Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

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

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 03:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 03:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC). —

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

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

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Monitors

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

Current nominations for adminship

Add new requests at the top of this section.

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that while there is no hard and fast requirement for nominating, editors with less than three to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.

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

Current time is 03:33, 13 November 2024(UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

---

---

---

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

ST47

Final (2/5/9) Ending 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ST47 (talk · contribs) – I am applying for adminship, not because I think the mop and bucket need me to wield then, but because I think I need them to expand my contributions to the wiki. My service is not necessary to the wiki; I am only online when there are several other editors active. But with admin tools I could help improve Wikipedia, and would not harm it. You may be thinking that I have only been active for the past month, so how could I possibly know what to do? I submit that I know as much about policy and convention as the next guy/gal, and that very few of the 1000 sucessful RfAs that have come through here had experience with the adminship tool, and the few that do only have that experience because you, as the community, trusted them a previous time or on another project. I ask if I have, through my vandal fighting and activity on WP:AfD and WP:AIV, gained the trust that you gave to those 1000 previous candidates, and, if not, if you would be willing to give me a chance to prove this. Feel free to ask any questions, I will answer them truthfully and to the best of my ability. ST47 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdraw for a month or two or five ST47 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I've read the page and scanned through the reading list, I'll go through that page in a moment. I believe I could assist with several long-neglected areas and some active areas that sometimes are backlogged:

• Protected edit requests seems backlogged, and also seems like something I could help to fix
• WP:CSD is another area that tends to have a backlog and is a more obvious area of the wiki, as deletions are in the public's sight
• Unblock Requests I think I understand how to do this, and it seems to be one of the most important areas of the wiki, as we don't want to have people banned who shouldn't be
• Requested moves I could keep an eye on this and fix anything that cannot be fixed through the conventional pagemove
• WP:RFI is another area I could help in
• WP:AIV is sometimes backlogged while I am online
• WP:AN and resolving the issues that appear there
• WP:AfD and the like, to close or extend the *fDs with/without a clear consensus

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

A: I am pleased with the type of contributions I make, the vandal-fighting and *fD are areas that would affect the community negatively, were they neglected.

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

A: Stress, no. There are ofcourse the vandals who believe they are right and who leave rather impolite messages on my talk page, case in point being User_talk:ST47#Hate_mail, which I didn't respond to, and this one, who didn't come back to explain himself. But I don't believe the Wiki causes me stress, because I don't let it, because that's not why I'm here.

Comments

• See ST47's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Total edits	2823
Main:	1125
Talk:	85
User:	125
User talk:	1008
Wikipedia:	447
Wikipedia talk:	5
Image:	14
Image talk:	3
Mediawiki:	0
Mediawiki talk:	0
Template:	4
Template talk:	0
Help:	0
Help talk:	0
Category:	2
Category talk:	1
Portal:	4
Portal talk:	0

---

Support

1. Weak Support. I'll say that from what I looked over of your contributions, they seem to be very helpful, and it's my personal policy to support those who are strong on vandalism patrol, because it shows a lot about the type of person. However, with the short term of experience, it's hard to give a strong support. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
2. 'Weak Support. Per above. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too soon - active editing for only over a month. – Chacor 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the help with the noincludes! Can I ask what you think I do not know or can not do now because of time, and when you think I should RfA again? ST47 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Active editing for such a short period usually means one might not be certain about some Wikipolicy. Take the time to learn them, put them into use as a non-admin, while continuing to contribute to the content end of the encyclopedia, and we'll see in two to three months. Others may suggest up to six though... – Chacor 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose sorry, you really need experience here before you can play a role in enforcing policy -- Samir धर्म 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. A good editor, but has only been a been a consistent contributor here for one month. Needs a few months more experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 01:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose You are no doubt, a great editor and unlikely to abuse admin tools. But after only one month of experience, it is a bit too soon here. However, your enthusiasm must be commended here. Please do not take this personally and I would strongly recommend you to carry on your good work and re-apply again after two or three months. No doubt, if you perserver, you will get there. Based on my own past experience and RfAs here, it is only right for me to give you encouragement and assurance on this. Just be a bit more patient and I suggest that you withdraw this nomination as soon as possible before it piles up and discourages you. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose I really wish I could support but I can't. Having only been here a month, you don't know how much you don't know regarding process and policy. Vandal fighting and Afd comments are necessary, but the main purpose of this place is, after all, to write an encyclopedia. I haven't seen much writing through your edits, and I suggest you get some experience with writing articles. Find a subject in which you're interested and jump in. A good way to start is Articles for creation – take a look through a couple of days worth of suggestions to see what is and isn't acceptable and why, then create articles. It's one of the best Wikistress relievers I've found. With more time, more writing, and more balanced contributions, I would almost certainly support your nomination by the end of the year. Good luck! BaseballBaby 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I think that its a little too early for you, ST47, though you're heading in the right direction. May I suggest that Editor review might be a good forum for you to learn more about your next steps towards becoming an admin? Best, Gwernol 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   • to note, I did here, and that made me think the editor review area was inactive. ST47 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   That's fair. It sometimes takes time for people to get to the editor reviews. I'll add some comments to yours. Good luck, Gwernol 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral I second Gwernol's comments. You seem to be a very good, dedicated editor; however, as you should know, if you regularly follow requests for adminship, many editors prefer candidates who have several more months of active editing. In your response to Chacor, you ask what he thinks you can't do because of the short amount of time you've been actively editing. It isn't necessarily that there is something that you don't know or can't do; it is merely that many editors would be reassured if you would continue editing actively for several more months. Good luck. Picaroon9288•talk 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Also, a good amount of your Wikipedia space edits seem to be adding "per nom" type statements to afds. [1],[2]. An amount of actually commenting, while citing policy, might convince people that you fully understand the deletion process. This, at least, is promising. Picaroon9288•talk 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Promising, but unfortunately incorrect as I pointed out in my contribution to the editor's review. CSD:G4 only applies to articles that were deleted as a result of an AfD consensus to delete, not ones that were speedied. Gwernol 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Well, I obviously didn't look hard enough. I was searching for a contribution of his to an afd page that didn't say "delete per nom." Thanks for catching that, Gwernol. I'm going to have to change to Neutral, leaning oppose. Picaroon9288•talk 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral Looks like a great editor. Keep working hard and watch other's WP:RfA's. Just need more experience. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Comment, rather in response to the question from candidate above. I would recommend waiting at least 3 more months. Only superb, well-known candidates are sysopped after 3 months activity. I would recommend becoming more involved with policy and Wikipedia discussions, but because you are rather new it is hard to recommend that you focus in any area. You should do what you are interested in, participate when you come across things or if you find something good and if it happens to be in areas where admin tools would be helpful, you can nominate yourself again—or someone else might nominate you. That could be several months, but the admin tools aren't that spectacular and you can participate in administrative and maintenance areas without them. —Centrx→talk • 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. You are a very dedicated editor, but as others say it is too soon to become an admin. However, in 2 months' time I would almost definitely support you then. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I would also prefer the editor review option for relatively new editors before they take the RfA route. (aeropagitica) 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Good idea... Patent pending? JungleCat talk/contrib 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Neutral Only one month of regular editing is not enough. Michael 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Merovingian - Talk 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral — Plenty of edits, but a lopsided mix. Your initial edits are most fascinating — very few editors come to Wikipedia for the first time at such a dedicated level of vandal fighting. Plenty of vandalism patrols — over 1000 vandalism reverts — extremely noteworthy dedication — action on AfD— clear progression delete per nom to more thoughtful comments citing actual WP standards — no compelling arguments noted, but solid enough—no evidence of retrieving an article on its way out by improving it, but you’re not alone there—nothing fatal. I decided to support if I could find one major edit or a couple of significant contributions! Looked for major edits — thought I’d found some before August 16th, but upon reviewing over 1000 edits in main I realized that was when you moved over to the use of Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. BOTTOM LINE: Please broaden yourself a little further (e.g., spend some more time in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship seeing who gets selected and why), do some serious contributing (create several new articles or research and add to existing articles), Wikify a few of the crummier articles, & I’ll be happy to support you as an administrator. Williamborg (Bill) 04:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Nimur

(0/10/2) Ended 03:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nimur (talk · contribs) – Regular Wikipedia contributor seeking Administrator privileges. I previously had a weak introduction, so I will add a fresh one here: I am an active contributor to Wikipedia, and I hope to bolster my contribution by performing adminstrative duties. I enjoy adding articles, but I also do user-level cleanup work such as reverting and warning vandals, formatting, grammar, and spelling checks, and building consensus when articles reach controversial junctions. There's a few articles I watch regularly, usually because I have some educational background in those areas, but I try to throw in random articles and RC-Patrol to keep my perspective more broad.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (Self-nominated...)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Assisting in the blocking of vandals. Presently, I have been on RC Patrol, but am only able to report and revert vandals. It would be nice to be able to temporarily block problematic IPs and Users. I am familiar with the process and its caveats (such as shared IP addresses, etc).

This is my primary motivation, but I am happy to contribute to other needs as they arise.

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

A: I have nearly 1000 edits to the English wikipedia (not counting Wikimedia Commons and Wiktionary, and a few minor edits in French Wikipedia, ...and of course a few anonymous edits when I forget to log in :).

Green Hope High School was my largest creation. Despite its local scope, I feel that I created a strong article which has been viewed and edited very often since its creation. Following this article, I spent a lot of time working on education-related articles, assisting the Schools Wikiproject.

I spend a lot of my free-time on WP:RD/S (the Science Reference Desk), and can use my educational background to quickly point people in the right direction. I also enjoy the "Random Article" link - this is a fast way to get to articles needing "help" and make some improvements in sections I normally wouldn't visit.

I have contributed to North Carolina State Highways project. I have written the Outlying Landing Field Article and recently started Wildlife of North Carolina (which I am seeking to improve drastically in the next weeks).

Especially in these articles with "local scope," I try to keep the information concise, relevant, and provide a strong introduction for context.

I have also uploaded considerable images, formulae, and technical information related to certain scientific and mathematical articles.

Please see my user page or my Image Contributions for more details.

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

A: I have occasionally had a few debates. I reverted much vandalism on the 2006 Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict; in the past week, I have removed "nonsense information" from a few pages, which caused significant opposition from the contributing users. I tend to assume good faith, and sometimes the easiest way to avoid conflict is effective communication via Talk pages.

I am strongly committed to WP:NPOV as my primary guiding philosophy. I will force myself to take a neutral stance, even on issues which I have personal opinions on. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debate; I seek to inform, not to propagandize.

Comments

• Well, it seems that the overwhelming majority vote in opposition; I'll try again some time in the future. I should have highlighted more of my recent RC-Patrol and vandalism reversion and efforts; some of my conflict resolution and AfD experience, etc. But it seems that there are other issues as well. Thanks, Nimur 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Support

Oppose

1. – Chacor 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) lack of explanatory paragraph, poor RFA listing.
2. Oppose, lacks of explanatiodn in nomination. –Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
3. I may accept the explanation if you're nominated by someone else, but given it's a self-nom I expect that you have higher standards. I'm sorry, but I'd have to suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Would have expected much more of an introduction for a self-nomination. Who are you, what brings you here, why do you think you would make a good admin? --StuffOfInterest 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Lack of experience is a major concern here. However, do not give up hope and try again after three months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose: It's great that you're working the Science reference desk, but an administrator needs experience fighting vandals, deleting articles, investigation and conflict handling. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per StuffOfInterest. Too soon. — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose because of low edit count. Maybe in a few months' time. Sorry. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Ter; WHY do you want to be an admin? --Mhking 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You have currently made just over 1000 edits, whereas successful admin candidates usually have at least 2000 edits. You've also only been a very consistent contributor since June. More edits and a longer period as a consistent contributor are needed before adminship can be seriously considered. Good luck if you apply again in the future. Zaxem 02:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I don't think the lack of an introduction is significant enough to oppose, but I'd like one before I support. Perhaps some comments on the quality of edits, since 1,000 edits is likely to fall with most others' standards. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I don't see anything to directly oppose at the moment but I also don't see a statement of intent from Nimur. Why is adminship going to be useful for his work on Wikipedia? I would lean towards withdrawal and an editor review instead at this stage, as a quick look at the stats shows only 57 user Talk edits, 549 article space edits and 176 projectspace edits. Instant advice would be to get involved with projects, start talking to users - warning vandals, advising people at the Help desk, etc - and come back in three months or another 2000+ edits. There is potential for a good admin here. (aeropagitica) 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• See Nimur's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

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.

Borisblue

Final (48/2/1) Ended 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Borisblue (talk · contribs) – Borisblue has been with the project since January 2005. He is an intelligent, respectable Wikipedian, who has been respectful towards others. He has contributed across the board–in both maintenance areas and article contribution (including FA)–and has a firm grasp of policy, indicated by both his edit summaries and participation in discussions.

To date, Borisblue has 2430 edits, which is traditionally viewed as "too few" in RfA land. However, going against tradition, I believe that the quality, not quantity, of his edits should take precedence.

Borisblue has both the experience and will needed to serve the community as an administrator; as the old adage goes, he's ready for a mop. Jay(Reply) 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Borisblue 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A:If this nom succeeds, I plan to try helping out in some of the backlogs, to see if I can contribute in some way that I didn't before. IFD interests me, in particular. The "admin chore" I've been most involved with so far is RC patrol. I believe I could contribute more efficiently if I had the admin buttons- while I've always been able to find an admin on RC patrol when I needed one- it would be nice to be able to take action against blatant vandals myself. And yes, I do have a low count of WP:AIAV edits; this is simply because I find it more efficient to look up active admins on RecentChanges, and then drop a note in their talk page.

I believe, at this stage of the English WP's growth vandal patrol is as important as ever- not just to protect the credibility of the articles, but also to maintain Wikipedia's openess and access to new editors. I am troubled by the increasing clamor to strip anon IPs of editing powers on account of vandalism. Anons have lost their power to create articles already, and they have been calls to ban them from editing entirely. While I understand the reasonings behind these moves, I feel that WP still needs new contributors to fill in the gaps in our content- allowing IPs to edit wikipedia introduces new editors to the project- editors who might come with expertise on some small African country, a body of literature etc.- there are plenty of fields that WP is currently deficient in. Effectively dealing with vandalism will reduce the need to restrict IP powers, thereby ensuring that more people will experiment, and eventually get involved with the project as contributors- something which I believe and hope will continue to broaden Wikipedia's scope.

To be honest, though I see myself primarily as a content contributor. Given the choice between doing maintenance work and writing an article entry I will pick the latter. Thus, I won't do admin chores/gnoming regularly, but I will pitch in and do my part when I don't have an article project in mind. I don't think that this should have bearing on my trustworthiness with the tools, but I still want to make that clear.

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

A: I have successfully nominated two articles to featured status (Gauss, Newton) and have one currently on FAC(Euler). I date my work on Carl Friedrich Gauss as the start of my involvement in Wikipedia. This is when I first realized that the Wikipedia: namespace existed, got my first taste of WP-style consensus decisionmaking, and even had to deal with a LaRouche-POV pusher. For "sentimental value", that was my favorite contribution. Leonhard Euler is probably my best work however. I had to bring it up to FA status from a worse starting point than the other two, I had to meet the current FA standards where referencing etc are tougher, and there were less editors involved in the article that could help.

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

A: I had an ugly argument with Fenice in Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Anschluss and Talk:Anschluss. It's a very silly issue- it was whether or not the anschluss could be described as an annexation. She was a bit stubborn about it, and it irked me. The argument got out of control, and I feel I was very clearly in the wrong- consensus was clearly going against Fenice already, and I provoked her for no reason by continuing to argue- thus escalating the bad blood. I eventually saw sense and apologized, and she accepted my apology here (trivia: this conflict eventually led to the adoption of the WP:Kindness Campaign mascot.

That was more than a year ago, and I've since made more of an effort to avoid unecessary conflict, and to be nicer to other editors. I haven't met anyone who is hopelessly belligerent yet, but so far I find that just being civil, listening to the concerns of the other editor, and quoting appropriate policy will eliminate most conflicts. There was a tension point more recently when Karmafist put me on a "Users to watch" list on his user page, but thankfully I did not react as rashly as before, and the issue defused here.

Optional question from  Netsnipe  ►  12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I've noticed that in your vandal fighting you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and you haven't shown any participation on the Administrators' noticeboards either. Can you provide any examples where you've been challenged or have thoroughly investigated an abuse case? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Wikipedia should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?

A: You're right, I've almost entirely been working on anon test "vandalism"- and my article specialty- math, tends not to attract a lot of abuse. I did encounter a persistent vandal (or rather a group of them) before, and I deferred to an admin how to handle it [3]. If this nom succeeds, and I were to encounter serious abuse a week later, I would probably defer to a more experienced admin again. At the moment I don't primarily see myself as the kind of admin that always goes after persistent abuse though, since thus far I have neither the experience nor the desire to do so. I'd much prefer "gnoming" admin chores, like dealing with image backlog, test vandalism etc. I do believe that this is an issue that no admin can ignore when it comes up however, so I will act to counter persistent abuse when I find it- but conservatively and in deference to more senior admins, at least until I gain some experience.

That said, in all my time in WP I don't think I've ever been in a situation where quoting policy and being courteous and respectful did not solve a dispute. This might be because I've been lucky so far, but I believe that this is a more potent way to prevent conflict than a lot of people realize. It helps to be a bit civil to even the most unreasonable of POV pushers. Thus, though I have been in disputes, I've never really had a reason to report anyone or anything to WP:AN.

Comments

• See Borisblue's edit count on the talk page
• User's edit stats
• See Borisblue's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Michael has brought up my low recent edit count- I was in a research program all summer, and thus didn't have an opportunity to contribute to wikipedia much. My editing pattern in general tends to be in bursts of fervent activity, and I tend to take wikibreaks for real-world projects (heck, I invented the wikibreak template)- and I anticipate that I will continue to edit in this manner for the next few years, given that WP's intense appeal and addictiveness will ruin my real-world productivity otherwise. If this is a concern for you, please take that into account. Borisblue 07:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Support

1. Support. Impressive FA work, good answers to questions. Haukur 09:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nom and Haukur. This is a good editor who has been around for quite some time and knows what he's doing. I'm happy to support. Singopo 12:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. In the past it used to be much easier to be an admin because "it isn't a big deal" and we'd give it to those who could use it to benefit Wikipedia, as you clearly can. It's terribly frustrating to have to ask someone to take care of a vandal you should be able to do yourself. Not only are you inconvienanced, but so is at least one admin. And this focus on edit counts really kills me. Have you done anything *wrong*? You clearly showed remorse for the one incident that has been brought to light. Some of the objections to you (except for # of edit counts) could be said about me. There are areas where even I'd not be considered for admin such as "Not enough recent experience" or even "I don't spend most of my time fighting vandals, but writing articles". For those with editcountitis, the edit count list back in March put current administrator and bureaucrat Redux at 2,431 (main namespace) edits. That number is now 2,628. Now I'm comparing apples and oranges, but looking at edit counts alone is about as ludicrious as saying Redux shouldn't even be an administrator because he doesn't write enough articles, has "only" 6,197 total, and is not even a top 500 user. -- RM 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   One needs only to read Redux's initial (main namespace) edits, which included photo uploads and serious edits, look to the absolute breadth of his contributions, and you'd conclude he stands a chance of making early admin even today. But edit counts are a quick and dirty way to diagnose where to look for weaknesses. That said, although I grumble a little about the argument, I agree with your conclusion. Looking at edit counts alone is nonsense; one must look to the contributions. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Support, no reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 12:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Has a Featured Article. :) Dlohcierekim 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Absolutely. When I was promoted, five weeks ago, I had fewer edits over a longer time, no FA, and nominated myself, so I see no problems here. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{15:22, 05 September 2006}
8. Support –Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support --Jay(Reply) 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Blackjack48 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support He has a featured article and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Some P. Erson 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Like the man said, quality not quantity, and also invoking the "no big deal" clause. Guy 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Merovingian - Talk 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support The way I see it, it is really easy to rack up an edit count by hitting delete. It takes time and thought to enter a completed quality article, citing references, avoiding copyvio’s etc. That’s why I believe edit count quantity is nowhere nearly as important as quality of edit. The opposition has nothing to sway my input on this. JungleCat talk/contrib 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support— Serious contributions like Gauss and Euler — dedication to the articles success is evident. AfD actions solidly supported — I may not agree with your determinations, but you told me the basis for your position & didn’t just give me more “per nom”. Overall you have the breadth of experience that makes me comfortable supporting you toward knighthood with the power of blocking & unblocking editors, deleting & undeleting pages, performing complex moves, page protection and enforcing arbitration rulings. Use these powers for good, not evil! Williamborg (Bill) 05:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Enthusiastic support I love his answer to the first question. BaseballBaby 07:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Everything looks fine to me.--MONGO 09:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. Definitely agree quality over quantity, and this editor appears to be committed to building an encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 12:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, based almost entirely on the following quote: "I plan to try helping out in some of the backlogs" alphaChimp^(talk) 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Good editor who is dedicated to quality articles.-- danntm ^T _C 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Support. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    One per customer - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Opps! My apologies. Thanks for spotting that. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

24. Support _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, excellent contributions. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
26. - CrazyRussian talk/email supports on 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support - Good contributions. Also like his remark about giving priority to writing articles over admin tools. I feel he will not misuse his tools. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Excellent, trustworthy, thoughtful editor. Xoloz 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Looks solid to me. Themindset 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. A very valued and trusted editor on Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support Normally, I probably wouldn't support given the relatively small edit count compared to time being a Wikipedian. However, when looking at his contributions, all of them seem to have been manual edits and quite good, at that. I really like how he carries himself when interacting with other users on their talk pages (even from his first user talk edit) and I'm assuming he's very trustworthy (in the limited interaction I've had with TCU students, all have been great :) ). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Quality over quantity. I liked the very common sense answers to the questions. Trustworty and could use the tools - pretty much what an admin should be. Agent 86 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support --Mike 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support -- per nom and answers to question 2 --T-rex 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support -- Tawker 04:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support, quality not quantity! -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, liked the answers to the questions, agree with quality over quantity, and meets my standards anyway. BryanG^(talk) 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. Trustable user and good answers, while the edit count aint magnificent i believe quality is better then quantity. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support There are obviously enough quality edits - which is what edit-count criteria are supposed to establish, Tewfik^Talk 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Good editor, good edits, good answers. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support good edits--Jiang 12:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support' =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - Good editor. -- Szvest 14:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support RN 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, gladly. Sango123 21:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support quality. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Edit conflict support. quality over quantity, as said above. --heah 02:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support per well known cliché. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per low recent edit count (less than 500 edits since April) - edit count also a bit low overall. Michael 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Since when does it matter how recent the edit count is? Administrator tools are the same for fighting vandalism as they were years ago, and it isn't much of a learning curve to figure out deletion policy. I learned speed-deletion policy in one day. This user has done a lot of good, has he done anything *bad*? -- RM 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   No, I don't see a tremendous overall devotion to the project due to the edit count as I mentioned above. Michael 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Low edit count overall suggests user doesn't have the required experience to be an admin just yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, low edit count seeing as they've been here since Jan 2006, and I disagree with users method of reporting vandals on admins talk pages instead of WP:AIV. Tempted to support, also tempted to oppose, so inbetween it'll have to be.--Andeh 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, Borisblue has been here since January 2005, not 2006. VegaDark 08:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   Wow, even more of a reason to oppose then, thank you for pointing that out.--Andeh 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Zapptastic

Final (24/13/3) Ended 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Zapptastic (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Zapptastic (previously Zappa.jake) for adminship. He has been with us since January of 2006, and has been an active contributor since February 2006. During that time he has fulfilled many roles on Wikipedia, including active new page patroling (something that makes his edit count much lower than it should be), writing many articles, and spending time in many other miscellaneous areas such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. He has also been active in the community side of Wikipedia, being involved in Esperanza, Concordia, and a very active member of the Welcoming committee.

By namespace, Zapptastic has made significant contributions to::

• Main: [4], [5], [6]
• Talk: [7], [8], [9]
• User talk: [10], [11], [12]
• Wikipedia: [13], [14], [15], [16]
• He has also had enough edits to be very familiar with images, categories, and templates.

Full disclosures: Zapptastic had one previous RfA as Zappa.jake, which can be found here; it mostly failed because people felt he didn't have enough experience yet, something that I feel he has rectified since then. Also, many of his user talk edits involve games of chess or welcoming commitee tasks. However, I feel he has plenty of other edits which show that he can communicate effectively with other editors.

Needless to say, I feel Zapptastic more than meets my RFA criteria. I have never seen him be incivil, even in potentially stressful situations [17], [18]. Though some may consider his Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk edits to be slightly low, he has more than convinced me that he is well-versed in policy, including through a speedy deletion exercise we went through together. If you have any doubts about his policy knowledge, I urge you to ask him optional questions- I assure you he won't let you down. Finally, he has shown that he is willing to do repetitive, janitorial-type tasks, something that any administrator knows is necessary quite a bit. I feel that giving him the admin tools will help the project in many ways. Thanks in advance to everyone who adds their productive comments to this RfA. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very greatefully accept Eric's nomination. Thanks for all the hard work, you rock. -Zapptastic (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Speedying requested articles and also articles I see on newpage patrol that are obvious vandalism. Working with stuff at the admin noticeboard, just helping people out with whatever they needed done. I'd be willing to close AfDs and such, even though I don't have a ton of experience around there. Basically, my main couple of reasons are that on newpage patrol I see a lot of stuff that is obvious CSD, and it would be nice to be able to just delete that myself without wasting someone else's time. Also, I use VandalProof occasionally, and, although not often, I'll see a persistent vandal who needs blocking. I've done a lot of work, just slow, tedious, tasks, so I'd also be willing to clean whatever backlog needs cleaning. I feel that I myself, and the rest of the community, could benefit from me having the toolbox. Feel free to ask me any questions about this.

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

A: I said this at my last RfA - Trinity School at River Ridge is one of my greatest prides. It's where I go to school. I have contributed a great load of that article, and I think it's really well done. It's sorta hard to get an article about a high school with ~400 student to FA status, but I would say it's pretty nice for it's potential. Anyways, my main reason for liking this so much, is that it has served as sort of an ambassador to members of my school on behalf of Wikipedia. I've had multiple people come up to me at school saying they had checked out the article, there's been discussions about Wikipedia in class based on that article, and there have been more than a couple of contributors who came to know Wikipedia through that article. Basically, I think it's really well done, and it has introduced a lot of people to Wikipedia. That's half of it - my other particularly pleasing contributions have been those of my work at the welcoming committee. My user talk edit count is 2000+, more than my mainspace edit count, and the reason for that is all the new user's I've welcomed. When a new user comes to Wikipedia, it can be a scary place, not knowing what to do, how it works, etc. However, I've placed welcome templates on many user talk pages, and occasionally, they've came to me with questions or thanks. That's really a nice feeling, to know that you've helped someone out. So yeah, those are my big two.

Due to understandable concerns about mainspace editing, here are a list of ten diffs of pages I've created or significantly cleaned up or rewritten. If this isn't enough, I can post more...

Pusa Polytechnic

Village East Drugs

Joseph Carlino

Doug White (news anchor)

Basilica of St. Lawrence

David Thomas Dawson

Cissy van Bennekom

Metro Transit Routes

National Socialist Vanguard

and my favorite, Trinity School at River Ridge

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

A: Of course I've been in conflicts before, but nothing too major. Wikipedia really hasn't been too stressful for me. (Maybe I'm not doing enough!) I believe in the minor conflicts I've had, I've handled them well, and I obviously plan to do so in the future. If anyone has any advice for me regarding this, please don't hesitate to tell me.

Question from Yanksox

4. Can you elaborate on your beliefs on CSD as opposed to the use of the PROD template. When should each be used? Also, can you expand on how you would believe consensus to be in AfD, MfD, RfD, CfD, or TfD discussions? Specifically, use of argument and new users. Thanks, Yanksox 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can. Speedy deletion should only be used when the article in questions meets CDS, and when there would be a huge WP:SNOWBALL of consensus if the article went to AfD. That's my thinking when I nominate an article for speedy deletion (or when I wish I could use it myself). When there is question as to whether it meets CSD, or if I believe that there may be a disagreement with the decision, I throw a {{prod}} tag on it. Regarding consensus at XfDs, at first when using my admin powers, I will only close discussions with large, obvious consensus (=0 oppose votes). As I become more experienced with deletion, I would begin to recognize consensus like any other admin - whether it seems the community generally agrees on something. Regarding new users, I'd look around and see how long they've been here, how many edits they've made, what kind of contributions they're making. If I feel they're experienced enough to be taken seriously, if they're informed enough about both the article and the policy about deletion, then I feel that they're qualified to be part of the discussion. Regarding use of argument, I would let people argue it over then decide based on the arguments presented. People have heads, they can read arguments and decide whether they're worthy or not. I'm a small part of the consensus-making process, and I'm not going to delete it or not based on which arguments I like. Now, if I see an argument come up late in the discussion, and not many users have had time to react to that and possibly change their minds, that is something that needs to be considered. I really don't think it's that hard to see whether it's consensus or not. If you want, you could throw me at some type of consensus-judging excercise, just like Eric threw me on a CSD excercise. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, to be annoying but just a follow-up question: Is that suggesting that you believe an article can be speedied if the admin believes that the article (Which isn't a clearcut CSD) has no chance in hell of surviving AfD? Keep in mind there is no wrong answer. Yanksox 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it's not annoying, it's nice to see a user who takes RfA so seriously. When I first started out as an admin, I would make sure articles I was deleting both met CSD and would survive an AfD. However, as time goes on, with more experience, I can see myself using SNOWBALL to delete articles. But not at first, after a couple months of experience, probably. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from bibliomaniac15 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Why'd you happen to change your name? Thanks, bibliomaniac15 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't like my real name being my username anymore, as that had alreay lead to someone attempting to post my personal details on my talk page, and I didn't want it to happen again. Also some users, particularly the ones I was welcoming, were confused by the "." in my username. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional backlog-related question from Alphachimp

6. You mentioned that you are willing to help with backlogs that need cleaning. Check out the admin backlog. Five of those six pages are always there, and always need work. Interested in any of them? alphaChimp^(talk) 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to help with whatever's needed. However, abuse reports and requests for investigation sound particularly fun, just because I enjoy playing detective, and speedy deleting stuff would be easy for me, as I have a lot of experience with it. I am also willing to help with images and copyright stuff, although it doesn't sound as fun as the other stuff. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Konstable

7. Just related to your views on *fDs, I would like to ask a more general open-ended question. What are your views on consensus in general, and on using voting to reach agreement?--Konstable 06:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is really whether the majority of Wikipedia users thnk it would be good to delete the article. This isn't necessarily 50%, not necessarily 70%, not necessarily 99%, but whether there is a general feeling one way or another. If, as an admin, I can determine that most of the users, that, in general, the community as a whole, thinks it would be good for the wiki to delete an article or whatever else, then that's consensus, and I delete. If it's foggy, or if people generally want to keep it around, then there's no consensus, and I let it stay. As far as voting goes, it's not the perfect consensus-or-not-indicator, but it works pretty well. I know that generally the consensus-determining-level is ~70%, and that it probably where I would generally draw the line also. Of coure, admins must use common sense, yet not particularly favor their POV when deciding. I would probably attempt to stay out of XfDs that I had a personal opinion on one way or another, but I'm sure I could make a fair judgement regardless. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• User's edit stats
• See Zapptastic's edit count on the talk page
• See Zapptastic's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

---

Support

1. Merovingian - Talk 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Nominator support. Goes without saying, of course. More than meets my criteria, and I truly believe he would be productive with the tools. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
3. third here suuport, ha! -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Michael 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support A very civil user who is well versed in Wikipedia policies. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, great editor, very civil and experienced--TBCTaLk?!? 09:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good to me. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. 2 months since the last time, and there were no major concerns then other than "not enough experience"? Now you have 2 months more experience. -- RM 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Just for clarification for others, it's actually been three months since the previous RfA, which ended June 1st. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   One day I'll learn to count. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

9. Support :) Dlohcierekim 12:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Meets my criteria as well. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support A strong application and a good demonstration of a range of admin skills, especially the judgement shown in the mentoring exercise. (aeropagitica) 14:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support – I haven't actually seen you around before (not that I remember, anyway) but you seem like a good user to me. — FireFox ^(talk) _{15:21, 05 September 2006}
13. Support -Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong support. Based on the chess game we played, and a quick review of his contributions, I find Zapptastic to be a fine Wikipedian, and a good sysop candidate, even if he is a bit young (but we have plenty of sysops around his age, I think). His csd exercise with EWS23 shows knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and I think he has improved (mainly in terms of experience) since his previous (first) rfa as Zappa.jake. I hope he is approved by the community, as he will make good use of administrative tools. Picaroon9288•talk 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nom. _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 02:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support meets my standards, just remember that WP:SNOW is to be used sparingly.-- danntm ^T _C 00:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Agree with the "Support" consensus. ---Ncrown23334
20. Support, on the borderline of experience but answer to #4 suggests he has a decent head on his shoulders and would be capable of employing some common sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Weak support. Not a big fan of using WP:SNOW to speedy delete articles, but otherwise looks fine. A bit more experience in XfD would get rid of the "weak" next time around if this RfA fails. BryanG^(talk) 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

    Support. He'll do fine. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, I forgot I voted twice... :( . RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

22. Weak support. As others have mentioned, WP:SNOW for speedy delete seems a bit shaky, but I think we can trust this candidate with the tools.--Konstable 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Weak support. Trustable and good answers, + per BryanG. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. He seems to have a very good grasp on policy, though I agree with others that WP:SNOW should be used sparingly, if at all, in the speedy deletion process. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose: Sorry Zapp, but ~15 AFDs isn't really enough experience for me in that department. It's also great that you've started to post on WP:ANI, but you should also show a willingness to investigate incidents initiated by other editors instead of just reporting your own encounters. Apart from those issues, I'm willing to support a future RFA. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   I will agree with you that I don't have a bunch of quantitative edits there, but I do think that I have a good understanding of the process, what happens, and what criteria for deletion are. And I really do have a lot of experience with deletion, just not at AfD - with speedys while on newpage patrol. You may want to check out my db excercise that Eric gave me during admin coaching, if you doubt at all my ability to judge speedy deletions. Regarding editing at ANI, I really haven't experienced a whole lot of need to report stuff there. It's happened before, and when I've needed to post there, I did. However, that just hasn't happened a lot. Sorry, I just can't see why you want me to post on a page when there is really no need. If you would like me to post some diffs of the few times I have needed help there, I can find those for you. As an admin, I guarantee you I will be spending a lot more time there. -Zapptastic (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, sorry, now I get what you were trying to say. I guess I'm willing to help out there when needed, as an admin or not, but I guess most stuff there really only needs the help of an admin - that's why it's the administrator's noteboard, not the regular user's noteboard. As far as helping out other users, I think I've done a lot of that, mainly helping out new users. Hope I've changed your opinion of me, Zapptastic (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Your db coaching link is dead so I can't see it right now. As for WP:ANI, I know there's a hesitancy for non-admins to contribute, but I myself started reading the reports there before being an admin so I could keep track of long-term abusers, and note that there's always cases being reported there that need investigation or mediation rather than blocks (which can always be recommended and acted upon by others). --  Netsnipe  ►  06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, here it is. Looks like I typo'ed when making the page. D'oh! Thanks, Zapptastic (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   OK, I'm convinced that you can handle obvious deletions, but I just don't have any real idea on how you handle researching borderline cases. So it's only a weak oppose. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   Same way I've handled them in the past - AfD. (Let me explain.) In the few cases where I have encountered borderline cases, I have used AfD. However, because the vast majority of my being involved with deletions is regarding obvious speedys, I haven't used AfD a lot. As an admin, I will, if I encounter a borderline case I'm unsure about, send it to AfD to see what other people think. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   I was referring to how I just don't know how well you research and conduct yourself in AFDs. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

2. OPPOSE; according to edit statistics, user has only given 69 user warnings indicating lack of vandal-fighting experience, mainly only participating in CSD and not AfD shows they aren't that experienced in the entire deletion scene. Also spamming users talk pages in last RfA[19](13 of these). Edit count seems rather inflated from welcoming new users at very high speeds (8+ welcomes a minute)[20] and playing games. Not providing image sources[21]. I won't go on any longer, but I feel the user is best as an editor for now.--Andeh 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   I did not spam user talk pages during my last RfA - that was ShortJason, a new user at the time, attempting to help me out. He went around to different users I had worked with in the past, (people that had left messages at my talk pages), and let them know that I had an RfA going on. I did not ask him to do this, nor did I approve it. I did not know about his going-ons until he had posted those 13. I then went around to those user's talk pages, apoligizing for his behavior, and letting those users know that I did not approve of it. I appreciated him trying to help, but I realize it was an unacceptable action. I asked him to stop, and he did. He also ended up doing this for a couple other users. He eventually wrote an essay on the matter which grew into a large discussion - his proposal was ultimately rejected. While, yes, may of my edits are from welcoming new users and playing chess games, I don't see a problem with that - it strengthens sense of community with users I'm playing with, and it helps new Wikipedians figure things out - something that I don't see as inflation, but just as important as other edits. I do accept your criticism regarding my lack of AfD experience and lack of vandal warnings. I've just become a large vandal fighter in the last month or so, but I do do that regularly now when I see a vandal. I also promise to become more active at AfD. Thanks, 24.118.255.136 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Zapptastic (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, public computer.

   Sorry, but I get the impression the main difference since your last RfA is you've got a huge edit count from welcoming new users on a mass scale, instead of gaining the experience in the deletion scene and vandalism workings. And you did spam users talk pages, was such a long message really necessary? -

   I apologize for ShortJason's advertising. Normally most people consider it unacceptable to advertise RfAs (Requests for Adminship) on people's talk pages. I have asked him to stop. Regardless, now that it's here, if you do wish to vote, do so here. Sorry, zappa.jake (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

   Surely you could've just posted a note on the RfA itself instead of re-spamming the users? Sorry, but edit count/time doesn't automatically equal experience.--Andeh 12:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   I wanted to make a personal apology to those users - I didn't want them thinking it was me who was going that. Is two lines really too long? (I'm using a low resolution screen, also.) -Zapptastic (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   I haven't decided which way to vote, yet, but for my part, I appreciated a personal apology from Zappa about the unrequested solicitation.--Josh Rocchio 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Despite the high edit count there appear to be too few substantive edits on articles for the editor to have got a sense of what Wikipedia is about, which I believe is key for the deletion side of adminship. Espresso Addict 11:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   If you'd like, I can provide some more diffs of substantive mainspace edits other than the ones Eric's provided in the nomination. How many would you like? -Zapptastic (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   I ask you to please take a look at my updated answer to question two - I think it will quell your concerns. -Zapptastic (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for providing this information for review. I'm afraid I stick with my opinion; most of these revisions, whilst positive, are on the minor side. Espresso Addict 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Few AfDs, relatively-low wikispace edits, and tricky answer to Question 4 all suggest candidate is a bit inexperienced in wiki-process. Speedy deleting per WP:SNOW maybe isn't totally evil, but it isn't something an RfA candidate should be thinking about before getting the mop. Xoloz 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   I don't understand how my answer to Q4 was "tricky" - please elaborate so I can clear things up for you. Also, I'm not thinking about deleting via SNOWBALL until at least a couple months into my adminship, possibly more. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose somewhat per Xoloz and somewhat per my general impression of the user. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Xoloz and Andeh. I'm concerned about the low *fD experience and snowball comments in Q4. As mentioned above, he was notified yesterday that Image:Northstar Commuter Coach.jpg did not list a source; the edit he responded with is imprecise, does not name the copyright holder, and does not convince me that that we can consider the image licensed under the GFDL. He's good editor, but right now there are still too many signs of inexperience for my comfort. ×Meegs 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Xoloz. Too few Wikipedia space edits. Participate more in AfD's and I'd change my mind. --Nishkid64 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per Netsnipe and Espresso Addict. At first blush this candidate looks ready for the mop, but on further investigation, including the examples given by the nominee, I was quite underwhelmed and did not see what I expected to see. While I believe this person may be trusted with the mop, I'm not quite convinced of the need or the ability to use it. Agent 86 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose Zapptastic has limited experience in what the areas in which he wants to apply the administrative tools. That, plus the fact that I'm also a bit leery of those wanting using WP:SNOW to circumvent an AfD if CSD doesn't apply, leads me to believe that I'm not ready to support at this time. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

   Just as a comment, Zapptastic actually has extensive experience in the primary area in which he wants to apply the administrative tools. He is a new page patroller, and has used CSD criteria extensively in what he does. The funny thing about new page patrollers is that if you're good at tagging CSDs, your contributions will show very little of it because you correctly tagged the article and it was deleted. In addition, anyone who has a lot of experience with new pages and CSD knows that there are times when WP:SNOW applies because there are pages that don't explicitly meet CSD, but clearly fall under WP:NOT or other sub-guidelines. I hope people won't use his honest argument against him that sometimes using common sense is the best call. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   Sure thing EWS23, a good comment. To clarify, I am speaking not towards his abilities to clear the CSD backlog, but to his vandalism reversion and *fD experience. I understand what you're saying about the snowball clause, but it's just an essay and I've opinions on how it should and shouldn't be used/enforced. I hope that I am not giving off the impression for attempting to use something against the candidate, for I appreciate and respect all the work he's done. Per alphaChimp, I'm changing my opposition to a weak one, for his good work on Wikipedia should not go unnoticed or unfactored in my opinion hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the response/clarification, Hoopydink. The above comment was as much a general comment to everyone as it was to you, and I hope other people who choose to participate in this RfA will read it. We certainly appreciate your opinions and conscientious statements. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

10. Weak Oppose As much as I hate doing this, I'm a bit fearful that you don't have enough experience. It's good to let the deletion process run its course. It's possible that a lot of work was invested in the article proposed for deletion. Please don't take this RfA as a blow against you personally. You are a great wikipedian and have a lot to offer this project, just not as an admin right now. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Weak Oppose per Hoopydink and Andeh.--Guinnog 11:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Xoloz - I'd like to seem more experience in the areas directly related to maintaining/writing an encyclopedia, which at the end of the day is what the mop is for. Tewfik^Talk 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose I supported the first RfA but was disconcerted by a few issues that arose there, mostly apropos of the user's judgment relative to speedy deletions but also with respect to deficiencies in articles he adduced as representing his best work (for which deficiencies, of course, no one editor is solely—or even jointly—responsible); because I've not found anything here to assuage my abiding concerns, I must oppose per Xoloz and consistent with my RfA guidelines. Joe 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

My sense from a survey of contributions is that the candidate spends a lot of time engaging in social activities (playing games, welcoming users). It's difficult to plow through this to find contributions that would indicate a grasp of Wikipedia policy. I would be happy to consider supporting if the candidate (or anyone) could point me to some more articles to which the candidate has made substantial, high quality contributions. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll start a list of diffs showing substantial work in the mainspace. I should have that within 18 hours. -Zapptastic (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I ask you to please take a look at my updated answer to question two - I think it will quell your concerns. -Zapptastic (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Falls well below my standard of at least 200 article-talk edits. Themindset 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Sorry, Zappa. I felt like I was a massive jerk to you on your previous RfA. However, the comments about speedily deleting per WP:SNOW is not a good idea for anyone to use, even for experienced admins. The rationale for speedy deletion is for blantantly obvious cases where an admin can act without needing a consensus of any kind. However, on anything that appears to be boderline, anything could happen if an editor saw the article. We can't always be sure, trust me, I've been listed on DRV four times, I need to be careful, myself. I think you would be a good admin, but in good time. Yanksox 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral I don't have enough of an impression of this user to rate him. Scobell302 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Hoopydink

Final Ended 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoopydink (talk · contribs) – Hi all! First off, thank you for deciding to participate in my request for adminship! I appreciate all of you spending some of your valuable time to discuss my request. I'm looking forward to taking some of the comments and suggestions that I hope you’ll list and use them to become a better Wikipedian and potentially a more self-aware administrator. I’d like the ability to use the extra buttons, as I think that they will help me become a more productive editor and I hope they will also allow me to help make Wikipedia a better place. The following is an overview of my edits and contributions. Please see Q1 for a detailed reason for why I’d like to become an administrator and how I would specifically use the tools (sneak peek: backlogs, requests, blocking, rollback, real-time assistance).

• Edit count -Around 4,600
• Time around – I started contributing in January of 2006 haven't looked back!
• Civil? – I sure hope so!
• No personal attacks – I hold myself to a rather strict set of standards when it comes to interacting with other users and would be rather disappointed in myself if I acted out of sorts. This is easily the worst I’ve ever acted towards another user and was an isolated incident. Please see Q3 for a detailed explanation.
• Edit summaries – Pretty good
• Mistakes – Sure, everyone makes them. I made some early mistakes when I first started using VandalProof some months ago, and my current mistakes usually stem from minor spelling or diction errors that I don’t spot immediately.
• Email enabled? – Yep.
• Userpage? – Very simple.

• I supported your RfA, but why should your userpage matter? - Mike 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a big deal, but as it was part of the format I borrowed and is the first thing a user often sees when clicking on another user's name, I figured I mention it (some Wikipedians appreciate user-friendly pages that have easily accessible links to e-mail, the talk, page, user contrubutions, various logs, etc.). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Any edit warring/blocks? – Nope. I’ve been in two or three minor content disputes and all have been solved on the talk page with friendly and productive discussions (please see this discussion from April, this discussion in regards to Zinedine Zidane, and this archived group of discussions in regards to controversies in the 2006 World Cup).

Contributions review

As my edit count alone says very little about my contributions to Wikipedia, I’ll give a brief overview of what I’ve actually been doing with my edits (Note: Gwernol recently employed this method as Guinnog’s RfA nominator, so this format, which I think is great, is credited to him and Petros471)

• Article: (~1900 edits) A large portion of my article edits come from vandalism-reversion while doing recent changes patrolling (I also have a considerable amount of non-edits resulting from tagging articles under the criteria for speedy deletion). I’ve written quite a few articles, mostly rugby union related (I contribute heavily towards WikiProject Rugby union). My main focus has been creating and editing articles that deal with rugby union in North America (See Rugby union in the United States, Rugby Super League, Boston RFC (a Good Article), USA Hawks, USA Falcons, Boston Irish Wolfhounds, Chicago Lions, Canada East, Canada West, San Francisco Golden Gate RFC, among quite a few others). I also edit some of the more popular rugby union articles. In addition to the rugby union topic, I’ve created some random stubs and small articles that

I meant to expand, but never got around to doing so.

• Article talk: (~160 edits) I always try to explain the rationale of my edits if I make a large or potentially controversial edit to an article. I was also involved in a great collaboration at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies. We were able to ensure that the article had a neutral point of view during the World Cup when things get a bit crazy. We compared sources from many different publications on many different incidents and were able to reach consensus in a friendly and amicable way throughout the discussions.
• User: (~ 100 edits) Most of these edits stem from my sandbox and reverting vandalism on userpages of other Wikipedians. My own User:Hoopydink is very simple and up until recently I used the Esperanza information box as my de facto user page.
• User talk: (~1700 edits) The large amount of user talk edits results from my leaving the appropriate warnings on a vandal’s user talk page almost every single time I revert vandalism. I also almost always respond to a user on both mine and his/her talk pages. This is so we can both have a point of reference, as I have no idea who watches my user talk page. My user talk count is inflated quite a bit as a result of my duplicate messages.
• Wikipedia: (~700 edits) I’ve made about 100 reports to AIV, I have gained some experience in discussing *fD’s, and I’m a regular contributor to the discussions at RfA. I’ve also recently begun to post at the administrators noticeboard.
• Wikipedia talk: (~40 edits) I haven’t really contributed much here, but I’ve been part of some interesting and productive discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship (here, here, and I think I made a good edit here), and Wikipedia talk: Stable versions now (here).
• Image: (~50 edits) I’ve uploaded a good amount of images to include in articles (mostly rugby related images). All the images have been appropriately tagged and I’m fairly certain that none of the images I’ve uploaded have been deleted Meegs pointed out some image issues, and I'm now working to ensure that they are appropriate for Wikipedia

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsolicited post-factum co-nomination: This user has left a perceptible imprint on WP in the last few months. He has engaged other users time and again with well thought out and forcefully argumented comments, and has behaved quite administrator-like. He is quite friendly, is unafraid to do the difficult thing, and has my unconditional wiki-trust. Bemop this user! - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Should I become an administrator, I will tread very carefully at first and use the tools to simply enhance how I usually edit. That is, to say, I will be able to do for myself what I often ask of administrators. I do RC patrolling often, and with the administrative tools, I'll be able to use administrative rollback, as well as help alleviate some of the backlogs I often add to (specifically WP:AIV and the CSD backlogs). The following is a (hopefully) more concise overview of how I would use the administrator rights:

• Real-time vandalism prevention: I've made over 100 edits to AIV and am often in the various Wikipedia IRC channels asking administrators to take a look at some of the more pressing reports. I envision myself as someone people can approach when they need administrative assistance in dealing with vandalism, be it a block or a level of page protection. To this end, I will be consistently monitoring WP:AIV, WP:RPP, the administrators' noticeboards, and the various IRC channels, which are increasingly becoming a preferred method to grab an administrator's attention.
• Real-time user assistance: I've been watching and editing the administrators' noticeboard lately and I'd be more than willing to help out any users requiring administrative assistance or intervention. I am also planning to monitor users' requests for unblocking. I feel that it's necessary for unblock requests to be reviewed rather swiftly, and while I would never undo another administrator's block without first consulting the blocking administrator or acheiving consensus on one of the administrators' noticeboards, I would make an effort to let the user know that an administrator is looking into the situation. As I mentioned above, I'm often in many Wikipedia-related IRC channels and will be available for assistance.

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

A: Lots of areas on Wikipedia give me pleasure, from productive discussions and free-flowing opinions on *fD's and talk pages to collaborating on articles with other users. In terms of my own article writing and creations, I'm very happy with the work we've done at WikiProject Rugby union. I've collaborated with lots of people that are both great rugby fans and dedicated editors. My primary foci has been creating articles (most are stubs) for second and third tiered nations that play rugby union (See Rugby union in Japan, Rugby union in Russia, Rugby union in the United States, and Rugby union in Bulgaria, for example), and creating articles for North American rugby clubs and competitions (I've created or heavily contributed to over twenty of these sorts of articles). Boston RFC has very recently become a good article, one of thirteen sport team Good Articles on Wikipedia. I have created a rather specific rubric and have collected a lot of information, so I hope

that every team that competes in the Super League will soon become a good article.

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

A: Honestly, not really. I've been here for a while and have been lucky to have a positive experience throughout. I edit Wikipedia because it's fun, and I can't imagine being anything less than collegial with other users, for then Wikipedia would cease to be fun. I've certainly not accrued any undue stress as a result of my editing. With the interest of giving a complete an overview as I can about my Wikipedia experience, I'll provide some diffs of my more controversial (for lack of a better word) encounters. I had two discussions with Srose that involved a potentially inappropriate usage of userspace and a large removal of content (discussions can be found here and here). These issues were resolved rather quickly and Srose and I are on very friendly terms. I also initiated a

heavily debated CfD. I initiated the discussion after asking a particpant to the category what he thought (here). I became a bit irked when a user used "You suxx0r" as rationale (at the time, I was unaware that the term is often used as internet slang and was intended in jest) and made some repetitive comments that probably weren't very helpful to the discussion. Kim Bruning and I also had a brief misunderstanding during that CfD, but after talking to him on IRC soon after, we are now on rather collegial terms. The last thing I can think of is that I left a rather stern warning to a user here. I was a bit heated after the user had reported that Peter Gammons (who had then recently suffered a brain aneurysm) had died and had been caught with child pornography. The user was soon indefinitely blocked after using sockpuppets to further vandalise the article. This was easily the most affected I had ever been by a vandal and I am usually quite a bit more level-headed

4. (optional) Your user page indicates that you are also active on the Irish Wikipedia. How active are you over there? thanks, --T-rex 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Hi! Thanks for the question! I'm basically inactive at the Irish Wikipedia at the moment. I read the articles there quite often, but am a very weak contributor. I registered the day I found out that we had an Irish Wikipedia with the aim of splitting my time between there and the English Wikipedia. I've been meaning to start really contributing, but my time has gone to projects on the English Wikipedia I'm currently involved in. I love conversing with others in Gaeilge, so I formed #wikipedia-ga, an IRC channel for Irish speaking Wikipedians. However, like the Irish Wikipedia, the IRC channel is largely inactive, unfortunately. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

5. (optional) Check out our huge admin backlog. Some pages, such as WP:CP, desperately need help. Intend to help with anything other than AIV and CSD? alphaChimp^(talk) 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A: That's a great question, Alphachimp! Thanks for giving me the opportunity to elaborate a bit. Should I become an administrator, I'll be focusing primarily on the CSD and AIV backlogs as that is just a natural extension of how I often regularly edit doing RC patrolling. That said, I'd definitely be willing to help out wherever I could be of use. I was unaware of the pressing need for administrator presence at WP:CP and will definitely help out there once I get my bearings. That is, I'll be asking administrators who already help out there (and any other areas where I've little experience) to give me a bit of coaching before I dive right in. I'll also be consistently monitoring the administrators' noticeboard and it's sub-boards (AN/I, for example) with the aims of helping out there wherever I can. These reports seem to be all-encompassing and are great to work on, as there's often mulitple perspectives, ideas, and suggestions on how to best address these situations.

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good answer. Admittedly, the backlog on this type of page is due to some of the complexity surrounding the issues. It's not necessarily the most simple or rewarding admin activity, but it does need to get done, and I appreciate your answer. Of course, AIV and CSD contributions are always appreciated. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

6. (optional) You have very few edits in the Category namespace. Can you indicate whether you have been active in Wikipedia namespace areas concerning categories? Would you feel confident enough to use your admin tools in this area? Carcharoth 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Another great question! The only edits to the category namespace I can recall is adding a notice that a category had been proposed for discussion. I will often add the appropriate categories to articles I work on, so I'm aware of how to use them. In terms of using admin tools with regards to categories, I don't plan on closing any CfD's unless an admin asks me for help with a large backlog (*fD closing is not an area I've much, if any, experience in).

Comments

---

Current tally: (95/2/0)

Support

1. 1st Support Hoopydink makes a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, I believe will do a good job as an admin. Good luck! --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Super-Duper 2^nd support - User certainly presents themself well, and have good faith within the user. Iolakana•T 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
3. I had some concerns about some of this editor's actions and in particular some nominations, wondering if he gets the wiki way... but I've had a chance to talk to him and I think he does get it. Moreover, the record of contributions is solid, and shows a prelediction for the sorts of things that good admins do before they become good admins. I think Hoopydink is a fine candidate and I look forward to working with him. Support ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. He's not already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Contributions look good! The Land 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support; seen him around, been impressed so far; good answers and examples. Antandrus (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Honestly, I was pretty sure you were already an admin. Past experiences give me no reason to worry he'll abuse the tools, and he seems more levelheaded than many. Always responsive and helpful on IRC. Luna Santin 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support despite the slightly malformed nom. User meets my civility and 2k edit requirements. He's also a clear asset to the WP:AIV board. Best of luck on your RFA, Hoopy. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. The candidate's abject crueltyhelpful criticism on my own RfA well and truly demonstrated that hoopy knows what he's doing. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I don't see why not. FireSpike 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support I'll support on the basis of the above answers to questions and the quick and constructive response to observations on the copyright status of some of the images that you have uploaded. (aeropagitica) 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support. (edit conflict) I like to think I am on top of things. When I see "I already thought (s)he was an admin..." votes, I think to myself, "Wow, they need to pay more attention!" However, I was caught off guard for this one. I am positively shocked that you are not already an admin. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
14. I really hate to drop this cliche, but after reading his posts at ANI and elsewhere, I had to double-check that he wasn't already an admin. Several times. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Strong candidate AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Excellent user, trustworthy, and could use the tools. Every time I look this user up I'm surprised there this user isn't an admin or that there hasn't been a previous RfA. Agent 86 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. based solely on the highly organized and detailed summary of user's contributions. :) Dlohcierekim 00:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Highly qualified candidate with ample article and project space experience.-- danntm ^T _C 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support great editor! - Mike 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. This is a very well executed request from a clearly capable candidate, I have no doubt he will use the tools to continue his good work. Rje 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per Agent 86 and Luna S., consistent with my RfA guidelines, and insofar as, like Daveydweeb, I often find myself admiring Hoopydink's RfA comments, such that I think he/she has an excellent conception of that which an admin should be and is possessed of the measured judgment that portends propitious tool use. Joe 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
23.  Jorcoga  Supports and recommends that you do too on 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
24. Unsolicited co-nominator Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support A great asset. Set him to work asap... Tyrenius 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. A good editor, vandal fighter, and communicator. Looking through his contributions and talk page, it's clear that he learns from his own mistakes, is helpful to others, and takes WP:BITE seriously. ×Meegs 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Merovingian - Talk 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, good user. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong Support. I see your name all over, and I've never had trouble with the users you report to AIV. You're a great user, and will make a great admin :). alphaChimp^(talk) 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - I hate to invoke RfA cliche #1 but I for the longest time honestly believed he was already an administrator. In fact it wasn't until my own RfA that I realised this wasnt the case. Long overdue, strong support. - Glen 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Pile on Support - there, I did it -- Tawker 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
32. More Support Yet! - me too. Kukini 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support no question. An asset -- Samir धर्म 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Jump up and down on top of Samir's head support I wonder what a hoopymop looks like.... Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
35. /me supports --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support: my, my, it seems like my RFA has encouraged all the regular vandalfighters at #wikipedia to run. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support and happy to Nigel ^(Talk) 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support - good vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Great user, will be a great admin. - The Bethling 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, great editor, has done a lot of work fighting vandalism.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Yes! Yes! JungleCat talk/contrib 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{15:19, 05 September 2006}
44. That's hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, I do believe I was tempted to nominate them in the past. No need now.--Andeh 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support - per RfA cliche #1 and CrazyRussian --T-rex 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. RFerreira 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - I thought he was an admin already. He'd make an excellent addtion! Mhking 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support reasonable, attentive user with a good work ethic. Yeah, that sounds good. feydey 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
52. Suport don't see why not, alot of good edits for a short time. Coasttocoast 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. I'm more than happy to support Hoopy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. Hoopy has a good sense of humor and was very civil and helpful in the two rather lengthy discussions we had. Srose (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
55. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 01:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
56. Support I too thought the user was an admin; I confess that I checked the User Rights log to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Hoopydink does well in RC patrolling and Wikipedia discussion, I trust 'em with the tools. Please, though, do more than AIV and CSD. There is much much more out there... Teke ^(talk) 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    Yes! Great observation. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

57. Support -- worthy admin candidate. - Longhair 03:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
58. Support: not even close in my book. theProject 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
59. Very Strong Support Hoopydink is an excellent user, and I'm so glad that he's going for the tools. He's an excellent presence on RC patroll, and a great, knowledgeable editor. I have no problems supporting him. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Due to the high esteem in which this user is held, I will wave my standard of at least 200 user-talk edits. Themindset 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor. Besides, his username continues to be an endless source of amusement for my child-like mind! :) Hoopydink... giggle... Xoloz 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. G.He 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. User is well experienced and is willing to do work for the community. Tarret 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
64. Support per his Contributions _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
65. Absolute, yet unnecessary Support, despite our recent disagreement. :-). Cheers, and good luck, — Werdna talk criticism 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
66. Of course Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
67. Support. Great user, great vandal-fighter. --Nishkid64 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per above and answers to questions. Great user, excellent vandal-stomper. :D --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
69. Wish I had found this earlier pile on support --james^(talk) 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
70. Support - User appears to be sane. Sane people tend to be good administrators. Therefore, Hoopy will make a good administrator. —this is messedrocker (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
71. I'm always late to the party Support - I see this guy all over, "What, he's not an admin yet"? etc etc. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
72. Support, I think Hoopydink will use the tools well. --- Deville (Talk) 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
73. Support Yet another "he's not an admin yet???" vote. NawlinWiki 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
74. I-thought-I-already-supported-this-RfA-but-on-second-check-I-hadn't support - Daniel.Bryant 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
75. Support Good Editor with a a lot of great work behind him Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
76. Support. Can be trusted with the tools. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
77. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
78. Support per nom, answers, and comments above. Quality user, no issues. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
79. Support. Worthy contributor and countervandal. Heimstern Läufer 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
80. Support - a strong editor, no concerns whatsoever. Rockpocket 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
81. Support —Xyrael / 08:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
82. Support --Robdurbar 09:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
83. Cleared for Adminship Great vandal fighting work. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
84. Support °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
85. 'Support. -- Steel 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
86. Support another fine candidate. Long history of exactly the right kind of stuff. Guy 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
87. Support would make a really good admin. -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
88. Support— I think I'm safe in congratulating you on making it! Use your Wikipowers thoughtfully and well! Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 00:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

    And if you didn't already realize it, a post facto conomination by Crzrussian is noteworthy. Williamborg (Bill) 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

89. Pile-on Support. I have nothing but good experience of this editor who I am sure will be a great admin. --Guinnog 11:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
90. Support haz (talk) e
91. Support An excellent editor who is calm, civil and well suited to becoming an admin. Welcome aboard. Gwernol 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
92. Support. Excellent answers, excellent summary usage, civil user, could do great things. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
93. Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
94. Support. Seriously...I thought he already was one. 1ne 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
95. Support. Does good work. AnnH ♫ 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to interactions on IRC, and from what I've seen there, Hoopydink is not civil. Thats not exactly what we want for admins. ILovePlankton 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for participating in my RfA, ILovePlankton! Your comments are both welcomed and appreciated. I'm fairly certain you're referring to my limited interaction with a recently banned user, which I believed to be appropriate. If this is the case, then I appreciate you bringing this up, and if not, I apologise for assuming otherwise (I'd also like to mention that I've been entrusted as an operator on #wikipedia, the primary Wikipedia IRC channel). Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per ILP. I will reiterate my oppose even if it gets deleted. Whether or not the user is blocked, it is irrelevant. The point here is that Hoopydink completely personally attacked another user without reason (on IRC) and even sent a negatively worded threatening e-mail (I can paste this on my userpage with addresses deleted to prove my point if I need to). There is no excuse to personally attack someone, regardless of what the issue is - whether you don't like someone (again without knowing them, this cannot be fair), heard bad things about them (again without asking them for verification, this cannot be fair), or whatever, you just don't personally attack someone OR send them harassing e-mails. Harassment doesn't make a good admin. Being calm, level-headed, approachable, trying to remain neutral in the midst of issues that don't directly involve you, that makes a good admin. Enkil 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

   This is User:Enkil's only edit. Gwernol 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Oscarthecat

Ended 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oscarthecat (talk · contribs) – Oscarthecat has been contributing to Wikipedia since October of 2005. Since then, he has amassed over 5,500 edits, about 4,500 of them in the article namespace. Oscar is known for being very civil and relaxed, as you can see at Talk:Calvin and Hobbes both at the present and in archives. I nominated Oscar in March, unfortunately without success, but now I think he would make a truly extremely well qualified admin. Most that opposed said that they would support with time...I guess we'll see. - Mike 14:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted, many thanks for the nomination. --Oscarthecat 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I do a fair amount of recent changes patrol at the moment, for which the rollback admin feature would undoubtedly be useful, as would being able to act against vandals. I'd also continue to participate in afd discussions and eventually close off ones where reasonable concensus has been reached.

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

A: I haven't created many articles, but I've done quite a lot of restructuring and tidying up of articles, in an effort to get them into a state suitable for consideration as a Featured article. Such restructures/tidyups include Calvin and Hobbes, Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution. Recently, have been pleased with the progress made discussing the way forward with the Calvin and Hobbes article, in order to satisfy other contributers and at the same time follow WP:EL policy. I've done rather a lot of work on various "retro" gaming articles for games such as Manic Miner and some associated magazines like CRASH, Zzap!64, Retro Gamer and Your Sinclair.

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

A: I've been involved in discussions over edit conflicts in the past, where I've found that starting a line of discussion with everyone concerned has definitely helped reach a consensus. Over at the Calvin and Hobbes article (I've done a lot of edits on this one), we'd reached a standstill with external links. I wanted to reduce the ever-growing list of fan site external links, others wanted to add to it. After much discussion we made use of references within the article, which referenced content of note within the fan sites (see Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes#External links redux). By doing this, it became clear which fan sites had content of note. More discussion on there since has now started, where we're aiming for a concensus on how to reduce the content of the article by moving character profiles to other articles. Other than that, haven't been involved in any conflicts, either during my time as User:Oscarthecat or my anonymous edits (varying IP addresses) prior to that. Done some edits on Nuclear power which is sometimes tricky, given the POV balance needed on the page. Happy to say that my edits there get accepted, and not immediately reverted (article seems to be watched/edited by many people with very strong opinions for/against Nuclear).

Optional question from  Netsnipe  ►  16:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I've noticed that this year you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and you haven't shown any participation on the Administrators' noticeboards so far. Can you provide any examples where you've been challenged or have thoroughly investigated an abuse case? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Wikipedia should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?

A: I've been involved in the long-term abuse of the Juggernaut article (repeated edits by appears to be someone having an axe to grind against Tesco, see the Juggernaut talk page). Managed to open a dialog with all concerned, got contributions from others, eventually got an administrator involved to protect the page. Incidentally, I have used the Administrator noticeboards now and then, when absolutely necessary, mainly to make them aware of ongoing vandalism.[22][23][24] On whether I'm ready for the darker side of wikipedia, difficult to speculate on that, although I believe it wouldn't be a problem for me. --Oscarthecat 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Oscarthecat's edit count on the talk page
• See Oscarthecat's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count at talk page. --WinHunter ^(talk) 15:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Have updated my signature - at the time I created it, the WP page said "There are several objections to having images in signatures. In particular, they are said to cause server slowdown, and to serve no purpose in an encyclopedia project other than vanity in addition to making pages more difficult to read. There have been some calls for banning them entirely; some people have objected to such a ban, arguing it would stifle creativity.". Needless to say, I took the "stifled creativity" approach. Looking at the page now, such images are actively discouraged, so my old friend the Union Flag has now been removed from my signature. --Oscarthecat 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I know this is less relevent, but thanks for bringing this to my attention too. I've removed the image from my sig as well. - Mike 16:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Final tally: (46/5/4)

Support

1. Strong Support as nominator. - Mike 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian - Talk 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Seems to be in order. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support np here Computerjoe's talk 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{19:16, 03 September 2006}
6. Support I'll support but I would like to see more use of edit summaries as there are quite a few gaps in the Wikispace edits. On that subject, there are no Wikispace edits at all in July of this year and almost all of April, although your edit history shows that you were active in these times. Are there any particular reasons why this is the case? (aeropagitica) 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Candidate meets my 2K and civility requirements. We need more level heads around here; the removal of the flag from his signature shows a willingness to be flexible. User's answers to the questions seem fine; user's WP:talk space edits are very low, but that was never one of my requirements. No dings, no big deal. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support— Main space edits:4778— Wikispace edits: 341— Blocked: never— Images: 76— Moves: 13— First recorded edit: 18 October 2005. Edited and commented on a longstanding NPOV conflict— Nuclear power — edits seem mildly partisan but completely sane and reasonable. Edited and commented on a potential NPOV conflict— List of civilian nuclear accidents — edits completely sane and reasonable (and well referenced). Ample evidence of recent change & newpage patrols. Edit summary usage for Oscarthecat: 99% for major edits and 99% for minor edits (based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits)— fixed that earlier problem. No evidence of imprudent or inappropriate behavior jumps out (other than the signature issue, which is fairly small change in light of the rest). Understands enough Wikipolicy that you can give him the delete/undelete/ban/unban powers—he can be trusted not to abuse them. Williamborg (Bill) 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per Williamborg (Bill) --Ageo020 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per nomination. Some P. Erson 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support good editors make good admins abakharev 01:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. I would prefer to see more WP-space edits, but looks perfectly okay to me otherwise. I don't care about signatures — in fact, it's cool to see U.S.-flag guy nominate U.K.-flag guy (twice!) Grandmasterka 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Grandmasterka. —Khoikhoi 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per nom. Michael 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Supported then, support now Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Bicolor cat solidarity support per nom and consistent with my RfA standards. Joe 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - Williamborg summed it all up very nicely! - Glen 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I see nothing wrong, I believe tools will be used and not abused. Yanksox 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Lol, I see I had an edit conflict with you! -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

21. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support 4,500 edits! This guy deserves this! (Don'tblockme 09:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
23. Support - no reservations here. Metamagician3000 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support, the user in question has undoubtedly met my qualifications, which don't really exhist.  Daniel_123  ►  14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, couldn't find any particularly troubling edits, has satisfactory experience. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support.We can trust this guy to do well as admin. --Nishkid64 16:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Looks like a strong user, plus he's a cat. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support - Iolakana•T 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, because I see no compelling reason not to. I suggest you increase your involvement in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk spaces, but that's not going to make oppose. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 21:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Would ideally like more evidence of how you'd behave in a difficult situation, but you are clearly already acting as an administrator and are contributing in a positive manner. The Land 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Committed, dedicated editor. Zaxem 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support -- Tawker 04:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support not many user talk/talk edits, especially for an RC patroller, but he seems level-headed. I would also like to see an answer to Netsnipe's AfD question below, but I'll support pending that answer. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support - good contributor. --Ixfd64 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. RFerreira 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Solid user with a solid record, no significant incidents. Best of luck. Themindset 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support per above. Solid user. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:07 (UTC)
41. Support per nom _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 02:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
42. SupportAppears to be a quality user, would make good admin. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support A good user with a good track record.-- danntm ^T _C 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per comments above. Good user, no issues. Newyorkbrad 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support I give you the support, your track record shows you have what it takes. FireSpike 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Slightly weak answers, leaning towards weak support however your generous main space edit count gives you a full support from me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose WP:SIG - remove the image please. – Chacor 15:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this into account. – Chacor 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - project and project talk space edits are VERY low, and the image in the signature —Mets501 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose - Oscarthecat has enough edits in (main) to show dedication. But along Mets501's concerns, I'm concerned with the lack of edits he's had in the project/-talk space in his time here. Anyone wanting to be administrator really needs to get some experience keeping track of what's going on around the place on the noticeboards. Most of his AFDs also appear to have been single line votes. Oscar: are there any AFD nominations you could point out that show considerable research on your part? --  Netsnipe  ►  14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. Few major edits apparent in the past month and relatively low percentage at article talk pages suggests not only a lack of significant edits but also a lack of engagement with the community over content building. Espresso Addict 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Netsnipe - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose shows lack of dedication to the community behind the project and the process of gathering consensus with low WP/Talk edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKMask (talk • contribs)

Neutral

1. Sig problem solved. Based on my old criteria for an admin, would likely gain support but I think I'll go neutral. – Chacor 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral - worried about an overuse of fair use images in edit history, but besides that no other worries. (and for the record, I see nothing wrong with the flag in the sig...) --T-rex 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Nuetral - leaning t'wards support-- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 04:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - (leaning toward oppose). I'm torn. On one hand the quality of normal edits is great and I want to AGF. On the other hand though, I agree with some of the opposers, specifically dealing with the amount and quality of Wikipedia namespace edits. Having looked over some of them myself, especially the AfD votes, I'm concerned with single line voting. If the user can provide evidence satisfactory to Netsnipe's concerns, then my vote can be assumed to be a support (if I don't update it). In that case I may still have additional concerns, but not enough to prevent supporting. -- RM 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Luna Santin

Ended 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Luna Santin (talk · contribs) – Luna Santin is a fellow Wikipedian from San Francisco, California. A civil, respectful and intelligent editor who has amassed in excess of 7500 edits in a period of three months. Areas which he has been involved in include:

• Article editing and creation, including California High School Exit Exam
• RC Patrol, CSD tagging, Vandalism reverts and issuing appropriate warnings.
• Mediating disputes as an excellent mediator
• Wikifying articles

I've also seen him spend time on various article talk pages resolving disputes in a civil and rational way. An extensive survey of his edits has made me feel sure that he has done well as a user and will do well as an admin. Luna is a self-confessed WikiGnome and has wikified many articles to date. In my opinion, Wikipedia will be a better place with him having the tools. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words; I accept and look forward to feedback from the community. Luna Santin 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I plan to answer {{unblock}} requests, both good and bad, to patrol {{prod}} and close AfDs. I'm a regular contributor at CfD, and I have no reason to expect that will change. CSD will likewise be on the list. Non-admin backlogs I already contribute to include {{helpme}} requests and the wikify backlog. If the community grants me the opportunity, I also plan to help out at AIV and similar tasks -- before you groan and say we have enough of that, let me point out that you probably haven't been on around 9:00 to 14:00 UTC, when the admins are fewer and further between, and the AIV backlog sometimes extends for hours. Every user deserves a second chance, even a third, but there generally should be at least one admin watching over AIV in the event that the vandals picked tonight for some fun. I always try to take more out of a backlog than I put into it, and I'd like the opportunity to help out with some more.

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

A: I am, I think, most known for two things: cleaning up vandalism and helping new users. For at least a month, now, I've been trying to hunt down something to turn into an FA; until I find something suitable, my finest article is probably California High School Exit Exam. I've welcomed something in the vicinity of 700 users to Wikipedia, frequently helping them out with later requests, and also helped to ease our steep learning curve at the help desk, new contributors' help page, or by responding to {{helpme}}s. I've wikified more articles than I've tagged for wikification, and plan to keep it that way. I'm a founding member of WikiProject Stub Removal, which aims to trim down stub categories to the point of being more useful, and I'm a regular contributor at 3O, helping to calm down disputes and trim down the backlogs at MedCab or even ArbCom. I've helped good users to formulate unblock requests and get other needed admin attention, on IRC. As I mentioned above, I also participate in CfD and AfD, with somewhere around 700 Wikipedia namespace edits, I think, between those and other policy-related discussions.

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

A: Ah, conflict. Oddly enough, my very first edit as an anon user was at AfD. As I mentioned 3O, it led me into what's probably been my largest content dispute to date, at Libertarianism. See Talk:Libertarianism/Archive9 for details -- in a nutshell, there was a POV dispute over versions of a particular paragraph in the "controversies among libertarians" section of the article. I did my best to propose a compromise version, and (if I recall correctly) all but one editor ended up agreeing to that version. I did my part to keep the dispute on talk pages, and never reverted that I can remember, but unfortunately one user resorted to disruptions and personal attacks even over a week into the dispute, constantly turning down attempts to request outside opinions or mediation, and was eventually blocked to 24 hours, per a report at PAIN; shortly after that, socks began joining the dispute, and eventually User:Irgendwer was indefinitely blocked. I regret that the situation went that far, but I also believe the user was being disruptive. I tried my best to assume good faith and work things out.

More recently, the userbox I'd created for WikiProject Stub Removal was deleted by User:Cyde; after a note to his talk page was left unanswered (he continued editing), I posted to DRV and left another note. The discussion at DRV nearly unanimously supported overturning the speedy deletion, and it was overturned by User:AmiDaniel, and then redeleted by Cyde (still without comment at the time). I unfortunately left a bit of a fiery note at Cyde's talk page, at which point I discovered that he'd (also unfortunately) managed to miss all of my prior messages. We apologized to each other, and continued going about our business. See his talk page here, and the DRV discussion here. My biggest regret is that I wasn't more civil towards Cyde, and I've learned from that.

Beyond that, I occasionally get into "disputes" helping new users -- often "vandals" are simply new users experimenting or trying to figure things out. When reasonable people are willing to talk things over, a solution can usually be reached, and I'm glad to say I've experienced that on more than a few occassions, while patrolling recent changes.

Question from  Netsnipe  ►  13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

4. I've noticed that in the three months of vandal fighting since you've been here that you haven't really come across any substantial abusers in the form of persistent sock-puppeteers or long term abuse cases and your involvement on the Administrators' noticeboards so far has been small. Can you provide any examples where you think you've been challenged? Do you think you are ready or experienced enough to deal with the darker side of Wikipedia should you be pushed to the breaking point one day?

Hmm, a fair question. I have dealt with some sockpuppets, mainly at the Libertarianism dispute, in a few AfDs, and with some vandals. I'm a healthy enough person that I can take a step back and breathe, when the situation calls for it. In one example, a clever vandal was reporting the currently active RC patrollers to AIV; as a matter of principle, I refused to remove myself from the listing, instead trusting that the responding admin would check contribs and act appropriately. A minute or two later, I was {{indefblocked-vandal}} (see block log). I got up and away from my computer for a minute or two, composed myself, and came back to compose an unblock request, including diffs, contribs links, and evidence -- I had already formed a plan I knew would work. Before I could compose the full request, however, the blocking admin realized their mistake and unblocked me. I left them what I hope was a nice note, and a reply later that was pretty much the end of it. Likewise, I have familiarity dealing with some of the persistent vandals we face here; no need to name names, I think, especially since I've become a believer in WP:DENY.

Now, I think I can display my approach to solving tough problems with my efforts at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 alumni link (or some of my user talk messages involved in the same case, between new users, experienced users, and sysops). Some problems, ideally most problems, can be solved through discussion. Some can't, and I'm prepared to accept that, as well. I'm a patient person; I need not "have my way" right away, as I'd say is demonstrated by my refusal to propogate a revert war during the dispute at Libertarianism.

It's true that I don't have a lot of edits at AN or AN/I. In part this is to avoid cluttering up those already-busy boards. When I do contribute, I believe I do so with value -- take this as an example. A project I'm involved with was listed at AN, ANI, MFD, and WT:AFD, there were veiled threats of banning and mass reverts, and I was calm (at least, I think).

I've been opped at a few forums and chat channels, before, so the experience would hardly be entirely new. In general, with my life experience as a whole, I can tell you upfront that I have a strong tolerance for inconvenience, problems, and stress -- I'm very good at calming myself down. In particular, I was once in charge of nearly 60 teenage boys, aged from 11 to 18, for a week. I've been a lifeguard in charge of critical, split-second decisions, in charge of keeping people alive. I've worked as staff at a leadership training camp, again in charge of large numbers of people, in charge of resolving sometimes violent disputes, sometimes involving people with knives. I'm pretty sure I can handle the interweb. :)

Question from Andeh

5. Could you point me to some of your AfD nominations and any AfD discussions you've been involved in, created AfDs should still be on your watchlist. Thanks.

A: To be honest, most of my deletion nominations in the past month or so have been successful speedies and prods, which unfortunately makes them tricky to link to. Demonstrative AfD discussions would include Bricemanning, Erik Widman, Chris DeJoseph, Man-Faye (2nd nom), Chiricheppu, Islamophobia (3rd nom), OMHPC, January Malkus, List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nom), and nominations include Blend corp, Blades of Aason, and Branden Rooney. I also fix broken noms from time to time. While not technically on AfD, I sometimes leave new users notes like this. I can't find the diff(s), at the moment, but User:JoanneB and I once talked a pageblanking new user through the prod/AfD process, effectively reforming their behavior.

I've also participated quite a bit at CfD. My first nomination there, Omega models, eventually involved tagging somewhere around 100 categories (fun!). Other demonstrative discussions would, I think, include People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad, Vespa scooter riders, and especially Wikipedians by organization and similar discussions.

(Also, that seemed to be question five, rather than six, unless I missed one somewhere?)

Comments

• See Luna Santin's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count on talk page Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Final tally: (97/4/4)

Support

1. Beat-the-nominator-support - Very good editor, great vandal fighting and such. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - glad to be one of the first here. MER-C 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support keep up the level of contribution. We need more dedicated users (and admins for that matter) such as you. Good luck! --Alex ^{(talk here)} 12:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - _{J Di}^talk 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - civil, helpful, knowledgeable -- Lost^(talk) 12:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per answer to question 1. --james^(talk) 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per nom, good answers to questions, and user's record of contributions in a number of areas. Newyorkbrad 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Helps new users; reports and reverts vandalism; lots of descriptive edit summaries; many additions to user Talk pages; nice user page. Let this editor help with the mop and bucket. (aeropagitica) 13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong support - Strongly recommend this user. Has been very helpful helping new users, knows the admin rules inside out and not at all trigger-happy, will make a fine admin. - Tangotango 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Concerned about the short time on wiki, but his contribution record, answers to questions, review of the Talk Libertarianism archive, and general approach suggest nothing to be concerned about. A "no big deal" support. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support Look at the accolades he's earned, friends he's made "in 3 months." Rama's arrow 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. Opposers too picky. User is solid and excellent thus far, and I see no evidence why this will change. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Support - trust me guys, fantastic editor with a fantastic attitude that will do us all proud with the tools - Glen 14:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support on wheels!! Solid user, very helpful.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support, great guy. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support due to anwser to question #1 - AIV backlog can get long and unblock is an important part of the vandal-fighting process ST47 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Just met him last night, and was quite impressed after a readthrough of the answers and a lookthrough of the contribs. We need more like this. Antandrus (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Yup. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. -- Steel 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support: Trusted by others to moderate WikiDiscussion Manager and has enough experience on AFD/CSD to make up for his lack of experience on adminstrators' noticeboards apart other than WP:AIV. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Merovingian - Talk 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Looks like an excellent user, though 3 months is a little short compared to most prospective admins. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 18:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Moderate Support - I've come across him and found him concerned and helpful. Possibly inexperienced tho. Nigel ^(Talk) 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Experienced vandal fighter amongst other things, three months is long enough in my opinion. Very strong answers to questions. — FireFox ^(talk) _{19:13, 03 September 2006}
25. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support I like the candidate's willingness to watch WP:AIV, as it can never have enough eyes. Helping out with some of the backlogs is great, also, as is his willingness to answer unblock requests; it's very important that these be answered in a timely fashion hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Support— The issue should not be how long one has contributed or what specifically has been contributed, but rather whether the editor shows the skills, intellectual scope and predisposition to thoughtfully and successfully handle the admin tools combined with enough Wiki-mileage to understand the pitfalls. The best indicator of future performance is past performance—I’m comfortable that Luna Santin can be trusted to delete, undelete, block, & unblock without abusing these powers—anyone who can survive the Libertarianism discussions without a lingering taint of partisanship and & still wants to be an administrator gets my support. Williamborg (Bill) 20:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. A safe pair of hands. Mike Christie (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Support 3 months is quite less, but I have seen that this user is phenomenally active in wiki from my experiences. We need this user to be an admin. --Ageo020 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. G.He 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per above and personal interaction. AuburnPilot 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support I have seen this user around, I'm certain that he can be trusted with admin tools.--Konstable 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Vandal fighter needs tools abakharev 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. I see a lot of long-time admins on WP:ANI that I have somehow never managed to run into before, and I wondered upon meeting this user if he was another one. ;-) 'Nuff said. Grandmasterka 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Seen this user around, consistently impressed. Support. »ctails!« =hello?= 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. I've seen nothing but good things from this guy. We always need more admins, so I'm pleased to support. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Can't be too harsh upon time, some of the best admins we have were adminned in about the same time. This user did have me convinced at moments that they were an admin. I see nothing here that will show a complete or any kind of abuse with the tools. Yanksox 04:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Michael 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong support will make a fabulous administrator -- Samir धर्म 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support I have only the utmost respect for the candidate. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support - Seen this user around, everything looks good to me. --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support I see no major concerns here. A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Experienced in a number of areas. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Good vandal fighter and a level headed editor. We need more of those as admins. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. DarthVader 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support per answer to Q1. --Nishkid64 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Support - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Nominator support added by Aksi great - Nearly Headless Nick
52. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
53. Opposition is spurious.--SB | T 18:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
54. Support Luna Santin looks like a solid, dedicated editor. We need more good admins. I don't see any issues here. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
55. Support --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
56. Support~Luna was one of the first Wikipedians I interacted with when I became a "real" editor, and I was overwhelmed by his kindness in helping a newbie like myself. Throughout my short time here I've only seen more of the spirit of willing helpfulness. I think he'd make a great admin. —Keakealani •talk•contribs• 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Good vandal fighter Bugtrio 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. Excellent countervandal and a fine all-around contributor. Heimstern Läufer 22:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. Although short time on Wikipedia, looks dedicated to the project. - Darwinek 23:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Very impressed by answers. - Mike 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
61. Support Very dedicated to the project Hello32020 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
62. Support - a little AWB issue w/ subst has nothing to do w/ adminship -- Tawker 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
63. Support A terrific editor who will mop wisely. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
64. Support - great vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 07:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
65. Big support -- Szvest 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
66. Support: We certainly require more new administrators who are honest and unbiased to run the show without bringing into elements of subjectivity to their approach. --Bhadani 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
67. That's hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
68. There is No Mediation Cabal Support. CQJ 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
69. Support. RFerreira 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
70. Support I've seen this user's work and been impressed. Will make good use of the mop. Gwernol 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC).
72. Support 7500+ edits in 3 months? That's twice as many as I've made in 5 months. Experience is not measured solely by calendar time. Also, considering the well-thought through answers, I'm ready to support. --Richard 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, very active and alert at recent changes monitoring - I'm very disappointed that I didn't notice this RFA until it was 70+ votes in. Kuru ^talk 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
74. Support Great editor to be around, would make superb admin. --CableModem 06:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
75. Support, I see no problems. Since when is 3 months considered not enough time? What happened to everyone having a minimum of 3 months, with barely anyone having minimums over that and a few having minimums of less? --Rory096 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
76. Strong Support - I have known Luna San (-tin omitted on IRC, where I first met the candidate, and it stuck) for a while now and have seen some excellent work in CVU, but also an excellent ability to converse with other members. The candidate doesn't strike me as someone to abuse the mop, and we need more good RC patrollers with sysop to handle blocks more effectively. I've seen AIV backlogs caused by none other than the candidate :) Good luck, Luna, not that you'll need it. --Draicone ^(talk) 10:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
77. Support. I can see how the oppose voters might be worried about the time he's been around, but I was nominated after a similar time frame myself and I do think in some cases it can be quite enough, both for the community to assess a candidate and for the candidate to gain the necessary skills and knowledge. I hope but also expect that Luna realises that a lot of learning is done 'on the job' but I expect that he'll do well. --JoanneB 11:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
78. Strong support - I've seen only good from this user. Metamagician3000 14:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
79. Support Good vandal whacker, good answers to the questions. 3 months is enough for me, especially since this user has show he has a fair understanding of policy. All admins learn while on the job, and I trust that this user will be a quick learner. There are two questions I have asked myself: Do I trust this user with the mop, and do I believe this user will benefit the encyclopedia with the mop? I answered yes to both. KOS | talk 19:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
80. Support Luna already watches and responds to admin notices, such as RFU. Though he can't do anything about it, he rationally explains blocks or expresses opposition while making it clear he's not an admin and does a bang-up job of it. I also know him from #wikipedia-bootcamp, where he has shown sufficient policy knowledge to weild the mop well. Teke ^(talk) 01:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
81. Support per above _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
82. Strong support – but it's all been said already :) — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
83. Support per above. Very helpful user, great deal of impact on the community despite not being here that long. Three months isn't a reason not to support if he's shown that he's qualified. Of course, it doesn't seem to matter at this point, but I might as well say that. :P --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
84. Support-- has done work with WDM. Luna is a careful person, I feel that there is 0% chance of any type of abuse. As "adminship is no big deal", and I can't find any reason that would cause me to oppose other then short time with the project. 3 months to me is plenty of time, especially since Luna-San has shown his use in backlogs and in general knowledge of policy. One fine canidate! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
85. Support: good vandal-fighter, and on the flipside great at helping people out. Moppify this guy! -AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
86. Support, will make a good admin --- Deville (Talk) 03:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
87. Late support – Level-headed nice guy and great counter-vandal. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
88. Full Support Excelent User. Works on many many asspects of the Wiki. Hand her the mop Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
89. Support, Per all Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
90. Late "Was counting on camping for #100" Support — Werdna talk criticism 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
91. 9 more til' WP:100 Support, great user, very civil and helpful--TBCTaLk?!? 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
92. Support Fits almost all admin criteria like a glove. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
93. Support per all the reasons listed above :D DemosDemon 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
94. Support. I initially wanted to doublecheck on the mediation things the nominator mentioned, but I couldn't contact him, but now I saw Luna have some real nice interactions with newbies. Great user. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
95. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
96. Support. Very good mediator. enochlau (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
97. Support. Friendly user, helpful user. Good edit count, good sysop material. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose; misuse of AWB, only been here 3 months.--Andeh 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborate a little bit about the misuse of AWB? --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See [25] and [26]

Moving to neutral as we need more admins to deal with unblocks and be at AIV. A considerable amount of WP edits are either reverts, substing templates or at cats for deletion, not a huge amount at AfD.--Andeh 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - only three months with the project, and a lack of experience with images --T-rex 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Good editor, but limited time with the project. Espresso Addict 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Good contributor, but still very new. Should wait a bit longer and gain more experience before applying for adminship. Singopo 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose. 3 months look too short.--Jusjih 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. – Chacor 12:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   Is there a reason for this? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   User has been quick to admit and learn from past mistakes, and I like that, but that's (the past mistakes) turned me off supporting. Take this as a neutral leaning weak support; I see no reason strong enough to oppose. – Chacor 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral Very good editor, but I would prefer a few more months of experience as a registered user.-- danntm ^T _C 16:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, per the reasons under my previous oppose vote above.--Andeh 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, my minimum is 6 months. Looks like a great user, and will surely pass irregardless. Themindset 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

SaxTeacher

Final (8/23/12) ended 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SaxTeacher (talk · contribs)

I have been editing Wikipedia for about a year and during that time have started a number of articles, and added to / improved several others. For a list, please see my user page. I would appreciate being considered for adminship.

I should mention that when I first began to contribute to Wikipedia, I created my username as Mdickinson. After a few weeks of exploring Wikipedia and making an increasing number of edits, I realized that I would probably be a lifelong user, and decided it would be prudent to change to a username that did not include my last name. At that point I created the user name SaxTeacher and have done all my editing since that time as SaxTeacher. (I am aware it's possible to have one's username changed by a Bureaucrat, but at the time, the advice given on the Changing username page was to simply create a new name, so I followed that advice.) I mention my previous user name only because someone who wants to see my very earliest efforts, or to come up with a valid edit count, would need to look under Mdickinson. Thank you, SaxTeacher (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nominated 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I have done a bit of vandalism reversion and would like to do more of this. I have also done some disambiguation page link repair (You can help!), and have created several disambig pages when they were clearly needed (for instance, Paul Cohen and Lee Patrick). I look forward to doing more of this type of work.

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

A: I would have to point to Sigurd Raschèr and Fenno Heath as two good examples of my work. In one case I found no article on an accomplished musician, and in another I found a stub. I created/expanded each article myself based on my own research. In the case of the Raschèr article, I realized the need for a separate entry for Raschèr Saxophone Quartet. I have done a lot of editing of Saxophone and Carillon as well. For some musicians, e.g. Larry Combs, Walter Hartley, and James Di Pasquale, I have contacted the subject of the article directly, to ask for biographical information and to obtain their permission to reprint copyrighted information.

As a professional proofreader and editor of business presentations, I find that just about any time I am reading a Wikipedia article, regardless of topic, I am able to find and correct several grammatical and punctuation errors.

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

A: I have addressed other editors once or twice when I felt their contributions were hasty or were not in the best interest of the article. The articles I have created/edited have not been particularly controversial topics, so this has not been much of an issue so far. But I think the nature of my contributions thus far and my age and experience would give me the background and maturity necessary to deal firmly/fairly with conflicts that may come up.

Comments

• See SaxTeacher's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit counts are on the talk page. --ais523 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Final: (8/23/11)

Support

1. In my observation, in saxophone-related articles SaxTeacher has always edited with great care and seriousness. Badagnani 18:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Moral support based on candidate's good work so far as an editor. However, I urge withdrawal for now and reapplication later after the candidate has greater experience in other areas per the oppose and neutral suggestions below. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Newyorkbrad. It might not be successful now, but try again a few months later and do some more editing, and your nomination will get better results. Mostly Rainy 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, a great user.--Andeh 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Moral Support, don't let this RfA discourage you. You're a good user, but people are generally opposing based on a lack of experience - which is the easiest thing in the world to fix, if you persevere. Keep with it, making at least a few edits every day if you have the time, and you'll be in a strong position to start a new request in 3-4 months' time. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 01:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, great wikipedian A++++++++++++++. Arce 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Weak Support per the edits situation. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Moral Support Good on you for seeing the RfA through! You seem to be quite a good Wikipedian to have contributing to the project and I suspect that with a bit more experience, you'll sail through your next request for adminship. On a related note, you might want to sign up for admin coaching, which is a program run by Esperanza that pairs experienced administrators with users who plan on becoming administrators in the future. This will allow you to become experienced in some of the administrative areas (closing *fD's, for example) with some help from your coaches. Good luck! (You should also feel free to contact me with any questions and I'll be sure to answer them or point you in the right direction in a timely manner) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Fewer than 1000 edits and large gaps between edit dates. Michael 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose sorry, you're a very good editor and have made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia. But you've got fewer than 700 edits across both usernames which is just isn't enough for me to form an accurate picture of you. You're edits are very sparse as well: you've only edited on 30 days this year, some of which have only one edit. Your answers to the standard questions aren't compelling either: your answer to Q1 doesn't mention any tasks that require the admin tools, for example. You've had very few interactions with other editors, which is a vital part of being an admin, so its hard to judge how you'd handle the tough situations admins sometimes face. I applaud your contributions, but don't think you're ready for the admin bit quite yet. Good luck, Gwernol 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose Far too few edits:

   less than 50 Wikipedia space edits

   less than 50 User Talk edits

   less than 500 Article space edits

   Aside from being able to edit and improve articles, admins and prospective admins should also be contributing to the Wiki space and talking to users, whether it be giving advice about editing or researching or warning vandals. I suggest an editor review in order to see in which areas the community thinks that you need to improve then work in these for three or four months before reapplying. Talking to people is key to being an admin!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose Lack of edits is a major concern here. However, your stay of about one year here is noted. Try again after three months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Less than 1000 edits, not enough talk edits. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You currently have less than 800 edits - successful admin candidates usually have at least 2000 edits, with a least a couple of hundred in the Wikipedia space demonstrating policy knowledge, and at least a few hundred talk edits showing community interaction. Also, although you've been here almost a year (which is longer than many admin candidates), there have been some large gaps of time in which you didn't edit. Admins are exepcted to check in pretty much daily with only occassional wikibreaks, so you're unlikely to succeed as an admin candidate until your record shows a long period of consisent editing. Good luck if you decide to apply again in future. Zaxem 00:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, not enough edits, come back with a higher edit count, then I'll vote for you. -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, lacks edits and experience. Come back in three months. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Discounting edits related to filing this RfA, Wikipedia:Changing username-related edits, and Wikipedia:Help desk questions, this user's only WP:space edits are to WP:RFI (and then, only one situation was reported; I've checked the contribs of both the old and the new usernames). The candidate is unfortunately relatively inexperienced and thus would be too likely to inadvertently make errors in using the admin tools. Try withdrawing and getting a better idea of what project-space is like over the next few months. --ais523 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose I am sorry; this user has not had enough experience or enough favourable edits to become an administrator quite yet. -- Casmith 789 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Too few edits : try again in a few months after racking up a few more edits and you've got my vote Anthony 16:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (Talk to Me)
12. Oppose Too few edits, I'm afraid. read up on policy, get some more edits under your belt, and come back in six months or so - I'll be all for it then. HawkerTyphoon 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose very low edit count. The year experience is good, but need more edits. Sorry --Alex ^{(talk here)} 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose extremely low edit count; many self userspace edits; less than 500 edits in the article space. Ryūlóng 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong Oppose, only 618 edits at nomination? Doesn't make me think you have the necessary experience to deal with adminship.. Perhaps in a few months eh? :) --Deon555^talk_Review 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose per above... Few edits.. Seems to not be participating in discussions a lot... Sorry :( --Deenoe 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Very few edits, and the chores you have expressed interest to do once promoted, do not require sysOp privillages.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose due to apparant inexperience in policy. Give it some time and keep contributing! ST47 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose Lack of experience Orange Kangaroo 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User's third edit. Naconkantari 01:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose, inexperience. Come back six months later and I'll support. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose User has done many great things to help Wikipedia ,but I don't think he's had enough experience at the moment.Once he get's to 2,000 he should be ready.SOADLuver 21:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Great user, but should read through WP:RFA/ST to get an idea of the number of edits most users regard as basic to becoming an admin. Themindset 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong Oppose MORE EDITS! Wikipediarul|es2221^Holla 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, less than 10 Wikipedia-space edits before this RfA which means that it's very unlikely that you are sufficiently versed in the policies and other workings that are often needed from an admin. I won't oppose since this will most likely end up as a pile-on for a good editor, but I'd suggest you withdraw and get yourself better acquainted with the wikipedia namespace if you're still interested in adminship in the future. - Bobet 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per Bobet and wishing to avoid a snowball effect. You are a good editor, though; keep up the good contributions. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Firsfron, you are a good editor and should keep up the good work. However, at this time, you should probably withdraw this your nomination and focus instead on getting to know Wikipedia and the people on Wikipedia. Best of Luck. -- danntm ^T _C 16:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Keep working hard, participate in WP:CfD's, etc. Also, watch other's RfA's for points to focus on to get the "mop" one of these days. Thanks for all your hard work. Hang in there - JungleCat talk/contrib 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral per Bobet _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I became an admin because I wanted the ability to more effectively fight vandalism, so I appreciate the desire here. Being able to speedy-delete appropriate articles and images is helpful without the need to tag those which can be deleted immediately. It saves other admins work, and you can *never* have too many admins doing vandalism patrol. Still, I agree with the consensus that a little more time is needed, and at this point neither a support or oppose vote would change the result anyway. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Merovingian - Talk 07:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral – few more months and I'll be happy to support. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral per Bobet Hello32020 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral— Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it. Saw nothing wrong with your edits or comments; but would like more data to work with. More mileage on the tires will make me a supporter. Williamborg (Bill) 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Additional comment - Your “edit summary” usage is 42% for major edits and 18% for minor edits. This doesn't disqualify you, but it is generally an indicator of inexperience. You’ll find that the edit summaries are useful when you’re reviewing an RfA candidate, so it is in the applicant's best interest to provide them. Come back as soon as you’ve got some more experience. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that you can go to Preferences and click the box for the setting that will automatically prompt for a summary whenever you are about to post an edit without a summary. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

11. Neutral - Per slightly low number of edits. Iolakana•T 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral - I don't want to oppose someone who is evidently a good editor. Please get some experience in areas away from the main space such as AfDs, so we can get a better sense of you and you can get a better sense of the kinds of debates an admin has to get involved in. Also, do some more intense editing from day to day so, again, we all have a better sense of your approach. If you do that and come back around the end of the year, you're likely to succeed in a second RfA. Metamagician3000 08:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

About RfB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

---

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

Ram-Man

Final (65/12/2) Ended 19:16, 2006-09-07 (UTC)

Ram-Man (also: RM, rambot, and commons:User:Ram-Man)

Self-nominated. No acceptance required. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 19:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction: For those who are not aware, I've been around since September of 2002. I ran/run the infamous rambot (see the FAQ) which was responsible for adding (and currently maintaining) approximate 37,000 articles on Wikipedia on U.S. cities and counties. I've been heavily involved on Wikipedia off and on since that time.

As a User I have one of the largest edit counts on all of the Wikipedias, partially due to the rambot. It's hard to estimate the total, but it's a lot. I'm interested in all sorts of things and have worked on a number of areas: geographic articles (U.S. cities and states), botanical articles (plants and fish mostly), and lately Lancaster County covered bridges. I'm also heavily active on the commons uploading almost 300 photographs (See Photographs by Derek Ramsey) as well as image categorization.

As an Administrator I'm generally a very conservative administrator. While I've done a share of vandal blocking, deleting pages, etc, I tend to do it on a fairly limited basis, often for managing my own pages so I don't have to bother other administrators. I'm sure my record will speak for itself, so I won't say any more about that here. I don't get involved in many disputes involving administrators, so I don't think I have a tarnished record at all on that front.

As a Bureaucrat There is always talk about having too many bureaucrats, so let me start by answering the "Why should I be one?" question. First of all, unlike many other requests, my main request is to facilitate bot management. I don't think this is a conflict of interest, since this wouldn't affect my treatment of the rambot. My desire is to be on the approval group that manages bots and to add bot flags when the approval process is completed, to speed things up. Currently this does occur to a reasonable degree, but my experience with bots should help increase the speed of the entire process. As part of being a bureaucrat, I'd be more than willing to help out with the other parts of being one, just so long as it is understood what my main focus is for being one. If this is not sufficient reason for most people, I'll withdraw my request. Consider the recent problem at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Trial Period. While not technically the job of bureaucrat to approve bots, the whole thing could be done in one streamlined step rather than waiting hours or days until someone notices. Now since someone is bound to bring it up, I have no problem spending extra time on WP:RFA than I do now so I can participate in that task. However, I tend to agree that a Bureaucrat should remain impartial. If that means not voting because I might be involved in the promotion, then so be it. I desire what is best for the community, and hopefully most everything about my time here on Wikipedia should show that.

Details: There is a lot on the history of the rambot, but when it was first created, there was no bot flag and the bot filled up the recent changes. This caused immediate controversy. We worked around it (by going slow) until a technical solution was implemented some time later. The second (of many) controversies was over the fact that when I started adding articles there were a total of ~60,000 articles. I added 37,000, so the "Random Page" feature usually went to a mechanically generated page. It became a useless feature for most persons. Next, many persons thought the rambot articles shouldn't exist. However, to my knowledge, none have ever been deleted, but many have blossomed into great articles. There were many issues including lack of notability of small cities, the format of the articles, naming conventions, and discussions over using the various racial links. Despite many objections among many individuals, I helped work on numerous compromises until consensus was reached. In order to maintain good faith, I also wrote the Wikipedia:Bots policy article, which later became offical policy. This is part of the reason for being a bureaucrat dedicated to enabling bots.

I've also been involved in some other controversy on which I was on the wrong side of. I've taken a rule in licensing issues, pushing the multi-licensing campaign from meta to the english Wikipedia. It was for the most part a very successful campaign, although at times even Jimbo was afraid of my intentions (which were later clarified and resolved, especially when we met at a NYC meetup). However, one problem with the whole thing dealt with spam. I had posted large numbers of licensing requests to hundreds of talk pages. At the time, such a use was a grey area, but the bot was temporarily banned during the ensueing controversy. Although the blocking was questionable, I preferred to discuss it rather than demand it get unblocked. As a result, I got involved heavily in the formation of guideline Wikipedia:Spam. While not official, it's important to note the guideline of "Don't use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away)." that got generated at that time. I became to realize the error of the method of doing what I did and never did it again. If I ever theoretically wanted to do it again, I'd seek solid permission first.

I've highlighted the controversies to show my behavior during the tough times. During other times I've been very productive, and my edits should speak for themselves. I'd be happy to answer any other questions.

Edit: I've also recently led one side of the controversy at Planet and talk:Planet over the demotion of Pluto. Despite many heated moments, a suitable compromise was reached after a few days of discussion.

Edit: It's become increasingly clear that as an admin, I don't use those powers very often. While I've always considered that to be self restraint, I don't think that impresses many of those visiting. In fact, it is probably so infrequent that I don't think I'll get much support here. It is apparently not sufficient to merely not abuse one's powers and to only use it in the course of one's normal editing when the powers are merited. I've always felt that I'd rather help be the solution than cause problems by making requests when they were needed (such as blocks or deletions). This was the reason for this request, because I wanted to fill what I thought was a gap to help make things more efficient. When I became an admin, I did a lot of vandalism patrol and I blocked a number of vandals (not sure where the logs of those are, since they are not in the current log. The same can be said about the "move" log, I know I've done more than that!). I was always frustrated with having to request an admin to intervene every time a block became necessary. Being an admin fixed that. I also thought I deleted more articles, but apparently not (only 12!). I understand the desire for a bureaucrat to have lots and lots of admin experience to prove to the community that he is suited for being a bureaucrat. I was under the misunderstanding that my other types of edits and especially my conduct as a normal user would be my strength instead. I was apparently mistaken. At this point, I think I'll just wait a little to withdraw my request until I can get a little more constructive criticism. That can't hurt. I will add this: the work I do is very time consuming. Running a bot, for instance, takes a lot of work. I'm still not done with the 29 articles on covered bridges I was working on. I don't have the time to dedicate to, say, vandalism patrol, while getting anything else done. So I try to take areas that I do work on and overlap responsibility. My admin actions demonstrate that. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I'm getting a bit of support now, so we'll see what happens. Oh, and just for kicks yesterday I did some administrative backlog work and deleted ~700 speedy-delete-ready images. So now I have a deletion history longer than "12" :) — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Ram-Man's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool (Also for rambot and RM)
• List of Wikipedians by number of edits (Not valid for User:RM since this account has only been heavily used recently)

---

Current tally: (65/12/2)

Support

1. Support, looks like a sensible choice based on honest nomination. —Xyrael / 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Michael 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong support. Ram-Man is sensible, as his self-nom shows. The request is a sensible one: provide the user with the tools so he can streamline Bot-creation process. If he's willing help out with AFDs RFAs, more power to him: extra hands can always be used. This user's thousands of contributions to WP (he is far too modest: he is listed as the 12th highest editor to Wikipedia and RamBot is listed even higher) show strong dedication; a leave of absense is no bar to becoming a 'crat, nor should it be. User appears to have no civility issues, and by far surpasses my minimum requirements for number of edits and friendliness. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

   Er, you don't have to be a b'crat to close AfDs... did you mean RfAs? --W.marsh 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   Heh. Sorry. Yes. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   About edit count: Many of the Ram-Man edit counts are actually from before the rambot account was created, so they represent bot entries. Of course before I used a bot I was doing the exact same thing manually. I had a text file with hundreds of entries, and I was cut and pasting into articles. I did that for *every* U.S. county article that didn't already exist. That's over 3,000 articles. The remaining 37,000 city articles were automated. The reason the edit count page lists bots separately is because people wanted to rank human edits against human edits. Not really possible with my account. But I've estimated that in total I've probably done at least somewhere around 8,000 - 10,000 edits, but that's just a guess on my part. Of course I've never believed it was the edit count that mattered. It was things like participating in discussions, policy formation, good article writing, etc. — Ram-Man

   ^{(comment) (talk)} 03:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Support per above. :) Dlohcierekim 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   I have no concerns over lack of RfA experience. Will be dealing w/ bots, not RfA. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Support. i'm not sure why it is a problem to have a b'crat who is going to dedicate himself to one area of the b'cracy. How would that be harmful to the encyclopedia? --heah 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - a long time user with a very specific goals as an burecrat. Also lack of recent involvment in RFA is not the same thing as ignorrence, and his nomination says he plans on helping to approve bots instead anyhow... --T-rex 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. I'll go ahead and support, with the understanding that his primary competency will be bot management. I don't agree with the view that administrators, bureaucrats, or checkusers for that matter need to be involved in all aspects of their positions. The cardinal example is Lord Emsworth who, to my knowledge, never blocked anybody or deleted anything. His adminship was awarded in recognition of his brilliant accomplishments as an article writer and policy-maker. I wonder if he'd be opposed these days because he didn't use VandalProof or some other vandal-fighting gimmick. If there's a need for more help at bot approval then we've someone with the necessary experience offering to help. That seems fine to me. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   Support Wants to help with bots. He has the experience. I see no problems here. Furthermore, insisting that all the crats meet some sort of magic involved in RfAs standard is a bit odd since he doesn't want to use the crat tool to work on RfAs anyways. JoshuaZ 14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Moving to neutral. JoshuaZ 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

8. Tony Sidaway 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Trustworthy and dedicated. Good rationale for bureaucratship (which most of the opposers seem to have ignored).

   No, I didn't ignore that at all, I suspect that actually you have ignored the fact that he has almost no recent experience with the WP:BOTS page, surely that is critical to the rationale of wanting to help out there. Martin 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   Um, he wrote the WP:BOTS page... that has to count for something --T-rex 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   Not really no, that was a long time ago. But regardless, I should have really said Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, the is the actual page in question, which I believe he has edited a single time. Martin 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   See some of my comments below. There really hasn't been any recent policy discussion at Bots, because it is a pretty good policy! It isn't the policy that needs work, it is the approval process. (Although I made some changes to the policy today). There *was* a recent reorganization of the approval process, but again this was done by someone on the approval group. My hands are really tied in this, as I am not on the approval group. All I can do is make a few comments here and there. If I pass this vote, I'll have enough consensus to appoint myself to the approval group (so far no one has objected!). It's frustrating because I'd LIKE to do more, but I don't want to do things that may be taken to be in bad faith (such as unilaterally appointing myself without ANY discussion) — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   You don't have to be a b-crat to be on the bot approval group, I don't think anyone would oppose you being on it, I'm not sure if there are any particular criteria, though I guess being an admin and having experience making bot software is desirable, which suits you of course. The inital people in the group were just the ones most busy do bot-stuff at the time. Martin 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   I understand the informality of the whole thing, and if I started approving bots and taking an active role, there is a good chance no one would complain or even notice (the latter being part of the problem!). But I'd rather establish explicit consensus, rather than implicit. I don't want to look bad or cause trouble, you have to understand. Obviously the bureaucrat request is not necessary for that task, but is supplemental, and in my opinion quite helpful. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

9. Support - more bot approval people are really needed. This user seems very trustworthy, and after 4 years and all those edits, if he doesn't understand much policy I don't know who would. —Mets501 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support I like the cut of his jib. Arce 16:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support He has been honest and demonstrated his need for the tools. Absolute numbers of bureaucrats don't matter to me. This used is showing that he/she has a niche which can be nicely filled by promotion! InvictaHOG 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. You can never have too many b'crats. Has anyone ever complained because there are too many checkers at the grocery store? Good candidate, deserves the position. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. I waited over 9 hours for my RfA to be officially closed by a crat. We can't have too many, and Ram-Man seems like an excellent choice. It goes without saying that we need more crats monitoring the bot situation. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support (switched from Neutral) per Mackensen, Mets501, AlphaChimp, et al. Newyorkbrad 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support (switched from oppose). The reason for my change of heart is this. This user is a great Wikipedian and his hard toil deserves some recognition. And I am of the opinion that you cannot have too many bureaucrats who were excellent admins. Morover, he will be dealing with bots, not RfAs. A trustworthy and dedicated user. The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project. I am also urging this user not to withdraw this nomination yet. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per above _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support I try never to reason my opinion through another user, but RyanGerbil10 hit it right on the money hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Sure, why not? --Kbdank71 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, per the thread below. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - looks trustworthy. Bureaucratship for one task. I like it. Good luck! —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
21. Support, per Celestianpower and many others above.-gadfium 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
22. Automatically generated Support per the above and candidate's solid policy contributions and dedicated record. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Seems very dedicated and humble. -- Samir धर्म 08:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Though I am tempted to oppose anyone who calls RF(A|B) a "vote" on principle... Great Wikipedian. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per his responses and all above -- Lost^(talk) 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Rambot was a ground-breaking piece of work and Ram-man took on board other editors reservations on it. Dlyons493 Talk 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
27. Trustworthy. Maurreen 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Support I endorse his rationale for seeking the extra buttons. His work on bots is and will be valuable. Rama's arrow 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
29. No downsides. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Good rationale in his nom; clear reason for giving him the bit; and no reason that I can see to worry about misuse or mistakes. His lack of recent experience with the bot approval process doesn't worry me; someone who wrote the original policy, as I gather he did, and who has as much experience as Ram-Man at running a bot, is sufficiently qualified. Finally, I can see no problem with a bureaucrat who specializes in one area. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
31. Solidly trustworthy. — Dan | talk 02:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
32. Support good nomination with clear reasons for his interest in the position. Obviously has the skills and knowledge to work in the areas he wants to work in, and specialization is good. I'm not actually too big a fan of the Rambot concept, but that's no criticism of its owner. Opabinia regalis 05:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
33. Support We need more bureaucrats.  Jorcoga  08:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
35. support. »ctails!« =hello?= 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. An inactive bureaucrat will not harm Wikipedia, but managing bots will help it. --Gray Porpoise 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Sane long-time user, knows what should be done for bot approval. [ælfəks] 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
38. Support I guess, longtime user Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
39. Support per candidate statement and comments. feydey 11:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
40. Weak support per above. Weak because of the lack of recent participation in RfA and consensus activities, but I'm sure that the user will make good decisions on consensus regardless. Good candidate! DarthVader 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. ^BlankVerse 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
43. Support per Hoopydink. Yanksox 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Sensible nomination. Speeding up the bot process can only be good for the project. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Support We certainly could use a b'crat experienced in bots to manage the bot flags. As long as Ram-Man is careful around consensus discussions, I don't see a problem.-- danntm ^T _C 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
46. Support seems to have a grasp on what percentage is needed to promote to adminship, unlike most of our current bureaucrats.  Grue  15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
48. Support I liked the response to optional Q7 below. Very honest, detailed answer. I feel he would be a good b’crat if he keeps this positive attitude, enthusiasm, and integrity. So, here is my trust. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Thumbelina 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
50. Very solid contributor, good reasons for wanting to be a 'crat, no reason to oppose. Support ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
51. Support - Well-reasoned and honest self-nom statement and excellent contributions suggest only one possible vote. FCYTravis 18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. You argue cogently and clearly for the need, and your expertise, for another bureaucrat. You will not abuse the position. So how could I do anything other than support? Batmanand | Talk 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. Ram-man's long history of participation in the project and understanding of the things that make us successful and unique are almost without peer. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
54. Support cannot find a reason why not. —Jared Hunt September 5, 2006, 21:09 (UTC)
55. Support trust user. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
56. Support I don't think there is any downside to giving bureaucratship to this user, however there could be some upsides. This user signed up to Wikipedia 4 years ago and has seen its progress and how the progress came to be. I don't know why I wouldn't support. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
57. Support older ≠ wiser 17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
58. Support --Ixfd64 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
59. Support by what Nobleeagle, RyanGerbil and others have said. His experience is both needed now and will be needed with the continued growth of Wikipedia and the use of bots. I'd also trust him with RfAs; he doesn't seem too interested in Renames but Redux has been handling that well. I'll go for another 'crat. Teke ^(talk) 01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
60. Support - It's great that Ram-Man wants to help out with the bots, especially since he knows what it's about — he's been there, and done that. I see no reason why we shouldn't let him; this would be like allowing Albert Einstein to teach quantum physics. He is definitely the kind of experienced person who should be a bureaucrat. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
61. Support — The concerns below don't bother me. I would, however, like Ram-man to participate in RfA before he gets into closing them out. — Werdna talk criticism 12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    Some of the comments here are already out of date. Since this has started, I've participated in various RFAs, including the more controversial than normal Carnildo case. -- RM 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

62. Support. Wikipedia runs on volunteers, just because he doesn't have as much time to edit as people like me, who edit 14 hours a day, doesn't mean that he doesn't have sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy and process to be a crat. Yes, active bureaucrats are good, but there's no requirement to be active, and a semi-active crat is helpful too. --Rory096 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Per previous comment.--Alabamaboy 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
64. Support- experienced user who needs the tools for a valid reason. Borisblue 18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
65. Support per lots of people, especially myself. --Golbez 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Great editor, no doubt about it, but I think bureaucratship is for people who are active in the project side of thing, for example, looking at his last 500 wikipedia space edits, the last one was on 23-10-2002, I compared that to a few other randomly selected admins, and their's was generally July/August this year. Also, his admin log is very short as well, I would a b-crat to have lots of experience in blocks/deletion etc. Anyway, to summarise, great editor, bureaucratship not suitable in my opinion. Martin 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   I've been heavily active using my User:RM account, so don't forget that one. I use them both from different physical locations for security reasons. I hope that isn't held against me! I was on a long wikivacation for the better part of this year due to health issues I'd care not discuss here. But since I've returned, I think the amount of editing speaks for itself. Also consider the amount of photographs added for addition here. Edit: Sorry, I missed the point of your comment. See my comments below regarding project space edits. I suppose I have a problem dedicating so much (read: all) of my time on the project side of things, because I actually like contributing. I was unaware that I had to spend such a large percentage of my time doing admin activities to qualify for bureaucratship. If that is the case, I should just withdraw now. Afterall, the admin responsibilities don't generally have anything to do with the responsibilities of a bureaucrat. From a project perspective, I'd just like to get more be increasingly more involved in the whole bot process, and a bureaucrat is part of that process. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

2. (neutral) Leaning to opposeOppose. You don't seem to my memory to have been involved in RfA to any significant extent in the year or so that I've been around. Current knowledge and a current feel for things and how they change is essential. I'd appreciate some persuasion on this point. I know you say your main focus would be bots, but RfA/B promises don't usually last all that long. Moreover, from my limited interaction at the (somewhat deficient) RFBots page, you don't seem to be 'around' there much, either... -Splash - tk 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   I suppose that's because I was "gone" for a while and only recently became heavily active again. (For a while I did little editing, but still patrolled from time to time. I just couldn't totally leave) Like I mentioned in my comments, I do patrol the page periodically, although I don't always vote. My voting has been sporadic, to be sure, but I like to stay informed of the latest goings-ons, which is exactly the reason I read RfA. Now perhaps before your memory, I posted to this page some unknown number of times. I'd have to look at the history, which I didn't even attempt to do. I'm not sure how to be otherwise persuasive. Perhaps I shall give this some thought and add more later, and maybe other questions will bring out what you want to know. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   My concern is not so much the sporadicity, as the non-existence. I can't find a single !vote here at RfA in the past year or more, and your activity on WP:BOTS (whatever!) began a few hours ago. I imagine you did post here before, but 'crats really need to be very current. I'm afraid that coupled with inactivity as an admin, inactivity in the key areas of project space (and project space in general) is too much of a disqualification for me. Your reading of the situation in your answers does seem about right, but it really needs to have had time to 'seep in' through extended participation in the relevant happenings. E.g. in 4-6 months or something. -Splash - tk 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   Naturally I imagined you'd feel that way. Still if I might make one last attempt. I've had plenty of past experience, which is suppose doesn't matter in this case. For what its worth, I have a lot of project level articles in my watchlist, which I patrol for changes all the time (Like Bots, Spam, and the Geographic project articles). I suppose perhaps I'm not involved in the right projects, whatever those might be. I try follow major controversies, such as Angela leaving the board and the ensueing difficultly with whether or not such articles should be deleted. In addition, I dove right into a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states affecting all 50 states when I had something important to add. But of course nothing can change the fact that I was on wikivacation (partially for health reasons), and if you simply require more time because of that, well then no argument will change that. Again, my philosophy as an admin is rather conservative in nature. There are a lot of admins and I don't want to overuse my abilities. As for the timing, the responsibilities of an admin have not changed. So when I have acted as one should not be as important as perhaps the other concerns. I mostly use the "delete page" ability over anything else. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   I may have made some stupid blunder, but your deletion log says you have only ever deleted 12 articles? Martin 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

   I know I'm conservative, but I didn't think it was that low. Perhaps I'm more inactive in deletions than I thought. Such is life I suppose. I can tell this isn't going to last long! — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Splash. I have nothing but great respect for all Ram-Man has done, but some experience with recent RfA is absolutely necessary for a b'crat. Added to this, I really thought Ram-Man was retired from the project for a year or two. I remember seeing his name on the Inactive Admin list up until recently. Xoloz 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

   I've already addressed the issue of being away, but it is true that for some reason I was put on an inactive list or two. Perhaps I'm still on some list I don't know about (can't manage everything!). I've never been totally inactive, always an edit here and there. But not retired for sure! I do have a habit of disappearing for a while though. Unlike a lot of people, I don't actually LIVE on wikipedia (I just rent). — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose Experience with RfAs are essential here. Try again in about six months with lots of experience in RfA pages and I will definitely give you my support. But other than this, there are no major concerns here and I am confident that Ram-Man would be a great bureaucrat in the future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

   Switch to support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per Siva Needs to put those admin powers to greater use before becoming a 'crat. The mess at fairuse images, IfD, etc needs work. :) Dlohcierekim 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   Switch to support. :) Dlohcierekim 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Good user, long established history, but I feel the approach is backwards in this case. If you want to be helpful in encouraging the creation, approval, and oversight of new bots, then go be helpful. You seem to have almost no recent involvement in the bot process. Even your alter-ego, rambot has not made any substantive edits in nearly two years. I don't think we should be in the business of giving out privledges on the basis of work that someone wants to do, unless they have shown themselves to be actively engaged in the related areas that don't require privledges. Get engaged in the bot community again, and I'll reconsider in the future, but it is too soon for this, in my opinion. As an aside, if one of the active members of the current approvals groups would like to run on the same rationale, I am likely to support that. Dragons flight 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   I'm unlikely to sway you, but by the time this vote is over, I'm sure that I will be reintegrated sufficiently, as I am already working towards. Most of the lack of reintegration is due to the slowness of the process itself. The reasons the rambot was not running were numerous:

   • It is a *lot* of work to run the bot. The last time I was planning to run the bot I was awaiting approval for a couple tasks, which never happened. Also, because of the server load imposed by so many edits, I tend to batch as many tasks as possible. There simply weren't enough major tasks to justify the load. But that can't be said anymore. I have plenty of outstanding tasks, and it's time to restart the process. But it can take days just to set up the bot, and then it has to be run manually for a while and with constant supervision. 40,000 articles is a lot and it will usually take at least a week. I have to find time in my schedule to fit such a task in. That means figuring out where it fits into real life. In addition to all of this, I have to have a working copy of MySQL and hard drive room for all the data that is used in maintaining these things. I've only recently upgraded my ailing computer (corresponding with an increase in activity here as well), but have not yet had the chance to complete installation of my local tools, although that shouldn't take as long as the other issues. One doesn't just run the rambot every day. I mean, as soon as the 2010 census results are released, I'm scheduled to run another update.
   • The rambot is currently broken. I've posted a message on the Village pump (technical) about this issue, which has yet to be resolved. Until that is resolved, I will probably wait, to be safe.
   • While the rambot is "approved" in the sense that it was approved two years ago, as a matter of good faith, I want to get it officially approved again before running it. The approvals group has so far had nothing to say on the issue. So again, wait wait wait.
   • I also was gone on wikivacation for a while for a number of reason

   Of course I've also mentioned that I can only help others fully if on the approval group, which I'm not. It's going to take some time to work that out (more waiting). But in the meantime, I am quite active. Take a look at my recent posts there, and I think you'll find that I'm being as constructive and useful as I can, given the circumstances. The reason, as I understand, that User:Titoxd changed his vote to support was because he read my recent work and comments regarding WP:RFBOT. -- RM 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Splash. We already have a lot of BCrats that either never or very rarely do much. I fear that might be the case here. Also, I can't remember any recent RfA participation by this user.Voice-of-All 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   Just to clarify: You're not opposing because *other* bureaucrats don't do much are you? That would seem to indicate the need for *more*, not less. And the RfA issue has been discussed heavily. The basic premiss here is that there isn't a problem with a "specialist bureaucrat", in this case focusing on bot management. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   My problem is that I am not convinced that your activity will have the kind of intensity and consistency I am looking for (like Taxman, Essjay). 5 bureaucrats could easily handle all such tasks, it really only takes a few active ones. The problem is that while you have made many contributions here, you have only a handfull of RfA involvement, little recent bot request activity, and I am not convinced that you will necessary bump one of those up and keep it that way rather then add to the large list of inactive BCrats in short time. The main things I want to see in future BCrats is thoughfulness, more descretion (like Danny), activity, and preferably IRC involvment and well-roundedness to the new tasks (only three).Voice-of-All 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   Ironically, User:Essjay has been inactive for the most part for most of August. And it does seem that Taxman is doing a great job at handling admin promotions. I think that I've demonstrated much thoughfulness, descretion, and activity. If you've looked over my activities, this should be quite clear. But my activities, admin or otherwise, are usually NOT in the AfD area, although I don't see how it's difficult to vote. I've done so today, and there wasn't anything special to it. I don't use the IRC. I prefer to do all Wikipedia activity here and nowhere else. IRC should hardly be a requirement of service. And I can't affect the behavior of other bureaucrats, so I can't really address that issue. I can only speak for myself. I have a question, should bureaucrats be active in all of the administrator tasks too? Who decides which tasks a bureacrat or administrator should do? It is hardly reasonable to expect either party to do everything. There is plenty of work to go around. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   There are only three new tools that crats get, sysoping and bot flagging being the most important. I'd like for a "crats" to have activity in both of those, and enough work with renaming between the crats that it gets done reliably. Essjay is known to leave for several days and then come back as normal, so that doesn't bother me, as I expect him to be back in "full force". As for IRC, its not an absolute requirement, its a preference, a consideration. Its much easier to communicate with such users. As for experience and commitment, my reasons for opposing are pretty much the same as Dragon's Flight. I'd rather have a user more involved in RfA and recent bot approval get the position, rather that one who promoses to become active there.Voice-of-All 04:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Reluctant oppose. Ram-Man is a great user, and I'd love to be able to support him. However, I don't feel comfortable giving the power of closing RFAs to a user who doesn't participate in RFAs, doesn't close AFDs or anything else where consensus has to be determined, and basically is just not active as an admin. If he were asking only to approve bots I might have a different opinion but, for now, I think I'd be happiest if he joined the bot approval committee, increased his adminship duties, and came back to RFB in 6 months. --kingboyk 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   I appreciate your comments, and this seems to be where most of the opposition is coming from. I will most certainly try to take a more active role in the bot approval process. As for AfD, obviously I'll have to do that if I want this oppose votes to go away ;-) I should note that I've been involved in building and determining consensus on numerous policy issues, but you probably know that. Honestly though, if it were technically possible to only have permission to set bot flags, I would do that. Also, if I am appointed bureaucrat (this has been pretty close, so we'll see), I can easily choose to not use those powers under the condition that I gain more experience with RfAs and AfDs first. Of course I think half of the oppose group opposes because they don't want me to use promotion power (not enough experience) and the other half opposes because they do want me to use it but think I won't (enough experience, not enough time and/or desire). -- RM 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   I guess i just fail to see how making RM a crat could harm the encyclopedia. The worst possible outcome of making RM a crat is the encyclopedia isn't improved. Odds are, it will help in the day-to-day functioning of the encyclopedia, with no bad outcome foreseeable. The only risk is that this encyclopedia doesn't improve, which, imho, is not something that outweighs the possible benefits. --heah 19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   I think I have a partial answer to that question. What some people are afraid of is that I would close a RfA and make a bad decision on consensus because of lack of experience in that area. And frankly, if I were to just jump in and do that immediately after being appointed without first taking an active role in the process, than their concerns would likely be justified. They don't want mistakes, and I appreciate their concerns. But I also agree with you, otherwise I wouldn't have put the request in. It is at least partially a matter of trust. -- RM 19:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose per the person directly above. Computerjoe's talk 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, sorry but pretty much what kingboyk said. You can be part of the approvals group without being a bureaucrat.--Andeh 18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per above. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per all above. Bubba ditto 00:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose I vaccilated on this one for the longest time, but in the end there were too many question marks for a bureaucartship request. The support voters provide lots of good testimony why your dedicated work merits reward, but the rewards we hand out here are barnstars, not promotion. The oppose side wins on substance, namely that if you want bureaucratship because there is a backlog in bureaucrat-only work, the path to get there is to do the ancillary work first. I don't see any roadblocks to you becoming member of the bot approval group, but I don't see the current need to become bureaucrat. ~ trialsanderrors 08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak Oppose Agree with the consensus of the other members who oppose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrown23334 (talk • contribs)

Neutral

Neutral. Subject to input from the "bot-user community," the candidate appears qualified for the 'bot portion of the Bureaucrat position, but is admittedly not experienced in the RfA and other aspects. The project has made a decision that an administrator candidate should be qualified to perform all administrator tasks ranging from XfD's to vandalism rollbacks to dealing with user-conduct issues, and that knowledge prerequisite to some but not all of these functions is insufficient (even if the result is that we occasionally fail to promote someone who would be a good "specialist" admin). Whether the same principle should be applied to 'crats is unclear to me as is whether there has ever been a good discussion of the issue. One thing is clear though: this nomination is being totally overlooked by being at the bottom of the RfA page in a section to which few users scroll down (presumably many people just look for the new RfA's at the top). Newyorkbrad 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Switched to support, see above Newyorkbrad 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never found any discussion on whether someone needed to qualify for all of the tasks, which is why I mentioned only one task in particular. If it were possible to ONLY assign that ability, that would be ideal, which of course is the main issue here. I most certainly won't win this vote, but it should be a good learning experience, and maybe this very issue will be determined more clearly. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral (See above), leaning towards support. While you are certainly qualified to handle bot requests, I'd say that you unfortunately did things in the wrong order. Instead of requesting the bureaucrat bit to go into WP:RFBOT to do things, I would say that you should spend a bit of time there, then come here to request the added privileges, as you should get the hang of things around there a little. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am doing both simultaneously. The problem is that no one in the approvals group is monitoring the bot page, so by spending time there, I am effectively doing nothing. Either that or I could just approve myself, and although being bold is important, I'd rather do things "officially" so no one questions me. But more people are slowly realizing the problems. At the moment, there is nothing that I can offically do at RFBOT. It's just frustrating when the people "in charge" are not paying attention. It isn't a problem with them personally, but it just indicates the need for more people involved in the process. If I were a bureaucrat running on these current terms, then I would have enough consensus (here) to self-appoint myself to the bot approvals group. My hands are otherwise tied here. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you need to be a bureaucrat to get into the bot approvals group, as there are several users there (xaosflux and Rob Church, off the top of my head) that are not bureaucrats (or even necessarily admins). I do agree that the procedure to get into that group is not easy to find, and I'm unsure it is even documented. However, if a bureaucrat or two stop paying attention to bot requests for whatever reason (real life happens), it would cause a bit of trouble, so I'm considering my stand here. Titoxd^(?!?) 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt about it: You don't have to be a bureaucrat to help with bots. And we have Essjay, one great bureaucrat helping, but he isn't always around. I'm just volunteering to join those ranks. -- RM

Indeed. My comment was more specific, though: you don't need to be a member of Special:Listusers/bureaucrat to be a member of the bot approvals group. At the same time, the procedure to become a member of that group is not found anywhere. Lately, there haven't been many bots approved, as Essjay has been a bit inactive as of late (he said he won't have as much time this semester, due to his work), so even if you become a member of the approvals group, you still need a bureaucrat to press the Special:Makebot button—that's currently a single point of failure, and redundancy always is good. Additionally, since bot flag granting is easily reversible now, there is less of a risk these days than before, in case you do mess up something. The only thing I needed for support was an assurance of having an idea how WP:RFBOT works currently, and you seem to have it now. So, I'm switching to support. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understood what you were saying. Being a member of the approvals group is a separate thing from being able to push a button to make a bot (i.e. bureaucrat). I desire both functions, since they are complementary. -- RM 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Switching to Neutral per Dragon Flight's oppose comment. JoshuaZ 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per the above concerns regarding your past involvement in consensus-based activities. I see nothing wrong with what you've done, and I realise that your proposed activity would indeed be valuable, but I'd be far more comfortable if you'd had more experience in AfDs and RfAs previously. This RfB currently looks like it will succeed, and I will consider changing my !vote closer to the ending date, but please make an effort to increase your involvement in those areas in the future. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   It looks like it *might* succeed anyway. It's right on the line. In any case, increasing my involvement in AfDs and RfAs is quite a reasonable request. I'll see what I can do in the meantime! -- RM 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   Right on which line? Are you familiar with where the thresholds are for an RfB? Hey, wait, this is important. Do you know how RfB works, since you'd have the ability to act on its outcomes? -Splash - tk 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   When the standard for bureaucrat nomination was voted on, the ~80-85% group succeeded. However, I would hardly have called it a consensus. Most people at least wanted MORE than was required by an administrator. So while I may *technically* be above 80% in this vote from time to time, no one has ever been promoted (in my memory) with less than 85%, and the wide majority have greater than 90%. So while the 80%-85% group may have "won" the vote narrowly, the > 85% seems to be the defacto standard. Some people don't want to promote a bureaucrat with less than 85% (or even less than 90%, although that has happened). I got blasted above because I used the term "vote" to describe these types of elections, and I wanted to clarify that it's about consensus, not the amount of votes. -- RM 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

   I wanted to add a couple thoughts. First of all, having limited experience with RfA, I would not even consider attempting to close a RfB for quite some time. I'm pretty sure that most people here do not even want me to close an RfA for quite some time, if at all. There are relatively very few RfB and of those even less that get anywhere near success. As a result there is little need for me to get involved in such things anytime in the near future, and I think everyone can agree on that. For anyone who has read any of the comments during this RfB, there are no surprises here. This whole request hinges on the question: "Can a bureaucrat specialize?" There are many who are comfortable with this, and many who are not. This is uncharted territory, but I suppose eventually the issue had to be addressed. But I admit that I don't know if I have enough experience to properly close an RfB. If I was *asked* to, then I probably would, but probably not otherwise until I gain more experience. This is what I've gathered from this discussion what the community would desire anyway (either way, if appointed bureaucrat or not) (re: RfA and AfD experience). -- RM 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you explain why you didn't properly transclude your nomination [27]? This suggests you might not be familiar with how this page works, a necessary pre-requisite for being a bureaucrat. Petros471 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I apologize for that, but after writing up the page, it was the last thing on my mind. It did occur to me, but it was fixed so quickly that I didn't even have a chance. It was a careless mistake. But I do understand transclusion and its use in votes like this. I just used it over at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval a short while ago. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah kinda sad... here we see all too graphically the Wikipedia of 2004 getting mugged by Wikipedia 2006. Ram-Man, RfB has become such a daunting passage that only a handful of current editors could ever hope to navigate it... you almost got opposed just because you didnd't transclude the nom properly, for example. It's a different beast here nowadays. The community seems to require near-perfection to promote a new b'crat... sad but true. --W.marsh 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• And it's positively going to get worse I'm sure. You have to go through a lot of bureaucracy to become a bureacrat! It is so strange. I wasn't here at the very beginning of the project, but the ~40,000 articles that existed when I started seems like nothing now. I probably got voted into admin by less than 20 votes. Still, eventually the community will realise there is a need for more and they will make more. The other bureaucrat that does bot work heavily is Essjay, who does both bot approvals and sets bot flags. But there is currently a backlog. I can't get put on the bot approval board OR become a bureaucrat to assign bot flags because even Essjay isn't around to help out with this one. So we (myself and at least two bots waiting for official approval) just sit and wait. I was hoping that this discussion might help bring out some people to help, but since this is at the bottom of the page, few people even notice it anyway. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I will post on the talk page to see if I can draw some more user attention to this discussion. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Well I won't vote oppose because you're clearly a trusted and dedicated Wikipedian. But you're asking to be a bureaucrat primarily to promote bots. The actual amount of work needed there is extremely small, as in a little over 4 months, only a little less than 50 bot promotions have been done. In this case the actual promotion of the bot once it's been approved is a trivial task. Where the work is really needed is on the approvals side, either in giving the approval or investigating the bot proposal to see if it is sound. What I really would have liked to have seen was more participation in the requests for bot process before you made this nomination. You've mentioned you don't see what you could have done, but deciding if the bot request is valid and noting that until people became aware of your skill in that area would be a great start. You could have also found out how to join the approvals group before nominating here. All that said again, you're a trusted, long time Wikipedian and that's probably more important. - Taxman ^Talk 03:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps I was a little more dramatic than I should have been. Since I wrote those comments, I've been helping to get some bots approved by going through the initial approval process and helping to determine whether or not the request is acceptable. I can't officially approve any of them, but it helps. As for approvals group. There *is* no established policy for adding members, so we're having an interim election at the moment. It ends on Sept. 9. After adding new members, we'll clear any backlog and work from there. The backlog will likely include making a couple bot flags. But I believe that most of my supporters would be confortable with me closing some AfDs or RfAs, and chances are that I probably will to help out as best I can. But I surely wouldn't rush into it to clear any backlog, but ease into the role carefully. -- RM 13:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A. I've read over the debates and discussions over promotions. The criteria as currently understood is that anything less than 75% will probably not be promoted, anything 85% or more will probably be promoted, and anything in between will probably involve much additional discussion, particularly amongst bureaucrats who will make the final decision. Of course the whole thing is not supposed to be a democracy but a matter of consensus, so no matter the vote count, there will always be some level of subjectiveness. Plus new issues and facts can arrive about a candidate in the middle of voting, requiring special intervention.

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

A. Potential criticism is no reason to not make a decision about something, only an indication to tread lightly, which is what I would try to do. In the nature of full disclosure, usage of the rambot in the past has caused all sorts of criticism, debate, and policy formation (See: Wikipedia:Bots, Wikipedia:Spam, and a number of geographic Wikipedia:Wikiprojects). Some was justified, most wasn't, but all was dealt with in a civil fashion. My personal policy tends to be to not decide anything unilaterally where there is controversy. I would require confirmation by at least another bureaucrat before making any controversial decision.

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've been around for a long time (September, 2002), so I tend to understand a lot of policy, although one can't hope to be aware of every fine, sometimes contradictory, detail. I've engaged members of the community in discussions too many times to count. And I'd be shocked if I wasn't considered fair.

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. Of course. I never use any other forum anyway, so this isn't even an issue. I don't discuss Wikipedia issues in email and I don't use IRC (though I did for a short time in the past).

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. Since the creation of the page, I've often stopped by to at least see who was being promoted or depromoted. Sometimes I do this to keep a pulse on the Wikipedia community. I don't always vote, especially on persons who have 75 support votes and 0 oppose votes.

6.. If you become a bureaucrat, how will you keep your feet still on the ground with us mortals?

A I missed this question at the bottom of the page when it was posted! I'm not sure I exactly understand the nature of this question. Are you asking whether or not I will let power go to my head? I don't even want all the powers associated with being a bureaucrat, although if I have them all I will probably use them from time to time to help the community. Are you asking whether or not I will think I am better than "normal" people? Hardly. As far as I know, I've only ever helped write one featured article (Schizophrenia). Lord Emsworth has 58. I've never received a barnstar, although the rambot has one. My point is that there are plenty of non-bureaucrats who deserve a lot more praise. But praise isn't the point. Finally, I'll keep my feet on the ground by working on normal articles. Policy and administrative activities are great, but they don't add or update articles. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

7. (Optional question). Are there any recent promotion decisions you would have made differently? If so, what are your main differences of emphasis? Stephen B Streater 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A I'm a strong believer in consensus and will tend to defer to the majority. As such, even if I voted on the losing side, I would support a controversial promotion decision. As far as I'm concerned, any serious decision making problem would need to result in potential demotion. To get to the point of being able to make a promotion, controversial or not, implies a level of community consensus that I have no intention of subverting. As has been stated on this page already, my influence on the promotion aspect is somewhat limited, so I really can't add any more. See some of that discussion above. Update: The recent controversy surrounding Carnildo has put this very question to the test. At first I was inclined to trust the bureaucrat, and in fact am still leaning that direction, despite voting opposite of the decision. Nevertheless, my opinion could change with futher discussion, especially since I'm not sure that this was consensus (see my "definition" of consensus below). — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A2 I think that this question deals with consensus, and although I suspect some will not read what is down here at the bottom of the page, but I'd like to give a complicated example of determining consensus, since that seems to be where the problem is. Splash asked me about the standards for promotion to a bureaucrat. I'll recite the standard vote. Let's go over the results. The "80-85%" group had the plurality of the vote. The majority (if you want to call it that) went to the "75-85%" group, followed by the "80-90%" group in second. (Oh, and the "75-95%" also had a majority). Now, it is true that most people wanted an increase in some fashion or another, there was no real agreement. And in terms of a controversial decision, I don't believe that someone who wants "80-85%" necessarily would be happy with a standard of "85-90%", otherwise they might have voted for that one! So even to say that there was a consensus of an increase in standard is deceptive, I think. And yet, the 80-85% group was accepted, not as I believe on the basis of consensus, but on a misunderstanding of consensus. The lack of consensus should have followed tradition and kept the status quo at "75-80%" (even though I would have personally voted for the "80-85%" group). Now that was a while ago and the consensus view has likely changed significantly such that the previous vote would not be repeated. So there you go, I'm going out on a limb here to say that I disagree with that decision on consensus. I believe that any other conclusion in that case results in a compromise not consensus, an important distinction. Now astute among us will realize that the wide majority wanted an increase of some sort and the assumption was made that an increase of 5% would be acceptable for someone who wanted a 10%, 15%, or a unanimous standard increase. And it is this assumption that justified the change. However, whether or not this assumption is true was not made clear. Perhaps those people who wanted the higher standard would have voted for "all or nothing", in hopes that discussion would ensue and more people would be brought over to that side of the table. In at least one case, one of the voters mentioned a "minimum requirement level", which wouldn't have accepted the 80-85% group. Such users would not have theoretically been happy with the permanence of the new standard. -- RM 13:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Another issue troubles me about the whole thing is how can consensus be different for admins and bureaucrats? Isn't full consensus required for both? It seems illogical to me to say that the definition of consensus is dependent on what is being determined (I don't have time to see if I can find a logical fallacy that fits, perhaps someone else knows off-hand). It seems more of a practical determination based on the number of votes, rather than the amount of consensus. A lot of my supporters and opposers are concerned that I do not understand consensus enough to close a vote, but I think that consensus is very nuanced and I don't know if anyone here understands consensus. I think if anything I understand the intricacies of trying to determine consensus. It isn't always easy, and it's very subjective at times. Voting and compromise are about trying to come up with an adequate solution that perhaps most people can agree with. Consensus is about trying to make EVERYONE happy, if possible. The latter is much more difficult. -- RM 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

---

Related requests

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

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