candidates ("perfect" in the sense of not being seen by anyone as being on the "wrong" side of a debate) are probably those who have been fortunate enough to avoid edit wars entirely.But what may be good personal fortune doesn't prepare an editor to help step in, as an admin, to sort out gnarly fights with plenty of incivility and valid accusations, often from both sides, not to mention trolls and sock puppets and vandals.-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 15:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Obviously a very good editor. -- Karl Meier 20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Weak Support. The Muslims comment is certainly a cause for concern, but I don't think it's enough to stand in the way of her adminship. She's obviously a very good editor. I think she'd make a good admin. alphachimp 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. I'm concerned about the comments on Talk:Islam and the Esperanza MfD, but one of the things we often forget is that RFA is a measure of how well the user would wield the tools, not a civility check. She'd use the tools well, but the comments concern me. bibliomaniac15 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong support Empathetic, level-headed and honest, Dev920 takes the time to understand all sides before making the right call.Proabivouac 05:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Strong Support An experienced and bold editor.It stands to reason that those who edit controversial subject articles will be engaged in heated debates.Although every remark was not perfect, I support the editor's dedication to the project.I further believe that experience with conflict makes a good admin. Alan.ca 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support per Alan.ca. I trust her with the mop. Very good and experienced editor.Raystorm 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. I trust she'll use the mop well. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support, especially for the resonse to the question about the Esperanza MfD. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. RfA is about whther or not we can trust an editor with the tools, trusting that she won't abuse them to further any alleged agenda. I believe Dev920 can be trusted with them. I do believe that more effort may be needed on the civility side, especially when making general statements about a large group, but I believeshe has shown here that she is aware of this issue and is willing to take coorrective measures. This shows that she is willing to learn from her mistakes, and I believe that is an excellent quality for an admin to have. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you. My tendency to generalise is an issue I have certainly taken to heart during this RfA, and I intend to work on it regardless of the outcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

40. Support I had only positive experiences with this editor. Beit Or 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support I think Dev would make a good administrator.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
42. SupportElizmr 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. I think Dev920 was voicing frustration about bad editing in general, and the page that happened to be frustrating her at the time was Islam. She's an excellent editor with a lot of common sense who'd make a great admin, and a couple of comments taken out of context shouldn't be held against her. The editing of contentious articles on Wikipedia is a very different ballgame from the run-of-the-mill stuff, and yet time and again we see the editors of those articles held to exactly the same standard as those who focus on flowers and butterflies. I'm on record as strongly opposing anti-Muslim sentiment on Wikipedia, but I don't see it in Dev, and I think we should give her a chance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support though comments found are a bit disturbing... KazakhPol 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support per the answers above, which convey a mature and responsible understanding of editing on WP, and not a 'confrontational' one. This editor looks to be an excellent candidate for wielding the mop. Tewfik^Talk 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. It looks like a good candidate is being unfairly targeted for preferring neutrality over bias, and trying to achieve that in contentious and highly protected articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support - per Nihonjoe, Jayjg. User comes down a little harsh on people, but I have no reason to believe she will abuse her tools. We all get in NPOV disputes sometimes, and we all can say things a bit hrashly, especially if we stand in a neutral dispute and see both sides as intransigent. While not wholly excusable, I can't really condemn an editor off a few outbursts, when it by no means appears that she will do any blocking of people she's involved in an editor war with. I just don't undrstand the opposes here. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Amazing. Wikipedia should be so fortunate to have Dev920 as an admin. --MECU≈talk 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support I have met Dev920 on Wikipedia earlier, and have found her to be a thoughtful, kind person, plus a good contributor and a valuable member of the community. Definitely support her nomination and all the best! --Ouro 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Support--D-Boy 08:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support. qp10qp 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support: great editor who will make a fine admin, I'm sure. Jonathunder 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - This editor knows how to deal with tendentious editors.Bakaman 22:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support, though with some reservations.We all make mistakes and say the wrong thing at times.Her answers convince me that she recognizes when she has erred and has learned from her mistakes.I am comfortable that she would not abuse the tools.--Kubigula (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. I don't know if supporting will make any difference in the long run here, but I do think it'd be a shame if this RfA were not to pass so I'll try anyways. I have never interacted with Dev920 personally, but having read her comments here and at Esperanza's MfD, I am very impressed with her comportment. She has an excellent grasp on the English language and is capable of writing in a very nuanced manner which I think is essential for good communication. She makes her arguments convincingly and I would suspect she contributes well-written prose to the encyclopedia we purport to be writing. If she is guilty of anything in my opinion, it is of being frank. She is not afraid to state her opinion, and while this may not be as sugarcoated as some might like, it does not mean she will stoop to making ad hominem arguments (personal attacks) or the like (well, maybe she has before, but "being perfect" is not a requirement for adminship). Perhaps Dev920 is overly honest at times, but she doesn't appear to me to be mean-spirited. I don't see any substantial "issues" with "incivility"/"civility". Dev920 did not say, "Muslim editors. . ."; she said, "the Muslim editors. . .". There is a very large difference there. She is not condemning all Muslim editors, see article (grammar). She is referring to a specific group, the Muslim editors who are doing these things. Specifically, she is condemning a group of people concretely defined to her. It is not anti-Muslim to refer to a group of people who are edit warring, insulting Jews, and getting banned. Furthermore, it is not uncivil to be upset about people who edit war, insult Jews, and get banned. In conclusion, I don't see any trends of bigoted or uncivil behavior. I see a laudable editor who has FAs, XfD participation, edit counts, whatever arbitrary measures we have for RfA candidacy, but who has ruffled a few feathers. I don't see someone who will insult and trample newbies, ban users she's in a dispute with, protect pages she wants protected, ignore policy, or otherwise ruin the wiki. We all make mistakes sometimes, even admins. --Keitei (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Support despite civility issues. Not just your average vandal-hunter.Johnbod 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Support I respect this editor's composure (and bravery) in the face of multiple personal attacks, particularly during the recent Esperanza debates; she is clearly dedicated to improving Wikipedia for the greater good. The "civility" issue are much ado about nothing; no one who edits on Wikipedia very long can remain Little Miss Sunshine all the time. (In fact, I'd be rather scared of someone who didn't lose their cool sometimes). --Leflyman^Talk 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I can not condone the random insulting of people over one article.I regretfully oppose. I have checked out this users contributions to other peoples talk pages. Apparantly this user believes that some articles are exclusive clubs only to be edited by certain types of people. I feel that this attitude goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.To see those comments go to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NkrasCylonhunter 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't really see that in the link you have provided - all that I can see is Dev explaining that a certain wikiproject is going to be interested in a certain type of project. --Larry laptop 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   This quote really disturbed me."Any article which involves LGBT to a reasonable extent is covered by us. That isn't having it both ways, that's doing our job." Dev92014:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylonhunter (talk • contribs)

   I don't see anything disturbing in that interaction. A user was confused about the Wikiproject LGBT tagging an article, Dev and another user explained the rationale, and the user's concern was assuaged. Since communication is the key to Wikipedia, I think the exchange was perfectly normal and innocuous. And by the way, Cylonhunter, please do not remove other editor's votes of support, as you did with Proto's vote. Here is the diff. Jeffpw 15:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itsmejudith&diff=prev&oldid=94576820 this bothers me as well. This editor is to prone to frustration and anger to be an admin. I am sorry for deleting votes I did not intend to do this. Cylonhunter

   Welcome to Wikipedia, on this your 9th day here.Regarding the comment of Dev920 that shows in the diff you provided, do you have any basis to believe that it is untrue?-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 03:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   I do not know if what this user said is true or untrue.However I did interpret it to be an unfair attack on the whole muslim editing community.Besides does the amount of time I have spent editing make my opinion and ability to dig up history any less valid.User talk: Cylonhunter

   Sadly and reluctantly, Oppose Comments like this are not helpful to resolving disputes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral - if you are allied with bad people, either you are wrong, or they are wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

   The tone was a bit harsh, but then again the editor in question was pushing the limits of AGF, IMHO. yandman 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Weak opposechanged to Strong Oppose, this user considers the Dummy's Guide to Islam as a reliable source. Also, because of [55] comment on Muslim editors. I have asked question number 6 about this comment. change to neutral. --Aminz 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - The author of "Islam for Dummies", Malcolm Clark is a professor in the Department of Religion at Butler University. While the title may not appeal to Aminz, there is nothing wrong with the book as a reference source. Jeffpw 11:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC}

2. Oppose per all above. Also, your philosophy is worrying; it seems to imply that if you're right, you don't have to care about negative criticism. The problem, of course, being that maybe you aren't right. -Amarkmoo! 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Model of civility, eh? Member of the Kindness campaign, as listed on her userpage – [56]. That's ironic, because I don't find you to be a least bit civil. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'll simply quote the diffs, so that people can have a good look. – [57], [58].

   Thanks, but I'm done. I have wasted far too much effort on battling with the Muslim editors that I could have spent on something I enjoyed. I thought I might be able to encourage them to actually write at least one article worth reading, but they'd rather edit war, insult Jews, and get blocked than actually contribute anything useful, and I'm thoroughly sick of it. There's going to come a point when most areas of the Wiki will be at least GA standard, but it'll never happen with a single Islamic article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   "How would a former member of Esperanza respond? By saying, "I think this is not a great idea, given the fact that it failed with Esperanza."" I would like to think that anyone who is faced with that kind of idiocy would reply "No, because that's a fucking stupid idea and totally contravenes every possible Wikipedian principle and policy you can imagine." Do you seriously believe the only thing wrong with that scenario is that Esperanza tried it and got rejected? Is that your only possible thought? Come on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose This user is one of the reasons why I have lost all hope in Wikipedia and its community, and have been editing only sporadically recently. Dev920 has shown a willingness to engage in people politics and disrupt the community. Based on the diffs provided by others, particularly this comment in a conversation I was involved in, she seems to have a pattern of incivility. Ironically, she has a Kindness Campaign userbox on her userpage. If this RFA passes, the Internet will suck (and Hildanknight will blow a gasket). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   "If this RFA passes, the Internet will suck" Not very civil yourself, are you. – Chacor 14:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Dev920's a member of the Kindness Campaign. I'm not. And I'm no longer an Esperanzan. It seems civility and community are no longer valued, thanks (partially) to Dev920.

   Besides the irony of incivility from, Dev920, a Kindness Campaign member, I must note the irony of you chastising me for my alleged incivility when Dev920 stated that civility is less important than truth (I don't remember the exact quote).

   If I really valued truth over civility, instead of saying "If this RFA passes, the Internet will suck", I'd have said "Supporting this RFA is a f***ing stupid idea" (which is a reference to a quote she made - see diff I provided). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   That still does not exempt you, or anyone for that matter, from respecting WP:CIV. – Chacor 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   The fact that you believe Esperanza = civility and community, and vice versa, is precisely why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose anti-muslim statements. -Lapinmies 13:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   I do not think her anti-Muslims because her edits in Islam article were neutral. Sometime she loose patience and gives bit harse comments but still she has mostly good qualities. --- ALM 13:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose. This a tough oppose, because I tend to agree with most of Dev's actions, but not the manner or tone in which she carries them out. From reviewing the last month or so of contributions, it seems that she adds fuel to fires on a fair number of occasions, likely unintentionally. Unfortunately, I can not support at this time. SuperMachine 14:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Sorry, but I can't overlook the substantial civility issues pointed out above. Otherwise, you appear to be a splendid contributor, so I guess we'll see you again around here, after some time. Sandstein 16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Seems like a good editor, but to be an admin you should be less confrontational when dealing with contentious issues, even if the other party is being a jerk.Coemgenus 16:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose I'm not as critical of the comments in evidence as some of the opposers; but they do contain unfortunate overgeneralizations (no Islamic article will ever reach GA standard?), and a level of vocalized frustration that I see more often in POV warriors than in admin candidates.The candidate should try RfA again after keeping her cool for six months. Xoloz 18:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel I edit like a POV warrior. I hope that we run into each other on other articles one day and I can prove otherwise to you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Multiple civility issues (as seen above). I can't overlook people who leave such offensive and uncivil comments on talk pages. Nishkid64 18:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
11. oppose. "even just by reading talk:Islam and my talk archives it is obvious that most, if not all the Muslim Guild editors are wildly anti-semitic"? Yeah, thanks... --Striver - talk 20:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive158#IDF_barnstar.3F.21 Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Nishkid. You seem like a great editor, and your answers were amazing, but civility is something that you don't always obey. I remember you made an uncivil comment on the Esperanza talk page, and I actually thought you were an Esperanza member. I was surprised that Esperanza wasn't brought up in any of the questions. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose Sorry, the candidate seems to have some outstanding qualities, but the evidence of over-the-top hot-headed comments is worrying. Occasional losing-one's-temper is ok, but the kind of comments shown above are a bit excessive Bwithh 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) I'm opposing for reasons below.

    The diffs above are almost all two comments I have made out of over a thousand. A lot of my opposers I think are not seeing the whole picture. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    I was actually just thinking about this (before I saw your comment above) and looking through your contributions history. I thinknow that basically it looks like only a few isolated incidents and I was thinking of changing my vote to neutral. On the other hand, I think your responses above to the concerns about the Muslim issue are bit injudicious - are most ("if not all") of the 70+ former Muslim Guild editors[59] really "wildly anti-semitic" ? this is a very strong statement. is every Islam article that bad? are you saying Striver is anti-semitic or what do you mean by that pasting that discussion link? In addition, I then saw your User:Dev920/Wikiphilosophy page which I feel shows an inadequate feel for Wikipedia content policy (WP:NOT). So, these two concerns moved me back from neutral to oppose. Bwithh 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    I do not believe I have had personal interaction with all 73 members of the Muslim Guild, so I accept that I may be over-generalising. The users I have had interactions with, however, have repeatedly displayed anti-semitic sentiments on talkpages, in edit summaries, and even on my talkpage. Again, I cannot speak for every Islamic article, but I do not recall coming across an well-written one that has not had substantial help from non-Guild members - I use Wikipedia as a research tool but I have been unable to use it for my Islamic assignments because of this. I am happy to retract if this is not the case (and please point them out because I need to read them!). I do believe Striver is anti-semitic, and my purpose in posting the link was to both partly demonstrate this and to show that other editors also believe him to be anti-semitic. I don't want to say any more about that because I do not want to get into a discussion about Striver on this RfA. I tried to leave the entire Muslim Guild behind when I left off editing Islamic articles.

    I do not see any contradiction between my Wikiphilosophy and WP:NOT, so I would be grateful if you could explain what you meant by this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    Please stop saying other anti-Semitic. If someone is in politically favoring Philistine instead Israel then it is just a political decision. You end up marking all such people anti-Semitic. A person who dislikes Israel policies is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Please do not call Striver anti-Semitic. --- ALM 12:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    While it may indeed be a question of semantics, the word you are searching for is anti-Semitic. And Dev is not the only one who feels that way. If you look at the diffs provided in this page, you will see I have also been concerned about this issue. His support of Palestine is not the problem (and I am not aware of his position regarding Philistines); it is the anti-Jewish nature of several of his posts. Jeffpw 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    I do not find any such post. He looks like against Israel. He even says that he had Jews friends. I am against Israel policies but not at all anti-Jew. However, it bother me a lot that she mark us all anti-Jews. I feel NO difference between people who says Dev920 as anti-Muslims and herself (when she called us anti-Jews). Because neither Dev920 is anti-Muslim and nor we all Muslims anit-Semitic. --- ALM 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

14. Strong Oppose This person ruined the chances of wikipedia become a community. Also she has been incivil a few times to people and I can not support a person like that. Sorry. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Strong Oppose Incivility of the highest form. Prejudice against relgious groups shall not be tolerated here on Wikipedia. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    But I don't have any prejudices aginst religious groups... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Unfortunately for you, many people aren't going to believe your statement of that over repeated incivil remarks. Prejudice may be the wrong word, but it's really a technicality. -Amark moo! 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Amark, you say "repeated uncivil remarks" when defending your claim of prejudice. If you have diffs to evidence a pattern of bigotry here on Wikipedia, please post them here. I have only seen one remark--out of thousands of posts Dev has made on Wikipedia--that could remotely be considered prejudiced. Your remark, unless you can show other diffs, seems a bit hyperbolic. Jeffpw 12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    Dev, you grouped "Muslim editors" under one umbrella with that comment about how all they do is "insult Jews". That kind of generalization is known commonly as prejudice. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, I did make something of a sweeping generalisation there. I've tried to correct that by saying in my answer to Q5: "When I use the term “Muslim editors”, I am referring to the group of Wikipedians who publically identify as Muslim, mostly edit Islamic articles and were all members of the Muslim Guild." Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Even with your narrowed down criteria (Muslims who identify themselves as Muslim, edit articles about their religion, and are members of a group held together by their religion), all it takes is 1 Muslim in that group who does not fit the model you so recklessly described in order to prove your statement false. That's the problem with generalizations and stereotypes. Even if that case was a mere "slip of the tounge" (so to speak), there seems to be some deep seated sentiments that are brought to light with that comment. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Well, I clearly can't persuade you otherwise. All I can say if that if I was some sort of Muslim hater, I wouldn't have spent about fifty hours trying to improve Islam. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Just because you dump lots of time into an article about a subject doesn't mean you can't hate it. For example, I am sure many users who have dumped hours into editing articles about Hitler and Stalin personally dislike the men. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    I believe this is an exceptionally bad faith oppose, based on the subsequent incoherent argument presented. Proto::► 11:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

16. Oppose Unsatisfactory civility issues is a major concern here. However, her contributions to this project is commendable as well. But an admin must show civility at all times. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose per striver, sharkface, and nearly headless nick. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose ditto. If admins aren't civil, nothing else redeems them. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Aside from the civility issues brought above, he has always struck me as a user unwilling to compromise. In spite of what was said above, RFA is a civility check, as I for certainly do not want an admin to snap at a newbie. The Islam-related article issues make me pause as well. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Reluctant Oppose I firmly believe that admins must be civil and must be able to keep their cool during contentious discussions/disputes. While day to day protections and speedy deletions would be fine, if there were a dispute I feel that Dev might not handle it well. If the civility wasn't an issue I would have supported though. James086Talk 06:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose How do you say in Latin "If you're right, then ram it down the throats of those who are wrong?" cuz that could also be characterized as Dev920's motto.She was right about getting rid of Esperanza but it could have been done in a kinder, gentler way especially the aftermath with the essay and the discussion page.She wasn't the only one but she was one of the gang and, based on comments and diffs above, such self-righteous self-assuredness is a pattern not an exception.The bit about "Muslim editors" is also deeply disturbing and, IMO, requires an apology and promise to desist from such comments in the future.--Richard 09:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Weak oppose per other users raising concerns on incivility. --Deskana (request backup) 12:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose, I'm afraid.The comment that he couldn't see why the Conservative project was wrong indicates a pretty deep flaw in Dev920's understanding of neutrality policy.This has nothing to do with raising red flags for Americans (I am English) and everything to do with not seeing why a project with the stated aim of helping a political party to win votes is not right.Sorry, Dev, that is beyond "a bit dumb" and well into irredeemably wrong.Other issues, too, with subtle and not-so-subtle bias (fine to admit it, it's how you state it that can be problematic) so overall I don't see Dev920 as a suitable candidate at this time. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Oppose JzG and Deskana explain perfectly. Carpet9 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Strong Oppose As much as her outbursts may have been justified, that is no excuse for being uncivil. There is never an excuse for being uncivil, as an editor and especially not as an administrator. —Cuiviénen 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose Now oppose when incivility taken into consideration. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose. She had me with question #2 and then lost me with question #4. NeoFreak 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose per the conservative project episode. Though if you start it off wikipedia, I'll join. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I cannot imagine anyone who could be more uncivil, especially regarding her comments about Muslim editors. I have reservations about granting anyone who would generalise whole groups of editors into such a negative category the mop. – Chacor 14:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    I respect both your vote and your edit above challenging someone else's incivility. I just wanted to comment that "I cannot imagine anyone who could be more uncivil" is not true in my experience. Though yes, the Muslim generality is very unfortunate. In my opinion it was an isolated moment of frustration.Mark83 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

30. Oppose Per quotes Aminz produced.MinaretDk 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    User has less than 100 edits, and has been editing for less than a week. Proto::► 11:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

31. Oppose Not quite ready yet; I shall be happy to support her next RfA.--Runcorn 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose with regret I like this candidate but have reservations about her incivility; happy to support her when she has addressed this.--Brownlee 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose • I have misgivings about the civility issues, as Wikipedia has enough wikidrama these days as it is.Consider trying to treat editors in a more civil and wikiloving manner, and come back in two months.If it works out, I'd even nominate you, as everything else seems ok.Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
34. OpposeGeo. 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose too much brought up that I disagree with.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Oppose.Sorry, but no.Not the right temperment. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose per issues of civility cited above. One recent issue of incivility would be sufficient; two is overwhelming. Blake's Star 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral # Neutral I am neutral for the moment pending the answers to my questions (I should point out that I indicated to Dev that I would be asking those questions). I think Dev is a excellent editor and wikipedian - however some of her interactions with fellow editors makes me wonder if administration is the right role for her. I should also point out that more generally I concerned by recent events that RFA is not a particular rigorous process and really needs to be more selective about who it hands a broom out to (that's not a slight on Dev920 but the process, I plan to partipating in RFA a lot more, Dev is just the first person I plan to turn the rubber hose on) --Larry laptop 10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)--Larry laptop 10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now. I have some concerns and need to take a closer look before I could support. Carcharoth 11:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Staying neutral. Not convinced either way yet. Carcharoth 11:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral leaning weak oppose - lots of good work done by editor (especially with the very well-constructed MFD nomination of Esperanza) ... but there are a few things that keep me from supporting.(1) The conservative project thing - it wouldn't bother me at all if you said, "I realize now that politically biased wikiprojects are wrong" or words to that effect - everyone makes mistakes, but you seem to be defending it in your comments above. (2) !voting on a contentious AFD with no reason given [60] (3) WP:V and WP:NPOV are fundamental policies, so I would certainly consider being unsourced a reason to delete if nobody is willing/able to source it [61] (4) In your two recent edits to Jake Gyllenhaal, you were probably correct, but your edit summaries seem to show a misapplication of WP:IAR and of WP:V.(5) Referring to another editor [62] as a weirdo - it was User:62.136.153.73's only edit so I'm not sure how that makes him/her a weirdo.Edits like these are obviously, 100%, the exception rather than the rule for someone whom I consider to be a valued editor.Consider this, if anything, just some suggestions on areas to improve. --BigDT 16:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Regarding (3), here's her comment on the AfD: Being unsourced is not a valid reason to delete per WP:DELETE.And that is absolutely correct - being unsourced is not a reason to delete.Being incapable of being unsourced is different matter entirely. At most she was unclear (and I wouldn't agree with that characterization, personally). -- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, let me clarify some of those points:

   (1) I don't accept that Userproject:Conservatives was wrong. It was probably a bit dumb, and I wouldn't do it now because it would be too much hassle and I've got a hell of a lot more to do :); but the idea itself was within policy, though not to be encouraged. I've already explained everything else above, so I'll stop now.

   (2) I wanted to vote on it but couldn't think of anything else to say that hadn't already been said, so I voted without an explanation. Obviously, as AfD is not a vote, it was fairly meaningless, but I just had a crisis of imagination. I haven't done it since.

   (3) John Broughton has got there before me because I've spent so long researching this reply, and he said what I was going to say. The deletion policy says only if an article is totally unverifiable can it be deleted entirely. SkierRMH said that it was a term that was widely used in book circles and there were plenty of references on it, so it apparently was verifiable, and I voted accordingly. I apologise if I was unclear.

   (4) Randomly removing a name but leaving the brackets is a bit weird, but you're right, I probably shouldn't have called him a weirdo. Thank you for calling me on it and I shall avoid doing so again.

   (5) This issue is one that I was going to take to to AN to get some other opinions on this, but I never got round to it. Basically, WP:V says the burden is on the editor to prove an event happened. At the time, Jake singing a show tune in drag had only happened twelve hours previously, and it hadn't hit the newspapers (though it now has: [63]). One of the things I love about Wikipedia is our ability to cover breaking news. I added the info, and Larry reverted, saying I needed a source, but the only thing I could find was a gossip columnist linking to the Youtube video. So I put that up. Obviously, it's a bad source, but you can't really lie with a video, so I felt that to apply WP:IAR here was acceptable, as I could not prove the sentence any other way and to link to the video itself would be a copyright infringement. But it's a bit of a grey area for me and I will certainly take the time to think more on how the policies fit together. Thank you for the criticism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

   Ok ... that's all reasonable, thank you for your reply. As I said, you are obviously a great editor and if anything, consider my comments just general suggestions.--BigDT 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I have to admit, this edit seems to have me a little concerned. I went wading through her contribution log and wasn't able to find anything else that would incline me to opposition. --Brad Beattie (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral: Great edits and great answers, but the opposition convinced me to avoid supporting you.--Wizardman 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral You are an amazing editor and you are a person who does much needed things to help Wikipedia. (i.e. suggest deletion of Esperanza, fix talk pages.) In addition, I believe you are interested in helping to develop Wikipedia. However, you are just too ideological. Your fighting with the Islamic Guild is questionable in its justification. The name calling and fiery tirades also are not good qualities in an administrator who may need to act as a mediator and solve disputes so commonly. I initially supported you, but the opposing arguments were strong and had merit. Even if you don't get the administration position, continue editing! You are an important person in Wikipedia. Overall, I can't decide. May the correct side win. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral, leaning towards oppose due to incivility. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral - Rethinking my vote.--SUIT⁴² 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral Substantial numbers of the oppose votes are rediculous. I will not be in the same category as them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral --Aminz 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral Tough one. I can't vote oppose, as, while I disagree with Dev on most things (an article for every school in the world?!), I also admire her as an editor a great deal. She is an excellent writer, as her three FAs will show and has a lot of conviction in what she does. However, I also feel that the conviction that she shows is part of the reason that I can not support. Blanket statements like "even just by reading talk:Islam and my talk archives it is obvious that most, if not all the Muslim Guild editors are wildly anti-semitic" and "Esperanza had built itself up to the point that members considered themselvess better than normal Wikipedians" have me worried. The latter is insulting, and untrue. I never felt this way, and many other of the 700+ members list probably didn't either, and the former is a borderline personal attack. I also feel that Wikiproject:Conservatives, with one of the aims being "to help Tories win elections" was a bad idea, is a bad idea, and always will be a bad idea on wikipedia, and Dev's disagreement with that is slightly worrying. As I say Dev, I think you're a great editor, and of a value to wikipedia. If this RfA does not succeed, I urge you to run again in about four months, at which time I will probably support. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral Changed from support. Incivility is a little worrying. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    I'm finding it hard to understand why two comments out of over a thousand constitutes rampant incivility - you'd think I wouldn't have any supports if I'm as incivil as the opposes are making me out to be. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

12. Neutral I like this user and has done some excellent work, especially with the esperanza mfd but I have to agree with JzG,in a couple of months you'll be ready Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Neutral.This was an interesting vote to think about.Although it seems that a couple of unfortunate diffs are being tossed around as reasons for opposing, the general impression of her attitude that I have gotten follows similar paths.Dev is certainly a very confident editor, which is great.Conceptually, "If you're doing the right thing, don't worry about negative criticism." is a fine motto, but one can take it too far, and be blindsided to all the criticism and not see that perhaps things are not perfectly right.No, I am not alluding to putting up the Esperanza MfD, because I agree that things were no longer like what Esperanza was supposed to be.However, throughout the entire affair, it seemed that Dev was always considering herself to be more right, and that no matter the concerns of other users, it did not matter.This was very frustrating to see; it is so important to be able to act well with users on Wikipedia.There's nothing wrong with believing that you are correct, but it is very important to be respectful of other people who do not agree with you, no matter how often they disagree with you.There is no excuse for being condescending to those who disagree with you, and I feel that Dev's attitude throughout the MfD made it a much nastier affair than it needed to be. -- Natalya 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Neutral on this one. S.D. ¿п? § 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    Neutral. I'd support if Dev would agree not to administrate Muslim or anti-Semitic-issue articles. I'm not saying she shouldn't continue to edit them, just not administrate them.qp10qp 11:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    I don't want to ever get involved with editing such articles at all, so I am happy to guarantee that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    OK. Vote changed, then. If you keep away from that stuff, you'll probably have a better time anyway.qp10qp 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    Just a point to raise here - it is generally a bad idea to use the block and protect tools on articles you are involved with anyway, and never in cases where you are involved in an ongoing dispute. Carcharoth 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

15. Neutral per the commenters above, due to some civility concerns despite otherwise very good work.Yamaguchi先生 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Neutral Both sides make good argumnents. If this were an *fd, i'd say it'd be a "no consensus", so I wanted to put the value of my opinion as close as I could to that sentiment. Just H 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Neutral. I'm torn here. I would really like to see an effort to completely cut out the incivil comments and generalisations, while acknowledging they are rare. I so believe they are not indicative of your beliefs, but to some extent that doesn't really matter. Its the perception that does the damage, as you are finding out to your misfortune here. Am also concerned over the Conservative Wikiproject proposal, involving WP in any goal other than disseminating knowledge troubles me. That said, Dev is clearly an excellent, dedicated editor and, on balance, she is a real credit to the community. If she can demonstrate her kindness campaign goals can be adhered to all of the time, she will have my !vote in any future RfA. Rockpocket 03:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Neutral leaning toward support. The much-cited instances of incivility appear to be isolated occurrences, and Dev has an excellent track record otherwise. But continued defense of this ill-fated 'userproject' leaves me with lingering concerns. It's more than just 'a bit dumb'; it was more like 'an obviously bad idea'. Opabinia regalis 05:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Neutral A very fine and hard working contributor but i am voting here because of the issues discussed above. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Kuru

Final (79/1/0); Ended Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:51:09 (UTC)

Kuru (talk · contribs) – Kuru has been an editor on Wikipedia for just over a year and, in that time, has amassed over 19,000 edits. The fact that these edits are evenly spread across the past 12 months, demonstrates his consistently high levels of commitment to the project. Although he is a very active vandal fighter, regularly needing to post requests at AIAV, that is far from being the only way that he contributes. He has actively involved himself in Wikiprojects such as Wikiproject Spam and Wikiproject Rivers, helps out at Articles for creation and has significant experience of xFD discussions. Along with the above, Kuru still somehow finds time to create and actively contribute to articles. Two of the most important attributes for an admin are the ability to work well with others (including newcomers who may not "know the ropes") and the ability to defuse potential problems - both of which require a calm, mature and civil approach. In this respect Kuru also shines as a incredibly level headed editor, who always goes that little bit further to be pleasant to others and take into account their viewpoints. I have no doubt that he would make be an extremely reliable and valuable admin, and that the mop would enable him to add even more value than he does now. It is my pleasure to recommend Kuru for your approval. TigerShark 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. Kuru ^talk 01:23, 18 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: My primary area of interest is simply in helping out at WP:AIV. There can never be too many eyes on the queue there; especially when someone starts up a spree. My plan would be to take it slow with introducing myself to the other tools. While I would be able to assist by reacting to patent nonsense article creations coming across on the recent changes feed, I realize (from painful experience) that even the most blatant looking cases can sometimes require careful attention. Acting as a "second set of eyes", such as assisting with WP:SD, would be a likely scenario, as would a gradual introduction into the closing of AFDs resulting in deletion. Administrative tools are in no way a necessary part of the activities I typically participate in, but they would certainly be beneficial, and would allow me to expand my participation.

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

A: My contributions are varied; but obviously my primary donation to the project is simply "keeping other valuable editor's work intact" through recent change review. I view this as a janitorial task, nothing glorious or spirited, and trivial compared to the actual creation of content - yet still critical to the project. I'm afraid my edit counts are radically skewed from this activity and apologize in advance for this occlusion of my other contributions.

I'm most proud of my work with Texas rivers and waterways; I've created several maps that were very entertaining to construct, and I've created or fleshed out articles on many hyrdology-themed geographical features. I'm also a Texas history buff, and I try to watch 500 or so articles along that theme to assist with references or clarification. I've also filled in gaps in historical articles at times, most recently at Spanish Governor's Palace - a local landmark that I was surprised to find missing when it was pointed out by a recent visitor to the country. I've also participated in around 400 different AFD discussions and any of them from the last ten months or so should display research, care, and impartiality. I try not to get locked into a specific point of view and I am always open to having my mind changed.

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

A: I'm afraid that my wiki-conflict experience is limited to one off spats that accrue from watching recent changes on IRC:WP-V. I tend to draw more dialog from external link or spam discussions; and the vast majority of the conversations I have with those editors are cordial and resolve well. A quick review of my talk page archive should bear numerous examples of these sorts of interactions. The only actual discussion that caused me to raise an eyebrow was a rather terse discussion with User:ClairSamoht over historical citations. I reverted a random, unsummarized deletion by a one-edit IP on the Texas article[64], which prompted this missive: [65]. I would like to think the resulting conversation, which carried over onto the article's talk page, was productive and slightly altered my own views on general citations vs. specific footnotes.

Optional Questions from Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs)

4. Would you ever speedily close something per WP:SNOW and if so, under what circumstances?

A: Quite frankly, no. In the context of AFDs, the only examples that I would support as candidates for early close with a contesting opinion (including the nomination itself) would be ones that involved disruptive nonsensical nominations such as Basketball or Bill Gates; or clear cases of bad-faith nominations. These examples are more comprehensively covered under the Speedy Keep guidelines, rather than the Snowball clause, however. I'm afraid I can't think of anything outside of the early close exceptions for WP:SD or WP:SK, so I cannot foresee a situation where I would invoke a reference to WP:SNOW.

5. How do you determine whether a subject is notable or not?

A: Great question. I could spend pages on the topic, and this is certainly something that has changed over time for me. The absolute bare minimum, of course, is verifiability from preferably multiple reliable sources - skipping the debate over what reliable means. From there I start with the applicable guidelines and use them as second measure - if it clearly meets an established guideline (WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc) then my opening opinion will usually be similar. If I'm not happy with the guideline itself, then I take my problems and the discussion there. This is just a start, however - the guidelines seldom cover everything and I've seen many creative extensions of notability that make perfect sense in the context of that particular AFD. I will also look beyond the existing article to help establish notability and to add citations where needed. This extends to my participation in WP:AFC - if something just needs some sources or a touch up to meet the bare minimums, then it makes sense to improve the article on the spot. If I can't find anything, anywhere, then the problem compounds, but there may be reasons for that. Foreign corporations are a good example of this - I simply can't search outside of English and Spanish sources. The company could still be notable, but I need to depend on the original content and sources or rely on the opinion of others in that region if they're in the conversation. I hope this helps as an outline of a thought process - if there is a more specific follow up, I would welcome it.

General comments

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

---

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support A fine candidate, will make great use of the tools. --Majorly 01:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support. An excellent candidate, definitely capable of admin tools. P.S. Did you know...that Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Kuru (talk · contribs) for a period of 31 hours after a case of mistakenvandalismblockuseritis? Nishkid64 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

   And Kuru's response to that silly mistake by that n00b user was civil and understanding, which I found most appropriate =) --Majorly 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Strong Support - experience with this editor has been uniformly positive for me; I've seen editor often at the WP:AFC (a very WP:GNOMEish job, if I do say so myself), and Kuru is always polite, doesn't bite newbies (as some editors there are unsurprisingly prone to do), and works in civil manner. Would absolutely not abuse the tools, and would be very useful to have them. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per nomination, answers, and a candidate's overall fine contributions. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Good contribution history, keen eye, thoughtful, shows a need for the buttons and has proven trustworthiness. Agent 86 02:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, I was impressed by the conservative attitude toward using the tools expressed in the answer to Q1 and by the answers in general. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support.--Húsönd 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support might be a great help with the tools. ← ANAS ^Talk? 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Fine cantidate. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Strong Support An excellent user. I'm particularly pleased with mainspace, Wikipedia, and User talks. I know Kuru will make a fine administrator. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Will make a fine admin! Cbrown1023 02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support You seem like a fantastic user. Clearly you're a great editor, and know what you want to help out with as an admin. I ran into you a number of times, and personally...I just figured you were already an admin. Great work, keep it up. Ganfon 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - would use the tools wisely. Khoikhoi 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - It's always great when a new face comes along to help at WP:AIV. (What? No Category Talk edits? :D) Cheers, PTO 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support; Wikipedia will benefit from Kuru's becoming an admin. Good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Looks like a good candidate for the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Weak Support -- per nom --T-rex 06:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support a strong well-balanced editor. The Rambling Man 08:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
20. {{subst:Cliche}} JorcogaYell! 08:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Nominator was asleep when the RFA was accepted support TigerShark 08:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Strong support I have utter faith in this experienced and mild-mannered editor. --Dweller 09:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Terence Ong 11:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - plenty of experience. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support - Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - good edits (nice maps!), good activity in the War on Vandals (no, not this one, and a good attitude. Coemgenus 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per nom. Lots of good contributions. Dedicated to the project and will make good use of mop.--Eva ^bd 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Support. Proto::► 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Great edits, fabolous users. Carpet9 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Kuru does an excellent job editing accurately and with a neutral voice. TheNudge 15:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) — TheNudge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
31. Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Provisory neutral After sifting through the last 1,000 edits without finding an editorial contribution, I'd like to hear more about Q2. Vandalfighters don't have to be FA writers, but negligible encyclopedia writing is usually a reason to oppose. ~ trialsanderrors 10:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

    Responded on editor's talk page. [66]. Kuru ^talk 14:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

    Moved to Support esp because of this three-edit article. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

33. Support per above :). Yuser31415 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
34. dvdrw 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support, though it would be good to see more substantial contributions to the encyclopedia itself. Cleanup work is fine, and very necessary, but we need more people making significant contributions. I think you'll do a fine job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Support, just like everyone else. No problems at all.--Wizardman 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Strong support. Your edits are both well-developed and numerous, your anti-vandal work has been tireless, and your Texas river maps have been a high-quality addition to Wikipedia. From "vandal watching" your pages, I've seen that you also treat others with respect, even when their words and actions would make it easy to do otherwise. You'll be a great addition to the admin team. --JFreeman ^(talk) 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support per very good responses to questions (and per numerous points made above). Trebor 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Obviously qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
41. Support Fabulous users, and knows lots about using tools, and goodwork on vandal-revertings. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
42. Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 14:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
43. support I have always noticed this user making good edits when they show up on my watchlist, no evidence has been presented that Koru'd missuse the tools. --W.marsh 15:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support Bucketsofg 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Drat, I am late for the party :). But seriously great user that can benefit from the tools. Arjun 03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Candidate looks good to me. IronDuke 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support Looks good to me, good luck to you. Gryffindor 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support See him alot, needs admin tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Good, sound editor. Unlikely to abuse the tools. Pascal.Tesson 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Is a great vandal fighter who could use the tools. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Support No problems here. A fine editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support His need for the admin tools seems justifiable enough and he seems like a good editor.--Dycedarg ж 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Support Good editor that would make good use of the tools. Hello32020 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
56. Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Support WPTALK edits are low but I'm not one to complain about edit count except in extreme cases. Go for it. James086Talk 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
58. Completely unnecessary support. Sandstein 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Support The man. The myth. The Kuru. Dar-Ape 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Strong Support - excellent nomination, and 60 editors have turned up nothing sinister. Seems trustworthy and competent, and best of all, helpful. Milto LOL pia 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. With such a strong history of contributions, this nom should have come sooner. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
62. Support. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
63. Strong Support. I thought Kuru was an admin (seriously). --A. B. ^(talk) 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
64. Hell yes, question 1 ST47Talk 23:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
65. Support. S.D. ¿п? § 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
66. Strong Support Kuru's unusual name brought him to my attention some time ago, because Kuru as I know it (being a student of virology as I was then) is a disease associated with canablistic natives in PnG! Since then his contributions have stood out as being of high quality. I think he will make a great admin. Viridae^Talk 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Support Contributions are good, should have no problems. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Chimps support those who fight vandalism. alphachimp 07:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
69. Support competent user.--cj | talk 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Support A fine and conscientious editor.--Brownlee 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
71. Support per nom. Kyriakos 05:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
72. Support per above – PeaceNT 14:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
73. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
74. Support good editor. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
75. Support: Hmm.. Looks good, 11868 in Mainspace. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
76. Support JoshuaZ 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
77. Support - Good editor who will use the tools effectively. Matthuxtable 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
78. Support fine and trustworthy contributor. Yamaguchi先生 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
79. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I find Kuru's contributions rather one-sided, although a good gnome is always appreciated. >Radiant< 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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 request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Deskana

Final (22/18/5) ended 20:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Well, I've decided to take the plunge and nominate myself for bureaucratship. Having been an admin for over 8 months (promoted 1st May 2006) and an editor since June 2005, I think I've got enough experience to do a good job of it. I don't think there's any shortage of bcrats, as I see RfAs get removed quite quickly from here, but I would like to join "the team", as it were.

I've read a few of the old RfBs, but having not seen one for a while I'm kind of curious to see what the community expects to promote a bcrat. If this nomination doesn't pass, which I can easily see it not doing, then I will most likely reapply at a later date, not only having a better idea of what the community expects me to improve on in general, but specifically what is expected of me as a potential bcrat. I tried an editor review for come constructive criticism, but only got a few replies, and it was also vandalised on more than once occasion. I am very curious to see how this nomination turns out, partially because I would like the extra responsibility, and partially because I have not seen one in a while.

I will expand on why I feel I am suitable to be a bcrat in the below questions. Deskana (request backup) 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Deskana (request backup) 02:51, 23 January 2007 (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 participants:

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. The criteria seem to be around 75% upwards for a pass, with 80% upwards almost certainly being a pass. There have been RfAs that have passed with a lower percentage of support votes (using vote for lack of a better word). Typically in such cases it was because the person was a returning administrator who gave up the tools voluntarily, and wished to have them back. It makes sense to me that such RfAs would be "easier to pass" as it were, since the user has already proven themselves as an administrator.

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

A. I would do what I think is right, pure and simple. I'm not a stranger to having to explain my actions, both on and off Wikipedia, and am always happy to explain my actions if the person is assuming good faith, and being civil and such like. I cannot see myself promoting an administrator where I think I could be majorly critised without discussing the matter with other bcrats first, and assessing the merits of both sides of the debate.

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 am well versed in all Wikipedia policies (though clearly other Wikipedians know better than me about certain policies, especially those regarding fair use law), and also importantly, the standards of the community. There are a fair few Wikipedians who look to me for guidance and second opinions on matters, and I do believe that I can be firm but fair with users who have acted inappropriately but genuinely do appear to be acting in good faith.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on 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. I do.

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. I do. I reguarly read RfA, even though I do not vote on all RfAs. I also read the talk page, and contribute to discussions when I feel I have something to add.

6. Why should you be a bureaucrat? Make your publicity plug here. (Optional "question" by Titoxd^(?!?))

A. A hard question. I honestly do believe I am a fair administrator, and that I can be relied upon. But that does not state why I should be a bureaucrat. If I am to be totally honest, and risk sounding big headed, I feel I have something to add to Wikipedia. Something more to give. I feel that if I can make a contribution anything on Wikipedia, and the community is willing to trust me to do it, then I will. I am well aware that the current bcrats could manage just fine without me, as it is clearly evident that they have done so far! However, I do feel that if the community is willing to trust me with extra abilities, then I will accept them gladly and do the best I can to use them. If this does not pass, I do have plenty to keep me busy on Wikipedia, but I would like to make a contribution to all that I can. And to be a little less philosophical, I can help if a bureaucrat should have to have a temporary leave of absense or suchlike. I also am happy to participate in the renaming of users, something I see is practically untouched upon by the RfB questions.

7. I think it would be helpful to understand more of what exactly you intend to do with bureaucrat status. Do you intend to focus on anything in particular? Do you feel that there is a need for more help in requests for changing username or in granting bot status, for example? Cowman109^Talk 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A. I don't think there is a desperate need for more bureaucrats, no. There certainly seems to be much less of a need for an extra bureaucrat compared to the need for an extra administrator. From looking at it, the biggest "bcrat backlog" seems to be for changing usernames, which I would help with, but even then, the backlog is only two days, so can hardly be considered much of a backlog. I'd prefer not to say exactly what I would do as a bureaucrat, as I don't want to tie myself down to promises I'm not sure I can keep, as I think I did in my RfA. But I anticipate doing a mix of all bcrat jobs.

8. When I read question 4, I immediately remember Taxman's RfB promise, for which he was bashed and even asked to resign. Now, I am not asking you if you are going to resign for not respecting any of these points, but instead, what would make you resign from your bureaucratship? What would you consider a grave fault to resign, by yourself and with nobody asking you to do so, from your condition?

A. Another hard one. I was originally going to say "If I promoted a bad admin", but to be honest, I think it'd really only be as much my fault for pushing the button as the community for deciding that me pushing the button is a good idea. I guess I'd resign if I seemed to continually be promoting "bad admins", simply because that way I can stop myself from doing it more. I think it's much harder to do something wrong as a bureaucrat than it is as an admin, but if you do make a mistake while promoting an admin, you can potentially cause a lot of damage, even if it is all reversible in the end.

Question from Majorly (talk · contribs)

9. Have you ever nominated someone to become an administrator? If so, who and why, and if not, why not?

A. No, I have not, excluding my own self-nom for adminship. The main reason is because I'm either beaten to it by someone else, or the user in question is already an administrator. There is a user I do plan to nominate for adminship quite soon actually, I look forward to writing his nomination statement.

Excellent: I won't ask who, but why this person?

He need the tools, basically. He is always helping me with users that I try to mentor, he closes AfDs, and basically does administrator related tasks. He has never been uncivil or attacked anyone, and would be a model administrator. The tools would help him benefit Wikipedia and there is absolutely no evidence to show that he would even think of abusing them.

General comments

• Please add further questions as necessary to assess my suitability. --Deskana (request backup) 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Edit stats and admin log totals (as of two weeks ago) are on the discussion page. --Majorly (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. I have seen this user, flying around wikipedia like a hawk...always looking to help others :). Civil and calm. I support. Will wikipedia be a better place with Deskana as an b-crat, I say yes. Arjun 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Bureaucrat is no big deal for a responsible admin. Nothing can really be abused when everyone is looking. Let him be. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 03:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Michael 03:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. In the past I have had a great deal of interaction with this user, who is reliable, helpful, and reasonable. He will make a good 'crat. Yuser31415 04:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per nomination and reasons stated by Yuser31415. S.D. ¿п? § 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Decent experienced user, who will only do more good than harm if promoted. Good luck. --Majorly (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support: I think Dmcdevit has raised important concerns; however, the candidate's replies convince me to support. Heimstern Läufer 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support 'Crat abusive is very, very rare, however, I've seen more "teamwork" among 'crats than anyone else. He will be fine. Yanksox 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
9. I'd very much love to be able to oppose for misunderstanding consensus, and I should be able to in theory. However, I can't really bring myself to, seeing as RfA currently is a votecount. A 10% range in which you're allowed to use discretion (although that, frankly, seems to fluctuate depending on what the person who is up for bureaucratship says, and not towards their idea of the number) is close enough to a vote, if not really one. I'd much rather have a pragmatic bureaucrat who doesn't quite get the ideal that consensus rules instead of votecount, than an idealistic bureaucrat who doesn't quite get that you can't just start doing things how they ideally should be done. -Amark moo! 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Knows how to apply consensus in RfA's. Reasonable, calm. Capable to do the job. I trust this user. --Ligulem 09:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. While I've had occasion to disagree with Deskana on content or interpretations of guidelines here and there, I've always found him to be sincere and trustworthy. I think Deskana would be a fine b'crat. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
12. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 10:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support A fine editor, who will unquestionably strengthen our (already excellent!) team of bureaucrats.--Runcorn 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong Support Reasons: There are only 10 Active_bureaucrats. What harm will be done by making the list 11? I also support his philosophy: "I grow more and more rouge by the day. I refer less to policy and more to preventing damage to the encyclopedia and improving it by any means necessary.". Peace & Good luck. --Parker007 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support-per good admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support I believe Deskana has good diplomacy skills and is his commitment really in question - Bureaucratship isn't miss world - you just get to promote admins - what else should you do with the 'gravitas of high office'? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support He is a very good admin and has shown high levels of diplomacy skills as well. The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project further and not hinder it. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Doesn't look like Deskana will become a 'crat at this stage but I trust this user's judgement and don't think it would be a mistake to promote so I'm supporting anyway. James086Talk 09:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Bucketsofg 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Superb admin - will surely be a good bureaucrat.--R613vlu 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support A hard working and friendly admin. Go for it. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 10:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Terence Ong 15:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Deskana seems to have forgotten that the criteria for promotion include, indeed is, consensus, and has failed to even mention the word (or a related concept) at all. I'm concerned about talk of votes and numerical values when I'm looking for a bureaucrat whose judgment I can trust in discretionary matters, not one with a functioning calculator. (Statements like "using vote for lack of a better word" have the ring of lip service when the word vote is indeed being used to describe numerical values, and not a "better" concept.) I'm not ready to support at this time. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah... That's sort of what I was running on, but in retrospect, my specific position was fatally flawed. The answer to Q2 would suggest a level of good judgement to me. Just my two cents. Grandmasterka 08:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't want to come across as harassing opposers, as that is totally not my intention, but I do realise that ultimately it is not me that is promoting the administrators, but the community. The idea of consensus is what let those RfAs I mentioned pass with less than the typical 75%. RfA is first and foremost a consensus building activity, and it is a bcrat's job to interpret that consensus, similar to how admins interpret XfDs. I do honestly believe, though, that promoting below 75% support would be a bad idea in almost all situations, as that seems to be the accepted standard. If you are opposing me for that reason, then that is fair enough. --Deskana (request backup) 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't mind at all your reponding; it's what I intended (this is a discussion, not a secret ballot). I like when you say "similar to how admins interpret XfDs," but I'm still concerned by the qualification that it must reach a numerical standard, which seems contradictory. Is that how you decide an AFD, by counting votes? Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   No, but that does appear to be how the vast majority of RfAs are handled, and how the community as a whole accepts the promotion process. --Deskana (request backup) 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm concerned about the answer to question 1(changed to support). It is my underestanding (please correct me if I'm wrong about this), that an admin who gives up their adminship voluntarily may simply request their adminship back without the need for an RFA. However an admin who is desysopped or who has given up their adminship 'under a cloud', ie. imminent or ongoing ArbCom proceedings or other such unsavoury events, should seek resyssoping through an RFA. The candidate does not make it clear why this should be an 'easier pass'. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   The case I was referring to, specifically, was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2, which passed with approximately 71% support, lower than the standard threshold. If I remember correctly, the closing bureaucrat said that the RfA should be subject to lower standards due to the fact that it was more of a reconfirmation than an original request. I think you're right, that a user can just request the tools back, but evidently Sean Black felt reconfirmation from the community was appropriate. --Deskana (request backup) 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for your response; I'm still not clear on the why though. Why should a 'reconfirmation' require less consensus? Whether or not they've displayed good adminship skills in the past will be reflected in the response at RFA from the community, I don't see the argument for an 'easier pass'. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   The idea is that RfA is not about votes and counting percentages, but about consensus. It's about the strength of the argument, rather than saying "You're below 75%, fail!". Cyde said in Sean Black's case, it was because nobody could demonstrate he would misuse the tools [67]. RfA is primarily based upon counting support/oppose votes nowadays, because it works (whereas it wouldn't in AfD), but sticking to that rigidly detracts from the idea of consensus. Why should we begrudge a man 4% if we know he can do good with the tools, and has proven himself in the past? This is my opinion on the matter. Does this explain it, or is further clarification required? --Deskana (request backup) 15:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I'm still confused. When asked "What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?", you answer "The criteria seem to be around 75% upwards for a pass, with 80% upwards almost certainly being a pass", no mention of consensus and implicitly that "consensus is a vote. Seems muddled to me, sorry for labouring this but what then are the parameters of your flexibility is 4% the max or more? When is the vote irrelevant and the weight of argument persuasive? How will you decide this? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I can't anticipate promoting outside of the standard 75% upwards range, but I can't see the future either, so may one day feel the need to. Ultimately it is what the community decides, not what I decide, but it'd be up to me to interpret what the community thinks. If I felt the need to stray from the 75% upwards rule, I would discuss the matter with other bcrats on WP:BN and debate potential merits and drawbacks. I wouldn't say any vote is "irrelevant", but some can be discounted if they are violations of WP:POINT, or added by banned or blocked users. --Deskana (request backup) 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I appreciate you can't see into the future, so with reference to some past, controversial promotions, which arguments made at RFA do you feel persuaded bureaucrats to promote Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 with 61%?--Mcginnly | Natter 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Note: User was blocked and this discussion was continued on the user's talk page. --Deskana (request backup) 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Strongly Oppose — Fails my criteria, badly!: Fair use policing, lack of understanding of [community] consensus (reference Dmcdevit), lack of judgement in protecting pages, and this scares me User:Deskana#Philosophy on Wikipedia (and I quote: "I grow more and more rouge by the day. I refer less to policy and more to preventing damage to the encyclopedia [sic] and improving it by any means necessary.") and finally lack of contributions to the encyclopaedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Can you please explain what you mean by "fair use policing" and explain my "lack of judgement in protecting pages"? The links you provided did not explain what you meant very well. --Deskana (request backup) 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Matthew, how do lack of contributions to the encyclopedia have an effect on this user's judgment as a potential bureaucrat? Nishkid64 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   While I see no reason to explain my oppose (I understand it fine..:-\) I'll tell you why contributions matter: because we are building an encyclopaedia here, and I find actual contributions show commitment as well. I see no reason why getting power means people should stop contributing etc. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - You have already spent too much time arguing with your opposers. You should know that there is a Chinese proverb that says "trying to save a little only to lose a lot" - and this is exactly what you have been doing. Scobell302 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Erm... where, exactly, has Deskana argued? RfAs and RfBs are helpful for obtaining community consensus and obtaining feedback on "how we're doing." If Deskana doesn't understand what a particular complaint is (I had the same problem trying to understand Matthew Fenton's, in particular), then how can he improve as a Wikipedian? Deskana was not trying to change their votes, he was trying to understand what to change. The fact that you're opposing due to discussion is astounding to me. —bbatsell ¿? 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with Bbatsell and I'm really sorry my 'grilling' of the candidate should produce such an opposition. For me, how a Bureaucrat judges consensus is of primary importance; and I needed an exchange of views to get a feel for that. I thought Deskana handled himself/herself quite well, but would like to hear his/her opinion regarding one of the more contentious decisions bureaucrats have been asked to make in recent times before changing my vote. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose The candidate displays neither a definite need for b'cratship, per Cowman; nor a thorough understanding of consensus, per Dmcdevit; nor the proper temperament, per Matthew Fenton and the candidate's own userpage. I like Deskana, personally, but the arguments presented are overwhelming on several different points. Xoloz 19:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Scobell302 and Xoloz. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Wikipedia is much more than you seem to think it is. We're not a big policy wank, and we're not a bunch of number crunchers. If RFA were at all about the numbers, I'd just write a bot for it and make all Bcrats obsolte. Really, you show a disconcerting lack of understanding of what a bureacrat is, which leads me to think you would not be suited to be a bureaucrat. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 11:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   You should write a bot for it. Pretending that votes aren't votes is silly, and it only creates bad feeling when a bureaucrat promotes someone who didn't get enough votes but the bureaucrat personally felt should have the bit. Grace Note 23:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   Well, the day AI exists that can discount trolling (which does happen in rfa) from valid concerns then it is time to look into bot-o-mating 'crats. Until that day exists, that is one of the few roles that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell we should be using a bot. -- Tawker 19:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Strongly Oppose Deskana's right, there is no desperate need for more bureaucrats. VERY sorry answer to Question #7. Diez2 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose, basically for reasons outlined by the neutrals. Ideally, a crat candidate would identify a need that is not being filled with the current corps of bureaucrats and make a convincing case as why they are the best person to meet that need. This nom has the tone of "Here I am, so why not?" Without any prejudice whatsoever towards Deskana, who I've seen doing fine work around the wiki, I don't see the focus that I would like in a candidacy for crathood. (If the crats state that they would more colleagues are needed, I would of course be willing to come back and examine the candidate's procedural/policy stances in depth.) - BanyanTree 20:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose i don't see a b-crat at this time. Geo. 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. No need for more b'crats, doesn't really have a plan for what to do with the tools. Also your lack of edit summaries in recent contributions is rather embarrassing; that's something people would oppose an RfA for. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per several of the opposers above... I REALLY find THIS scary... Bcrats should be upholding policy to the letter... not WP:IARing every decision.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    I've removed it from my userpage now. I didn't expect it to scare people. I've never invoked IAR and ever had anyone debate my decision. Infact, I don't actually recall ever invoking IAR, but I could be wrong about that. I can understand why people find it scary. --Deskana (request backup) 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Well its good you removed it... but I think folks should be made aware of what content was removed My oppose still stands.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Although my vote is "Oppose" but I think that your reason to oppose him is still unfair. The content in the user page can't say everything and it shouldn't be considered a criterion to judge his potential of becoming a bcrat. I myself find it little to no "scary", it's just normal stand-point and I find no fault in it. "Actions speak louder than words". The important thing is not what he writes in his userpage but what he does. Deskana behaves decorously and rightly, as far as I know. Thus your reason to oppose him is irrelevant. Causesobad --> Talk) 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Fair enough. --Deskana (request backup) 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

12. Strongly opposeDeskana seems to be running for bureaucratship simply because she/he can, which does not suffice in my opinion. Deskana, your campaign is going downhill fast. Cut your losses now and save face.Rory for suomi 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    A bit melodramatic, don't you think? Milto LOL pia 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose. but I would like to join "the team", as it were - not really a fan of this. Privileges should be dispersed when needed to people who are trustworthy and technically competent in using them, not as a reward or symbol of status. Milto LOL pia 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose: "I'd prefer not to say exactly what I would do as a bureaucrat, as I don't want to tie myself down to promises I'm not sure I can keep, as I think I did in my RfA." I don't like this type of answer. A good admin, but not good enough to be a bcrat. Causesobad --> Talk) 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Q1. Everybody should have the same standards, whether they're ex-admins or not. Just H 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Miltopia.--Osidge 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Strongly oppose. IAR means "use your noggin" not "do whatever you want". And I entirely disagree with your answer to Q1 and will oppose any candidate who believes that what happened with editors such as Carnildo was right. If we disapprove a candidate, you do too. You're judging our approval, nothing else.Grace Note 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose on lack of need; somewhat weak and generally vague answers; lack of consistency on the responsibilty of the role (seems to be arguing on the one hand that a BC need commit to no particular set of practices and just use their best judgement, but that it's the community's fault, not his, for bad outcomes of the process); and the general undesirability of "Rouge bureaucrats". Alai 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm leaning towards support, but the candidate does not seem to have much need or plans as to what they intend to do with bureaucrat status. Some sort of ideas would be helpful. Bureaucratship is not a trophy, and I am getting the feeling that the candidate feels that it is some sort of award. Cowman109^Talk 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
2. I must agree with Cowman; I'm left a little nonplussed at this RfB. Deskana seems to be simply applying to be a bureaucrat just because he (?) can, which would certainly not be a good reason to do so. That makes me hesitant to support. —Cuiviénen 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
3. As User:Cowman109 Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   I can assure you that is not his intention. Yuser31415 04:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral. It's true that no one has applied in a long time, but there may be reasons for that. That in itself is not a reason to apply. Chick Bowen 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

   Actually we've had a few recently, but none which passed :) --Majorly (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral I am concerned, as per User:MatthewFenton's comment that there are a lack of recent contributions to the enyclopaedia. Looking at the last 50 main namespace edits, they are all admin sorts of things - eg reversions. Since we are building an encyclopaedia, I would like all admins and bureaucrats to have a focus on actively contributing as well as administration. I think it provides a focus for the administration if you contribute, you understand better the purpose of the project, not just applying rules for their own sake and/or because you have the power to do so. This applies no matter how well you understand the rules because true understanding of the purpose in my mind can only come from contributing to the purpose.--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

   You're right, we're building an encyclopedia. However, if I didn't spend my time blocking vandals or doing other administrator related tasks, then other people that spend their time building the encyclopedia by writing articles would have their efforts seriously hindered, by having to repeatedly revert vandals and put up with trolls. I see myself as helping them rather than doing it myself, so I do honestly believe I do help build the encyclopedia. --Deskana (request backup) 09:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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 approval.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
• A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship

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