Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Asturianu
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語 / Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Montagnino (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 1 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks. |
Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
A trial admin election process is underway, and is currently accepting nominations. |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. It is approved for one trial run, which will take place in October 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
AirshipJungleman29 | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 27 Sep 2024 | 34 | 21 | 4 | 62 |
Significa liberdade | RfA | Successful | 21 Sep 2024 | 163 | 32 | 10 | 84 |
Asilvering | RfA | Successful | 6 Sep 2024 | 245 | 1 | 0 | >99 |
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] 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.[2] 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
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.[3] 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".[4] 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.[5]
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 on the nomination page to accept or decline the nomination. Better yet, ask them whether they will accept before creating the page. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that, while there are no hard and fast requirements to become a candidate, editors with less than four to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins. All nominees must have carefully read the guide to requests for adminship before accepting.
Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.
Current time is 00:26:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
(64/0/0) Ended 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Johan Elisson (talk · contribs) – Johan Elisson has been with the project since mid-2004 and is particularly active in topics relating to football (soccer) and Sweden. He has in excess of 10,000 edits, and has written two featured articles (IFK Göteborg and Swedish allotment system) and one featured list (Swedish football champions). Project wise, he created the now well established WikiProject Football, which he continues to maintain and organize. He has a sound understanding of policy and process, and is an asset to the project, who certainly wouldn't abuse the admin tools. Oldelpaso 13:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I gratefully accept the nomination. – Elisson • Talk 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I have recently started to seek up and fight vandalism more than before and I have seen the need for admin tools quite often since then, mostly for quick rollback but sometimes also for temporary blocking (although I doubt I will use that very often). I have a habit of visiting CAT:CSD and quite often find large backlogs, so removing them there and at other places is another field I feel I can contribute to if given admin tools. In connection to the many football-related XfDs that appear every week, I regularly visit deletion debate pages and closing old debates (starting with obvious cases until I get a grip of the process) is another task I am willing to take. Apart from that, I do not have any special chores I would like to do extra much, but I often bump into various problems that would be solved much quicker if I had the tools, for example copy-paste moves, images uploaded under the same name on Commons, occationaly doing RC patrol, semi-protection of pages, and so on. I really admire users that devote their spare time to do maintenance, fight copyright problems, limit the use of fair use material and other various "invisible" (to the casual reader) tasks, but I also feel that we need administrators that act almost as regular editors, fighting the problems that appear in front of them and now and then help remove a backlog or devote themselves to RC patrol. I feel I am the material for the later category of administrators. I am also a regular at the IRC channels and people regularly ask for admins there without getting any answer (I am one of those people...). I can help filling that gap.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Obviously the above mentioned featured content, and my current work on expanding Boden Fortress from its current state to this state. Apart from that, some of my created articles are on subjects that may never before have been covered in English, such as the English Canal or Swedish football (code). Non main namespace contributions include starting the WikiProject on Football, a project which I believe has had at least a little part in the explosion of football content being promoted to featured status, from one article (IFK Göteborg written mostly by me) to fourteen as of today, and aside from that also has been useful in standardizing and organizing much of the football related content.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I can honestly say I have never felt stressed when editing Wikipedia, even though I have been involved in a few minor conflicts in the past, although nothing really bad. I particularly remember that User:Kingjeff and I (along with a few other editors) had a grudge over at the Football AID available here (covers almost the whole archive page) and here. Even though it ended with Kingjeff being temporarily blocked for his actions and almost got RfCed, I really regret I made a few little too harsh comments such as this in the heat of the discussion, although it worked out in the end and we had a few friendly discussions and debates afterwards. The other of my two largest conflicts I've been involved in (as far as I remember, if you find anything I have forgotten, please bring it up!), was an edit war on United States men's national soccer team, part of the larger edit war featured on WP:LAME... Even though really, really lame, I feel I had learned a lot from the conflict with Kingjeff and I did not get myself as emotionally involved this time. As I tend to edit rather obscure subjects, I very seldom get into large conflicts, but I feel that especially the experience gathered from two mentioned conflicts will help in keeping myself cool if such a situation comes up.
- 4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: As already stated in the answer to question one above, I doubt I'll use the block tool frequently, and that certainly applies to established users (which I understand as a long-time user with no or very few previous major conflicts). And very seldom do these users do things that would warrant a block. Either way, blocking is only a last resort, and I would prefer to try to solve the conflict without using blocking, which only may trigger an even larger conflict. Established users also know the rules, and in almost all cases will stop what they were doing when being warned. If not, bringing the matter up on WP:AN/I to get input from other more experienced admins would probably be my first action, unless the user clearly shows no sign at all of wanting to cooperate, by for example repeatedly making personal attacks, continue to violate WP:3RR or vandalise articles even after being warned. – Elisson • Talk 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Johan Elisson's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
- Around half an hour after me accepting the nomination and answering the questions, the fifteenth football related article, City of Manchester Stadium, was promoted to featured status. Although I think my nominator User:Oldelpaso should get credit for that one (along with a few other of the featured articles) and not the Football WikiProject. ;) – Elisson • Talk 17:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC) [clarified a thingie 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
- I have confidence in this user and we could use more backlog help.Voice-of-All 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support per nom. --Alex (Talk) 16:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator. Oldelpaso 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wow, those are some great accomplishments, and the answers are superb. -- Kicking222 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Great answers to the questions. Hello32020 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Michael 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great work.-- danntm T C 18:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An impressive editor, I doubt that admin privileges would be abused. (aeropagitica) 19:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers and you said "I feel I had learned a lot from the conflict with Kingjeff". You convinced me with that. NCurse work 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per experience and work with images --T-rex 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportLong term contributor. Honest about his very few edit wars (which are minor anyway). Deserves to be in. Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 21:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor and I have no doubt he will make good use of the admin tools. Prolog 21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah. Um...he isn't an admin? OK, I would have nominated him if I had known this... 1ne 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - devoted editors make good admins abakharev 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, possibly even over-due here.--Andeh 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support everything looks great; weak because I have an aversion to unnecessarily large sigs. Opabinia regalis 23:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the sig for Support #15. Now, that's big. --Nishkid64 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support strongly per nom. - Pal 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Markovich292 23:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian - Talk 23:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rama's arrow 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to questions, and great contributor to Wikipedia. He/she is also a very good encyclopedia builder, which a lot of us recently created admins are not. --Nishkid64 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -- Merope Talk 00:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eww, created a Featured List...! But otherwise a very complete, well-rounded, knowledgeable, levelheaded editor, who has been most helpful in my dealings with him. Support. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Support per Nishkid64. —Khoikhoi 02:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 07:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 08:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolut Suppørt ~ trialsanderrors 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because of that I'll have to show you one of my most recently uploaded images! – Elisson • Talk 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – damn straight. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 13:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Crossed paths with JE a few times. No problem. --Dangherous 14:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. Conscious 18:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Punkmorten 19:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, hard-working dude. Should have been moppified ages ago. Flowerparty☀ 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Doctor Bruno 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Zaxem 00:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Why the hell not? --Aaron 01:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Jeffklib 06:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Calm, hard-working and honest. Admin material fer sure. / Peter Isotalo 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent contributions to Wikipedia. No reason to not trust this user. Marskell 22:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. John254 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all above, highly qualified editor, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Heimstern Läufer 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all above. Will almost certainly be a great admin. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all of the above all of the aboves. People Powered 01:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-05 07:48Z
- Support - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- he's been here long enough. / Fred-Chess 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like an excellent track record. --kingboyk 17:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportNeed more swedish admins --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good stuff; seems to be a highly qualified candidate and I'm surprised he's not an admin already hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. Almost missed this.--SB | T 06:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice contributions, nice answers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But how could Image:Absolut Vodka 10 bottles.jpg be public domain? You took a photo of the copyrighted logos a bunch of copyrighted logos... Does anyone know the answer? - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IANAL, but... I would guess it works as with everything else. Taking a photo of a Volvo car, where the logo is visible on the photo, doesn't make the photo non-GFDL/CC-compatible. There are loads of photos like that, which I based the licensing on, see for example Image:Jagermeister bottle.jpg and other photos of Category:Alcoholic beverages. – Elisson • Talk 09:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But how could Image:Absolut Vodka 10 bottles.jpg be public domain? You took a photo of the copyrighted logos a bunch of copyrighted logos... Does anyone know the answer? - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Will make a great admin. Jcam 07:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As a rugby player I really dislike football ;), but that aside he's a good editor and has made alot of good contributions, let him step up to the challenge. Khukri (talk . contribs) 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editor (featured articles by himself? I'm impressed), and pretty good answers. Michaelas10 19:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've been coming across his work for years, and to restate an old saying "I thought he was one long ago". -- Arwel (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Long-term editor with substantial encyclopedia-building experience. Espresso Addict 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very impressive. lots of experience and great contributions to the project. Wikipediarules2221 23:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Four supports in a row. Just when you despair that the pool of administrator candidates is getting shallow, you see a string like this. Support - Williamborg (Bill) 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC) And it adds to the pleasure of supporting when I realize I've linked articles to a featured article he initiated and built—I've already voted for his work. How could one not support! Williamborg (Bill) 06:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The majority of his edits are in the mainspace, which is a very good thing, but still has experience in AfD and RfA. And how many Wikipedians write that many featured articles? -- TheGreatLlama (speak to the Llama!) 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. G.He 03:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'm not sure why I'm even bothering with results like this. :-) Seriously, though, well-balanced, thoughtful editor. Heimstern Läufer 06:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (1/11/3) Ended 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Chochopk (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself to be an administrator. I have 7891 edits on 3691 unique articles. My first edit was on 2005-01-17 T 02:33:17. I believe that passes most of the requirement at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-Z. Besides the quantity, I also posses these qualities
- Team work: I have been collaborating with members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. If you look at the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Sandbox/Succession, you will find I have worked with User:Mom2jandk, and more recently, with User:Timur lenk on Hungarian currencies.
- Standardization: As a programmer, standardization is a second nature to me. I can easily help on any template or standardization related stuff. Will explain more on standard question 2.
- Non English/American background: I have a well balanced background from Chinese and American culture. This means that not only I can help translating, but also provide a global point of view (not POV! No pun intended).
- Doing the right thing: I regularly whack vandalism and do not hesitate to give warnings.
ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I "accept". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal comment I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone regardless what they voted. Even this RfA was unsuccessful, I know a lot more about the requirement. I humbly accept the result and will work toward what everyone suggested. I hope I can prove myself again some time in the future. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I would like to help deleting images on Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, and Category:Redundant Wikimedia Commons media. IMHO, most images should be on Commons. The same image, or images that serve the same purpose, should not be duplicated over different wiki spaces. By doing so, it encourages the requester submitting more appropriate requests (which is a good thing), and a casual editor will be more likely to land on an image that is from Commons (another way to slowly propagate the awareness).
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I believe most of you have seen my user page by now. I created {{Infobox Currency}}. It's transcluded on 187 articles now and more is on the way. Before that, various people have attempted to do something similar, but none was really wide spread (Examples at [1] and the deleted Template:Currency box). I also created {{Exchange Rate}}, a lesser known template which replaced copied-and-pasted code that was all over currencies of the Americas (like [2]). Last but not least, User:Timur lenk and I co-develop the currency specification table. In the past, it was like one style per article.
- Others have followed my steps without me asking them to do so. For example, {{Infobox Currency}} was deployed to most of the African currencies by User:Zntrip; User:DDima added the standard coin and banknote table to [3] and [4].
- 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: Most of my experience with other editors has been positive. However, I remember being mad at User:Enlil Ninlil. I was particular upset with his/her edit on Australian coins and Lao kip (more detail on his/her talk page). Basically this user makes mistake all the time. I think the only choice we have with sloppy editors is to watch the edits more closely.
- On reading through User_talk:Enlil_Ninlil, I see you used the Stop Hand image a number of times. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive, but I feel the use of the Stop Hand when coaching another user or trying to arrive at a consensus to be too strident and confrontational. Also, I think "You" statements are sometimes less constructive than "I" statements when coaching or instructing another. Conflict resolution is often patiently working toward understanding rather than "telling others the way it is." Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Most of my experience with other editors has been positive. However, I remember being mad at User:Enlil Ninlil. I was particular upset with his/her edit on Australian coins and Lao kip (more detail on his/her talk page). Basically this user makes mistake all the time. I think the only choice we have with sloppy editors is to watch the edits more closely.
Optional question from feydey
- 4. When You removed the license from these images ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) in 5 July 2006, why didn't You tag them as not having a license and didn't notify the uploaders for a need for one?
- A: I didn't know I was supposed to do that. I will look up the convenient template to do that and make up the oversight. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I stepped away for a while, then I found the correct template. And I accidentally overwrote some of Feydey's edit. (But the result is the same). If you remind me, I can quickly adjust and make necessary changes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As an administrator, you shouldn't need reminding. --Alex (Talk) 12:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I stepped away for a while, then I found the correct template. And I accidentally overwrote some of Feydey's edit. (But the result is the same). If you remind me, I can quickly adjust and make necessary changes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I didn't know I was supposed to do that. I will look up the convenient template to do that and make up the oversight. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from (aeropagitica):
- 5 Can you explain why you issued multiple-level vandal warnings in single edits, for example [14], [15], [16] and [17], the first being multiple final warnings?
- A: The offenders repeatedly blanked/added non sense to (the same) articles. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 I can only find one contribution to xfD debates. Can you list some more to demonstrate how you would apply policies and guidelines in various discussions?
- A: On the top of my head, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of circulating coins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antarctican dollar. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Chochopk's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
Support
- Moral Support Chochopk is obviously very dedicated to the project, judging by the edit count etc. Only a bit more experience and knowledge of policy is needed. It is good that you put up this RfA, so that you now know what you need to improve with. Get involved in vandal combat, deletion participation, and read up on policies. 认识这,你会变成更好. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose - I found Q3 uncivil towards the user (light WP:WIKISTALKING?), that it's self to me would of been a neutral.. but this gets you an instant oppose. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not make changes for the sake of overwriting. I just want to make the content better. I was not aware of any policy against advertising RfA. But I will take it down. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose you seem like a good enough user, but you don't seem to know policy (such as with images, and RfA advertising) which means I must oppose. --Alex (Talk) 10:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per response to oppose #1 suggests insufficient policy understanding for adminship. Answer to question 4 is particularly troubling-- deficient knowledge in area of stated use for the tools. The whole image mess requires a very thorough understanding of related policies. Needs more expereince in XfD and dealing with vandalism as well.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose per everyone else, particularly the canvassing. Moreschi 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You appear to be a good editor, but the canvassing does prevent me from supporting you, I am sorry. Also, I would like to see more participation in AfD. :-/ --Húsönd 13:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Poor knowledge of policies is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Insufficient experience for admin. tools. Michael 14:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Poor knowledge of polices and per all else above. Hello32020 17:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and recommended withdrawl, per above. Vulcanstar6 17:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No real policy knowledge and per all above oppose votes. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per first oppose. And the advertisement is still there even after nom said he/she would remove it. Stubbleboy 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The advert is in the edit history of the page but not in the current revision, having been deleted by the RfA subject. (aeropagitica) 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral Per above, plus to avoid WP:SNOW, I suggest that you withdraw this nomination. T REXspeak 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Rather than pile-on, I would recommend reviewing your knowledge of Wikipedia:Vandalism and reporting those vandalising beyond Test-4 to WP:AIV, in addition to contributing to XfD. (aeropagitica) 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Please withdraw, and take heed of aeropagitica's recommendations.-- danntm T C 20:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Final (91/1/4) Ended 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
NCurse (talk · contribs) – It's my pleasure to nominate NCurse for adminship. In addition to being an admin on the Hungarian Wikipedia and creating the Hungarian Wikiquote, since May he's racked up some 4000 edits on the English Wikipedia. During that time he's taken Portal:Medicine up to featured status, and co-ordinates Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the month, amongst other things. He helps out new users[18] and reverts vandalism[19] (with appropriate warnings[20]). Being a newpage patroller,[21] he's certainly got a need for the tools. As an admin on another project, he's got experience dealing with difficult users, and can keep his head,[22] even when other editors lose theirs.[23] Let's be realistic here: NCurse has the basic level of trust required (a lot more than that, in fact) and previous experience as an admin. He's demonstrated dedication to this project with his featured portal and willingness and ability to co-ordinate wikiprojects. I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't be an extremely productive administrator.
- Edit count - in excess of 4000 [24]
- Time around - Active on Wikimedia projects for over a year, admin on hu.wiki for 7 months, active on en.wiki for 6 months
- Email enabled? - Yes
- Controversial userpage? - No
- Any blocks? - None
- Stupid signature? - No
- Edit summaries - 80% for major and 43% for minor, though I've asked him to enable that feature in My Preferences which forces the use of edit summaries, so that should rise to 100% for both as of today.
- Civil? Yep
- Personal attacks? - None
- Any edit warring? - None
- Co-nomination.
-
- I had long hoped to be the one to nominate NCurse, but then he went looking for Admin coaching... darn. Anyway, I met NCurse while nominating Portal:Medicine, and have come to know him as a very gentle, kind and cheerful person. Furthermore, he'd make a great admin because:
- He loves to clear backlogs (for real!).
- He's very motivated and always willing to help.
- He spots ways of making himself useful then boldly kicks into action (e.g. when he redesigned :WikiProject Medicine).
- --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I had long hoped to be the one to nominate NCurse, but then he went looking for Admin coaching... darn. Anyway, I met NCurse while nominating Portal:Medicine, and have come to know him as a very gentle, kind and cheerful person. Furthermore, he'd make a great admin because:
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I accept the nomination. NCurse work 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I love removing backlogs. I shortpage and newpage patrol already, so CAT:CSD would be an obvious place I could lend a hand. I'd like to help more on Requested moves, stubs (I'm active member of Stub sorting project), WP:CFD and WP:RFI. Several times, I tried to help in debates [25]), as an admin, it'd be much easier to help if needed.
- On enwiki, I've participated in about 1-2 dozens of AfDs. I must say as an admin on hungarian Wikipedia (since February), I had time to learn how to handle deletion tasks (you can see this on User:NCurse/Admin coaching). There were times when I had to close every kind of votes regularly (AfD, Speedy deletions, Images and Copyright violations). I know the policies, just after about a half thousand voting processes, I didn't start to participate more seriously here. NCurse work 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I'm really proud of Medicine portal which became featured after User:Stevenfruitsmaak and me started to work on it hard. I work so much on Medical genetics and Medicine wikiprojects (assessments take time), then coordinating Medicine and Science collaboration of the month means a big deal too.
- I've contributed the most to the Melanoma article, mainly when it had a peer review. [26] I've found plenty of references for the article, and uploaded 4 images with the proper tags (see above). I requested permission from the American Academy of Dermatology , and it seems now that I'll get more permissions for other images to upload (I recently got the positive answer from Danita Smith, the coordinator of their webpage). I'd like it to become WP:FA in weeks.
- 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 one conflict with User:Khaj on Melanoma talk page. Maybe not the best reference, but on the hungarian Wikipedia, I've had the possibility to deal with nearly every kind of vandals and conflict-makers. The community there is small so one bad, evil user can ruin the whole mood. No one can make me nervous or frustrated. No one can make me surprised. Just see my anon warnings, I never talk or answer "loudly". So now, after one year of using Wikipedia I can say honestly, I can deal with any kind of vandals. NCurse work 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from Centrx
- 4. Can you point to some article contributions?
- A: For example I've created Chromosome banding, American College of Medical Genetics or PSN2 gene. Some of my contributions are [30], [31], [32], [33]. NCurse work 20:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See NCurse's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
- I would trust NCurse with admin tools. – Chacor 12:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support - an excellent and valuable contributor whom I have worked closely with on medical projects. Helpful, courteous, will do a great job as an admin! InvictaHOG 12:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've been impressed with NCurse's dedication to the medical area of the project and have no hesitation in supporting his RfA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have full confidence that NCurse would be a great admin, from what I've seen of this user. --Aude (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Aude. Addhoc 13:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Aude. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 13:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have nothing to add. Rock on. -- Kicking222 14:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support been a co-admin on huwiki for 6 months now, worked with him 10 months, a perfect admin, sometimes a workaholic editor. Wikipedia will find a new asset in him. --Burumbator 14:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support wholeheartedly, he's an excellent admin on Hungarian Wikipedia & Hungarian Uncyclopedia, always helpful and can keep a cool head; and he is also a valuable contributor both here and on HuWiki. Plus he has a good sense of humour. :) – Alensha talk 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Support per nom. Rama's arrow 15:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support we've been co-admins for several months and I always wondered his calmness, patience and the workload he is able to cope with. Excellent choice :) - Serinde 15:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Michael 15:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Being both friendly and technically capable since our first encounter, I have been amazed with the huge amount of work NCurse does for the Wikipedia projects to which he contributes, and had assumed he was an admin on en from the outset. In particular he has been singlehandedly responsible for establishing the medical genetics Wikiproject and I feel his successful adminship would further assist his work on this Wikiproject as well as the Wikiproject medicine. --apers0n 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Very civil and would use admin tools well. Hello32020 15:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He's a hard-working, dedicated editor and admin. AttishOculus 15:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another excellent candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom; excellent contributor in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Looks incredibly qualified to me. Dina 16:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - one of the few sane people on huwiki. // Gargaj 17:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: He is one of the two best admins on Hungarian Wikipedia (and good admin&contributor in other projects, too). No doubt. ♥♥♥: Gubb ✍ 2006. September 30 17:51 (CEST) 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome Hungarian Support. A very established editor in his own right. He has the capabilities, intelligence and experience to be an excellent administrator on the English Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A proven user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I've had nothing but great experiences interacting with NCurse. He'll make a great addition to our admin corps. alphaChimp(talk) 18:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - per all the above --T-rex 18:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --VinceB 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen plenty of positive contributions from NCurse and no negative or questionable ones.--ragesoss 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, scores 21 on my admin assessment scale. Keep on rollin' -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great organizer and prolific contributor. Opabinia regalis 21:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great contributor. I have seen him before and he does a great job as a wikipedian. Also, he has experience as an adminin other wikis. --Esteban F. (contribs) 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hardworking, knowledgeable, pleasant, will make a great admin. Sandy 22:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Beat the nom! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support only good, no bad. Istvan 22:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You know I completely forgot that I'm supposed to support this. -- Steel 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have never run into this user in my editing, but the contributions look good, and the answers are just fine. Good luck! Firsfron of Ronchester 23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like a good candidate.-- danntm T C 01:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportJoshuaZ 02:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definitely. Level-headed and contributes well -- Samir धर्म 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Easily meets my criteria for the work on the English Wikipedia ALONE! Minor grammar mistakes don't concern me, the meaning always seems clear, which is all that matters. Grandmasterka 05:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets criteria and yeah, I know this is a pile on but I'm making it -- Tawker 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a good candidate.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor, will make good use of the tools.--Húsönd 17:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He's been one of the most active contributors and an excellent admin in the Hungarian Wikipedia, and he has been rather active here as well. I have no idea where finds the time to do all this simultaneously, but I have no doubt that he is qualified. --DHanak :-V 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above (although with a heavy heart, because that means he will have less time on huwiki :,-) --Tgr 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nyikita 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems to be an intelligent, hard-working, valuable contributor. That, and some Magyar pride, makes me vote for NCurse! :) K. Lastochka 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian - Talk 23:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems completely trustworthy and is obviously qualified. Markovich292 23:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers and demonstrated need of sysop tools. Plus, anyone who loves clearing backlogs should really get the mop. -- Merope Talk 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support positive experiences with him Jaranda wat's sup 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. His dedication to the encyclopedia, as well as his positive demeanor, can be grasped from the amount of work he has dedicated to WP:1.0. No doubts here whatsoever. Titoxd(?!?) 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A good article writer, among other things. -- RM 01:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A good all-around editor, and has done a lot of good work for medical articles, especially now that I've been too busy to maintain MCOTW. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Based on his work in the Hungarian Wikipedia, the English one will only get richer if you accept him as admin.. Cunya 06:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I know his activity on the Hungarian Wikipedia and I trust him. --Hkoala HU 09:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good user - well worthy of adminship on en:Wikipedia. --Skenmy(talk)|(news) 12:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – fantastic user, should be an asset to en. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 13:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Igen. --Kbdank71 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The language thing will come. Right now we have a potential admin who can be trusted with his tools. Do it, NCurse! JFW | T@lk 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Doctor Bruno 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above comments. RFerreira 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Canderous Ordo 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems ok. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Why the hell not? --Aaron 01:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - already thought he was an admin! --plange 06:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A good editor. would do better with a good sense of homour though, seems a little plain. TehKewl1 12:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I didn't want to be one in the "million" supporters, but seeing the signpost, I thought I should help him get at least a hundred support votes. Also, more importantly, I think this enhance interwiki cooperation between the Hungarian and English Wikipedia in a way that with him being a single user couldn't be achieved. --Dami 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great work in Medicine Portal, Medicine WikiProject, and related articles. Should do great work with the tools. -AED 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A bit weak in article creation, perhaps, but balanced by useful coordinating work at the Medicine portal and elsewhere. Espresso Addict 02:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --WS 14:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Anger22 19:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Don't see any real issues. Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - Prior experience. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He does an enourmous job in the Hungarian Wiki and is a strong leader. I think he's absolutely the rigth choice to become an admin in any of the wikis (of course language knowledge is a must and his English is OK, IMHO) --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 11:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fvasconcellos 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Teemeah --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 20:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. MaxSem 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support he's not an admin already?? Wikipediarules2221 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support loves removing backlogs? Give him the buttons! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A little Project-heavy, but projects drive brilliant prose, love to have help with {{adminbacklog}}'s! — xaosflux Talk 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per "Lengyel Magyar két jó barát, eggyütt harcol s issza borát." :) and per his great Wikipedia edits. - Darwinek 10:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great nom, great answers, great editor. I've not run into this editor before but I have no doubt their adminship will help the project.-- Deville (Talk) 11:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per what he intends to do as an admin. --Alex (Talk) 13:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Jon Harald Søby 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Mainspace edits are a bit less, but I know how much time goes in maintaining projects and portals. His being an admin on another wiki is a bonus. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Delta Tango | Talk 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Sors bona 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No, worries. Thanks for your work on medical topics. FloNight 05:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—another fine administrator coming. Williamborg (Bill) 06:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. This user was not very friendly with me on my first encounter and pushed his opinions rather forcefully. It seemed if you don't agree with his ideas for portals or make yours *just like* the medicine one, even it doens't make sense, you get an earful. While he seems to be improving, I don't think he's ready for adminship. I'm shocked so many people have supported him and I'm sorry 944 mainspace edits is not nearly enough for him to have a good understanding of what goes on. The not so great English doens't help either. Perfect English is not required, but it sure helps one hell of a lot to be able to explain things well when the subtle nuances of your admin decisions need to be explained. I just can't see where this is a good idea. pschemp | talk 03:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Seems like a great user, but 944 mainspace edits out of 4071 isn't really very much. Also doesn't seem to have a very firm grasp on English, as demonstrated by adding s to the end of words (1-2 dozens of AfDs) and the lack of words like an and the in his answers to the questions. Jorcoga 03:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess there are users who just write articles all the time and users who are more interested in other things. NCurse works with WikiProjects a lot, that might explain why his Wikipedia-namespace count is so high -but that's a plus, no?
- His English is far from perfect, but more than sufficient for admin tasks, in my opinion.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A1 level english is not required for admin tasks. Trust me on this.Geni 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to Steven Fruitsmaak: It is good to have a high Wikipedia namespace count, I'll admit that. I'm more interested in the maintenance side of things, but at least my mainspace count (even if it is low, but you don't see me running for adminship(I'd get withdrawn within the first hour or so)) is higher than all my other counts(which it should be). Answer to Geni: My point is, people who use this as a reference only (meaning can't see the little edit tag) are going to look at his article edits and think, what a substandard resource. I'm never going to use this again. This could drive away potential contributors.
- Jorcoga: As Steven said my English is far from perfect but I'll give more attention to the words like an and the as you mentioned above. I know well that I'm much more an organizer than an article contributor. You can see some of my contributions above (answer to Q4). After writing nearly 200 articles about genetics, medicine in Hungarian, I've found everything here and realized that I could organize things better. Anyway I wrote PSN2, then I plan to create more gene related articles. NCurse work 13:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you can't both dismiss him for the quality of his English and for the lack of mainspace edits. I think it shows that he is aware of his limitations. Different admins can help in different ways. The question should be: is his subpar knowledge of English going to lead him to be counter-productive as an admin. If you're only concern is that he won't be as productive as other admins then I don't see why this would pose any problem. Pascal.Tesson 17:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jorcoga: As Steven said my English is far from perfect but I'll give more attention to the words like an and the as you mentioned above. I know well that I'm much more an organizer than an article contributor. You can see some of my contributions above (answer to Q4). After writing nearly 200 articles about genetics, medicine in Hungarian, I've found everything here and realized that I could organize things better. Anyway I wrote PSN2, then I plan to create more gene related articles. NCurse work 13:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to Steven Fruitsmaak: It is good to have a high Wikipedia namespace count, I'll admit that. I'm more interested in the maintenance side of things, but at least my mainspace count (even if it is low, but you don't see me running for adminship(I'd get withdrawn within the first hour or so)) is higher than all my other counts(which it should be). Answer to Geni: My point is, people who use this as a reference only (meaning can't see the little edit tag) are going to look at his article edits and think, what a substandard resource. I'm never going to use this again. This could drive away potential contributors.
- A1 level english is not required for admin tasks. Trust me on this.Geni 00:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on. His English is not perfect, but I can't recall a single time when I didn't understand what he was trying to say. I'm also interested in what this has to do with his ability to clear out our image backlogs. -- Steel 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NCurse: Youi are a great editor. That's exactly why the oppose section is blank. PSN2, however is not whatI expected. It is a stub that Is extremely complicated. Pascal.Tesson: I never said he wouldn't be productive. A decent knowledge of English should be needed to contribute to an English encyclopedia. Steel: Read my answer to Geni. Jorcoga 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Jorcoga. I'm a bit concerned, but I'm not concerned enough that I'm going to oppose. 1ne 05:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per my criteria. Themindset 23:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He falls short of your criteria by whopping 20 edits. Please explain how he'll be more capable as an admin then as opposed to now. -- Steel 09:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is explained in my criteria, which is wikilinked above. Themindset 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now 1022 mainspace edits and I've been here for more than 6 months, I've been using Wikipedia for more than a year now. NCurse work 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is explained in my criteria, which is wikilinked above. Themindset 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He falls short of your criteria by whopping 20 edits. Please explain how he'll be more capable as an admin then as opposed to now. -- Steel 09:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Jorcoga and Mindset. A promising choice, but language skills and edit summaries (important) need improvement. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Final: 48/0/1 Ended 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Irongargoyle (talk · contribs) – I have been a member of the Wikipedia community since January 18 2006. My editing has picked up over the past number of months (I will refrain from saying "several" and let my edit history speak for itself), as I have become more active and engaged with the Wikipedia community. I really genuinely enjoy new page patrolling and XfDs (particularly AfD), and I have recently done a fair bit of vandal fighting in an effort to gain experience in this area. I try to always be civil. I am bold, but I am committed to respecting the importance of consensus at all times, particularly in my use of the mop and bucket for XfDs. Irongargoyle 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- Self-nomination accepted. Irongargoyle 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: If I am named an administrator I would certainly be willing to tackle any particular task I was needed for. That being said, I am most interested in clearing all the various XfD backlogs. I have found my involvement in the various deletion discussions (particularly AfD) to be really quite fascinating. Although the raw number of my contributions to AfD is not enormous, I pride myself in the well-researched votes I try to provide. Although I may have been guilty of a few, I try to avoid per nom votes when at all possible. I have, on several occasions discovered evidence that has saved an article on a noteworthy topic that might have otherwise been deleted. I spend quite a bit of time just reading AfD because I find it really quite interesting to read about the fringes of the wiki-world. I see myself as applying these qualities of care and deliberateness to my job as an administrator. When I work quickly I am apt to make mistakes (although I am always sure to repair them, as my recent exposure to vandal-fighting and recent change patrolling demonstrates). I will not be the quickest admin, but I can be trusted with a mop and bucket to get my small square of the floor pretty darn clean. I also would be more than happy to close speedy-tagged articles, as I have considerable experience in new-page patrolling (and enjoy it more than recent changes).
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I have a bit of an obsession with templates and I am particularly proud of the number and quality of navigation templates that I have created for the two wikiprojects that I am a member of. I feel that tools for navigation of the encyclopedia are quite important and searches and redirects only go so far if you're not exactly sure what you are looking for. I am also strangely satisfied by my immensely daunting wikification of Nebraska Statewide Arboretum. As for articles, they have mostly been starts and stubs. I generally tend to be rather gnomish, but I plan on helping in some efforts to raise an articles in WikiProject Middle-earth (particularly The Silmarillion) to GA or featured status in the very near future. My first major article start in the near future will probably be: Reverse placebo effect.
- 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 was actually involved with an edit conflict very early in my editing history before I was familiar with the conventions of wiki-etiquette. In retrospect, I can certainly see why my method of following a user's edit history to what I thought to be bad edits could have been misinterpreted, but I feel as though I have always behaved in a civil and respectful manner throughout this and all interactions on wikipedia. [34], [35] [36]. I learned a lot from this experience, particularly about assuming good faith. I go to lengths to diffuse edit conflicts and find consensus before they begin (see here...I ended up discovering that nobody even cared :-)). As for more complicated matters of wiki-politics, I prefer to keep my head down and off the radar. I am gnomish after all. In cases of vandalism and speedy-deletion tagging, I have been careful to leave messages on user talk pages as much as possible.
- Optional question from User:Moreschi.
- 4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
- A: I think I should start out by saying that I will be generally conservative in using the block button in general.
I think there are a couple of key philosophical points to make. Firstly, I am a big believer in not feeding the trolls. Ignoring the offender (following failed civil warnings and communication) is (generally) a much more effective form of social control than punitive action (even online). In most cases I think trolls are frustrated members of the community who have a small number of particular grievances. By inciting them further, you risk them getting combative with wikipedia as a whole. This is never good because established users have the most expertise and know all the best ways to sockpuppet, evade blocks and cause general mayhem if they wanted to. I think it is much better to show said editor calm communication and quiet opposing consensus than to lash back with a block for being uncivil.
As for random vandals (and vandals in the clearest and most unambiguous sense), they are probably not paying attention to what you are saying (or if you are ignoring them), so they might as well be warned and blocked in as quick and civil a way as possible. Some pure vandals have come back to become useful editors, so we don't want to alienate even them, but ignoring it won't help either.
There are obviously some categories of behavior that simply cannot be ignored. There is clear and unambiguous policy regarding violations of WP:NPA and WP:3RR after suitable warnings, and I support the community consensus in this matter. That being said, it can never hurt to go to the dispute resolution chain. Indeed, I would prefer some sort of community consensus before blocking any well-established user. I imagine that admins with itchier trigger fingers (and I am not saying this as a pejorative in any way), would be much more likely to step in before me, and that’s fine. I would step in and use my tools though, it’s more a matter of when.
- A: I think I should start out by saying that I will be generally conservative in using the block button in general.
- General comments
- See Irongargoyle's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
Support
- Support. I've never encountered him, but I see no issues. We can always use more admins on New Page Patrol. I've checked some of his contributions and they seem polite, well thought out, and intelligent. alphaChimp(talk) 01:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a high-quality, established user. Participates in WikiProjects, enters XfD discussions, I like the template work I checked (at random), always uses edit summaries, could use the admin tools, and I like his answers to the big three questions... sounds good to me! -- Kicking222 01:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, he's a statistician, which I (sometimes) aspire to be. Bonus points! -- Kicking222 01:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Since there's already a wonderful article on the nocebo effect, I went ahead and redirected your planned duplicate reverse placebo effect, saving you some time. Looks like a wonderful editor for adminship! InvictaHOG 01:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems good.--Húsönd 02:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a very good editor. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues here. A very civil user as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Meets my criteria. See my analysis of Irongargoyle on the discussion page. Overall little risk that the tools to block, unblock, delete & undelete will be abused by Irongargoyle. Let's do it. Williamborg (Bill) 02:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Michael 03:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks like an easy choice. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per his answers to the questions. Good luck! —Khoikhoi 03:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit-conflict Support: Easily passes my standards by a margin. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no reason to oppose. NCurse work 05:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, always! ;) - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 08:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell yeah, and perhaps we could speedy this. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 08:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above and nom. Terrific user. Hello32020 11:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems to be a good guy abakharev 12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought he already was one... 1ne 13:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well qualified candidate.-- danntm T C 13:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. per 1n3. :P íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Rama's arrow 15:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user's thoughful, flexible approach to Afd makes me confident that s/he will monnitor and close such discussions with care. I can only assume other tasks will be dealt with in the same fashion. Dina 17:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relaxed Support, scores 20.5 on my criteria. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 21:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a solid user with a good mix of experience. Themindset 00:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Tawker 05:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - IMO that was a model answer to my question. A good editor as well, one who clearly will not misuse the tools. Moreschi 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 11:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Impressive answers, food for thought for existing admins too. --kingboyk 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian - Talk 23:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to questions, and impressive contributor to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, buddy. =) --Nishkid64 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers, demonstrated need of sysop tools. -- Merope Talk 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks A-OK, I don't see any reasons to hold back "the mop". JungleCat talk/contrib 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Checked out the contributions, and making this user an admin would only enhance the current activities. Insufficient evidence to reject. -- RM 01:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good answers to questions. I feel I can trust the user with the mop. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Doctor Bruno 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support reasonable answers. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Irongargoyle is a bit greener than I would like, but I've always found this user to be reasonable and show good judgement. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.--Isotope23 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- has my support. - Longhair\talk 08:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above Anger22 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-05 07:50Z
- Support - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Noted a query about talk page archiving at their talk page, however, that is in no way a reason to oppose given their contribution history. Ansell 10:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support, looks good to me. PJM 12:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Jcam 17:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nice edit break down, edit history, and clear question answers (smile). I disagree with some of his "notability" work, but that's definitely not a reason to oppose. Happy to support. : ) - jc37 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems to be an excellent candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no evidence suggesting he would abuse the tools and seems like he needs them. Wikipediarules2221 23:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- Neutral. I appreciate the editor's thoughtful contributions to AfD, but encyclopedia building seems a little on the weak side. I'm also worried about understanding of the image fair use policy, per concerns raised on talk page. Espresso Addict 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the image issue, and following the comment by Meegs, I was surprised that it was not raised earlier in this discussion. After the comment was made, I did a considerable amount of reading of both the image fair use policy and the associated talk pages. I feel as though I have a considerably better understanding of fair use policy than when I began this RfA and have since uploaded no images in potential violation. I do not philosophically agree with the policy, but I admitted that Meegs was probably correct in the policy's interpretation and would not oppose its implementation. Best, Irongargoyle 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Final (66/11/5) Ended Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:55:54 (UTC)
Merope (talk · contribs) – I've been a member of Wikipedia since 2004, though my level of involvement has increased dramatically over the past several months. I'm an avid new page patroller, and I'm committed to WP:BITE—I almost always leave messages on creators' talk pages explaining my reasoning. I'm involved in a couple of WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Wikify and WikiProjectNovels, which have served to better focus my encyclopedia-building efforts. I do my best to adhere to WP:CIVIL, and feel I am particularly receptive to questions and criticisms. I'm e-mail enabled and I'm here almost every single day. I adore Wikipedia, and would love to perform more chores to help keep it running smoothly. -- Merope Talk 01:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- Self-nomination. -- Merope Talk 01:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I often do new page patrol, and would find the process easier with admin tools (particularly with the number of attack pages that get created). WP:AN/I always needs another set of eyes, and I've had it on my watchlist for some time now. I would really like to get involved in WP:CP, since that's an area that needs more attention from admins. I'm fairly active in WP:AFD (and some XfD), and would like to be able to close discussions. I also regularly check CAT:HELP, and some of the requests require admin tools (e.g., undeleting articles, autoblocks, etc.). I try to stay abreast of WP policy and changes, and am always looking for new ways to contribute to the project.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: To be perfectly honest, my most satisyfing contributions have been helping other users by checking CAT:HELP. That's not to say that I don't enjoy writing—I do—but helping other Wikipedians figure out this often byzantine system is particularly rewarding.
- As far as encyclopedia-building goes, I will have to say that I'm pleased with the articles I've started per WikiProjectNovels, particularly The Athenian Murders. I feel that literature often has a skimpy coverage in WP (for example, the article on Little Women contains more information about the film and anime versions than the classic work itself) and my adding even a handful of articles helps improve that coverage. I am happy to provide more links to articles I've created or worked on if requested. Though I'm currently on a break from WikiProject Wikify, I'm pleased with my work in that arena, since Wikification is much-needed and is probably one of the most unglamorous aspects of editing.
- 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 been in a few conflicts, mostly in doing WP:RCP. I'm no stranger to personal attacks or having my user page vandalized, but those are easily laughed off. I have had a few edit conflicts, but I feel I've efficiently and civilly resolved those, making use of both user and article talk pages. A few conflicts have caused me stress; a memorable example is a user who criticized me for fixing double redirects, saying I was doing "bot work". Admittedly, I found this insulting (as I was only trying to learn about different aspects of the project), but I forced myself to take a break from editing before I talked to him. (We were able to amicably resolve it.) Really, the best thing for any editor to do is to walk away from the computer, even if it's for a few moments. I never want to respond to someone when I'm frustrated and angry, and taking a small break to cool down before I hit the edit button is the best way I can keep civil.
- Question from User:Wknight94
- 4. Pop quiz question: In retrospect, what would you say might be wrong with this edit?
- A: CSD G4 is for articles that have undergone a deletion review process (which excludes previously speedied or prodded material). I've recently suggested a change to the template to clarify this here. -- Merope Talk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After Picaroon9288's addendum, I see the problem--back then, I didn't know the difference between "block" and "ban". I've done extensive reading since then. The CSD thing popped out first since I've recently worked on it. -- Merope Talk 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: CSD G4 is for articles that have undergone a deletion review process (which excludes previously speedied or prodded material). I've recently suggested a change to the template to clarify this here. -- Merope Talk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from User:ais523
- 5. When do you think it is appropriate to stop an edit war using administrator actions (blocks and/or protections)?
- A: I think blocks are appropriate only if the users involved have violated WP:3RR or WP:NPA. "Cool-down" blocks are, in my opinion, rarely effective. (I imagine the user would return more agitated than before.) In such cases, I would leave messages for the parties involved on their talk pages and urge them to discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making any more edits. Depending on the situation, I might suggest mediation, but unless the users involved are personally attacking one another, I don't see that a block just to stop the edit war is justifiable. Protecting pages is a serious endeavor—it goes against Wikipedia's philosophy of an encyclopedia freely editable—but I believe it's sometimes necessary to enforce a cool down period. (Or to preserve the integrity of pages Stephen Colbert mentions on his show.) I would sooner temporarily protect a page (while telling the involved parties to take it to the article talk page) than I would block a user who is likely acting in good faith. -- Merope Talk 12:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from User:Moreschi
- 6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
- A: I will understand "established user" to mean a user with a solid edit history. I believe that, after appropriate warnings, violations of WP:3RR and WP:NPA warrant blocks. Blatant vandalism (including repeated insertion of copyrighted material) would also warrant a block after the appropriate warning ({{bv}} or a {{test4}}). In such examples, the user would have to show that he is no longer acting in good faith. As stated above, I don't believe that the solution to edit wars is to block the involved users, and that is especially true for users who have been around the project and should (and probably do) know better; it's better to start a dialogue with the user before handing out a block. Unless the user in question is disrupting Wikipedia (e.g., vandalism, page moves, personal attacks, etc.), I would want to start a discussion on WP:AN/I before blocking someone with a tradition of helping the project. -- Merope Talk 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from Andeh
- 7. Hi, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations? (They should still be on your watchlist) As you said you intended to close some yourself. Thank you and good luck.
- A: The ones on my watchlist currently are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do You See Me? (single); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FurniFind.com; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choch. -- Merope Talk 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from T REXspeak
- 8. When did you start actively editing? A specific date would be nice. T REXspeak 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: On 6 July 2006, I played around in the sandbox and realized I didn't know really what the hell I was doing. :) So I spent the next few days reading page after page of policy, and then crept in to make minor edits within the same week. Within two weeks I had started doing recent change patrol, reverting vandalism, and by the end of the month I started tackling new pages. I know it's unusual to read first, then edit, but as I state elsewhere in this RFA, I'm kind of a perfectionist. I'm just a perfectionist who makes mistakes and is okay with that. -- Merope Talk 02:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- Merope's edit count.
- See Merope's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
- The activity before July 2006 was equivalent to the activity of any random reader who has an account and makes the occasional spelling correction, etc.; for the purposes of adminship or editing, he has been a "member of Wikipedia" only since July 2006, which is quite a short period of time. —Centrx→talk • 23:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not tried to disguise the fact that the majority of my edits have been made within the last three months. However, a Wikipedian is anyone who contributes to Wikipedia, per WP:GLOSSARY. My first contribution as a registered user, small though it was, was made on 6 October 2004, nearly two years ago. I feel I've been a part of the Wikipedia project by my passive participation in reading articles. Also, I'm a female. ;) -- Merope Talk 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- Support. Honored to be the first vote in support of this worthy candidate. Jcam 01:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent user. - Mike 01:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Merope, whom I have not previously had occasion to encounter, seems altogether deliberative, trustworthy, and cordial and appears well acquainted with extant policy and practice, such that he is surely unlikely to abuse or misuse, even avolitionally, the admin tools. I don't see anything remotely objectionable here, and I imagine that the candidate's becoming an admin will benefit the project. Joe 01:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; a quick review of her contribs shows nothing to worry about. Edit summary usage, patrols, and afd participation are all good. Granted, she hasn't been actively editing for as long as she's been here, but there is nothing noticable to suggest anything less than a good understanding of policy, except the diff pointed out by Wknight94. Oh, and does this make you a feminist, Merope? Picaroon9288 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm giving away the answer to Wknight's question, but I assumed he (Wknight94) was mentioning your suggestion of banning the creator, not the CSD G4, which seemed reasonable enough. Picaroon9288 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Per solid contributions and good answers. Seems to have reasonable understanding of policies and takes an interest in improving policies (per answer to my question). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It was my previously expressed intention to nominate this user for adminship. I ran across Merope when they questioned a warning I gave a user. I then took a look at the contribution log and found a person who is almost unfailingly polite and welcoming to new users and actively tries to help people out. There's no doubt that Merope would make a far better admin than many of us and certainly is better prepared than I was when I became an admin. I rarely cast my vote in RfA's but I think this one more than deserves to pass. Wikipedia is improved by Merope's contributions. --Yamla 03:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I was just about to write some very positive things on your editor review when I decided to check the RfAs and here you are! Friendly editor, commendable contributions (esp. to WikiProject Novels), efficient NP patrol, etc, etc, etc. --Húsönd 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Changed from neutral); after all, adminship is no big deal. Having read the nominee's responses since I commented and looked into more things about this editor, I am quite happy to change my mind to "support". Whatever spurred this editor to go from zero to sixty seems to have done her well. Whether or not she gets the mop I hope she keeps up with the standards she seems to have set for herself. Agent 86 04:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. From what I can see there don't seem to be any major problems. —Khoikhoi 04:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This seems to be a strong candidate. (aeropagitica) 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Supprt, scoring 23 (pending on 24) on my Admin Assessment Scale, Merope has the highest score yet. Good luck ! -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 05:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Highway Daytrippers 07:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kusma (討論) 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unconditional support Rama's arrow 11:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support satisfies my expectations, and is a fan of Joss Whedon to boot.-- danntm T C 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good answers. Renesis (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent patroller, knows policy well, not afraid to help out new users. Wickethewok 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian - Talk 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's rare that a candidate goes up whom I have never of. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid user. Good to see fellow people dedicated to new page patrol. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I wanted to oppose, but couldn't come up with any good reasons. Oh, and 3 months is plenty of time for someone who has been around since 2004, even if not heavily active, and for someone who is well qualified otherwise. -- RM 17:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Heavy involvement or not, this user has been around since 2004. Meets (barely) my standards, but more importantly I don't see any reason not to trust the nom with the tools. Themindset 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I liked the answers to the questions. Adminship is no big deal, and I think that while three months is not a particularly long time, it's enough to establish that the user is not going to use admin tools for the wrong reasons. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs Count 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; seems OK.--Andeh 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after striking neutral !vote below. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Doesn't seem to have the range of edits an admin should have. For eg. Very few categories and templates have been created by the user. Satisfactory answers to the questions though. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Adminship is no big deal, unless the editor has serious issues. I see no evidence that Merope has any such issues. Give her the tools; Why the hell not? --Aaron 19:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Meets my 2K and civility requirements, and is willing to help others. Given the restrictive climate of RFA these days, I applaud anyone willing (and with only four candidates, there's apparently hardly anyone willing, anymore) to submit him/herself to the RFA process. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Szvest 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-Why not, you have done alot of hard work--You deserve it--Seadog--fly on....littlewing 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The answers to the questions are good and I feel that Merope's edits over the last few months have given no cause for concern. I don't know what else we really need from a candidate. Rje 00:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hard worker, will not likely abuse admin privleges, very civil user. Hello32020 00:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answers to questions and, IMO, sufficient experience. 2-3 months active edition is enough, especially when appended on to a longer period of reading and occaisionaly editing. Eluchil404 01:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answers and some good edits Jeffklib 02:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We should not use some arbitrary floor to weigh experience; some users gain "experience" faster than others. I think Merope is a solid enough editor to not misuse the tools, regardless of the time editing. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for being here almost two years, despite so many recent edits in so few months. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 04:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this user around; she is helpful and good at new page patrolling. Also, she has sufficient edits and experience to become an administrator. -- Casmith 789 08:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, oppose section raises no important concerns, edits look good. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per kindness to the new users in BITE adherence. People Powered 22:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Markovich292 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Although I express concerns over the user's experience, I feel that she has demonstrated that they can handle the tasks involved in being an admin. She's had a good deal of experience with others, and contributes to RfA and AfD discussions. --Nishkid64 00:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. We certainly could use more literature around here. Errabee 06:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Catchpole 08:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. This user makes good sense. I think she is doing a good job and I appreciate her work. I like her areas of emphasis. KarateLadyKarateLady 14:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible support. One of this site's most pleasant, constructive, positive and hardest-working users. "You mean she wasn't one already?!?" Sorry...had to say that. :) - Lucky 6.9 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support despite the 3-month thing; she's a great vandalism fighter. NawlinWiki 19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Doctor Bruno 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen Merope contribute to the AFD discussions and I think her contributions are well-balanced. zephyr2k 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Canderous Ordo 22:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Merope looks like a level-headed and polite editor. RedZebra 11:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I believe that she'll be a good admin. She wants to help the community and I see no reason why she'd abuse the tools. NCurse work 11:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I beleive that Merope will make an excellent and fair adminstrator. Thryduulf 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Merope does good work at NPP. 3 months is enough experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-03 18:40Z
- Support good new page patroller. Jaranda wat's sup 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I encountered Merope only today, when I asked her a question about a deleted article which had popped up again. Her knowledge about reposts, and the proper response thereto, was, no pun intended, encyclopaedic, and she was very helpful in the discussion about what I should do with the reposted material. I assumed that she already was an administrator, and was quite surprised when she said she was not. I fully believe that, as an administrator, she will be of equal or greater help to a great many other editors. ---Charles 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I think she is a very good user, and will probably make a very good admin. My concern is her lack of experience. I worry that people who become admins too soon tend to burn out.-gadfium 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like a great editor that will make a good admin. Wikipediarules2221 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor, someone I hoped would seek adminship. --MCB 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Late in the game, a good way to see the quality of a nominee is to look at the oppose comments. In this case, the opposes make it clear that there's no reason at all not to give this editor the mop. Several months of hard work is plenty to give us a good idea of the kind of job she'll do. -- SCZenz 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Emphatic support, for the same reasons as SCZenz. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - if lack of experience is the best we can come up with, then I see no reason this user shouldn't be an admin. she's an active contributor, she's not shown any tendancy torwards abuse, so WP:AGF - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to argue against myself, but "lack of experience" is a valid reason to oppose an RFA. A user with insufficient experience could be detrimental to the project, even if he or she is acting in good faith. However, I believe that despite my short tenure, I have sufficient knowledge and familiarity with the policies via my extensive reading and researching. I completely understand and respect those who oppose my nomination based on my short tour of duty. -- Merope Talk 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - Looks like she'll be a thorougly wonderful admin. --Masamage 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Oppose. Lack of experience, per only substantially active since early July. Espresso Addict 02:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've seen in her contributions and answers here, she's more qualified than several recently made admins - whether she's been here since July or not... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be the case, but less than 3 months of active editing, 1327 mainspace edits (the bulk of which seem relatively minor) plus work on a project joined just over a week ago do not convince me that the editor currently has a sufficient breadth & depth of experience. Espresso Addict 05:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've seen in her contributions and answers here, she's more qualified than several recently made admins - whether she's been here since July or not... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per my standards. Sorry, but less than 3 months isn't nearly enough time for us to be sure that you won't do anything untoward. Cynical 11:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose - I liked the answer to my question (apologies to Mcginnly for intellectual theft), but the time thing (three months of active editing only would IMO set a bad precedent) is a real concern. However, I would be voting neutral were it not for the a weakness when it comes to actual article-writing. No GAs or FAs have been mentioned and overall the answer to question 2 was a bit weak. IMO admins should set an example to us editing-wise as well as in other areas - a view which I know is deeply unfashionable, but we are here to write an encyclopedia, after all. I suppose the other thing is that in my experience admins who regularly contribute in a significant manner to the article mainspace are less likely to burn out. This vote isn't set in absolute stone, but at any rate I will definitely vote "support" when more experience has been acquired, if I have to. Moreschi 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose due to misleading nomination that skews that facts quite a bit. The candidate mentions that his/her level of involvement has increased dramatically over the past several months, and this is patently false. It could just be a severe misuse of the word "several", but the candidate has only been actively (and I use the term loosely) contributing since late July 2006 (so basically two months). Prior to this influx of editing in July, the candidate hadn't edited since February 2006 and has made seventeen edits between 6 October 2004 and 6 July 2006. Ergo, the user has been a Wikipedian since July 2006. I find the nomination to be grossly misleading and definitely not someone I would be comfortable with trusting with extra responsibilities and buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand several to mean a few, i.e., three. I believe I have been editing consistently for July, August, and September (which ends tomorrow). I would be happy to change the wording if you feel this is misleading. I never made claims to frequent edits of WP before then, but I have been involved--WP has been my homepage on my home and work computers since 2003, and I read articles every single day. My level of activity has increased--I've gone from being a passive observer who made occasional edits to someone who's committed to improving the project. I feel that before I dove in to editing (which I did in July), I spent a lot of time reading policies and trying to understand the system (which, as you know, takes a lot of time and effort). I will happily change my request, but my intent was not to be misleading; I believed that a simple check of my earliest edits would confirm what I said. -- Merope Talk 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why, but I feel compelled to say that there is nothing "patently false" (very strong words, by the way) about the candidate's statement. It is absolutely true that the increase in this editor's contributions was "dramatic". To have pause over the short period of intense contribution is one thing (it's a concern I share), but I don't think the way the candidate phrased the statement is any reason to call her honesty into question. Agent 86 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that the seemingly self-aware choice of diction is innappropriate and gives an untruthful representation of the nominator. I think that the way the registration date and length of time actively editing was approached is indeed very misleading. The nomination as it stands now, is inappropriate, in my opinion. As such, a misleading nomination (in my eyes) is a huge red flag for me. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can say is assume good faith. Agent 86 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because I have a different opinion than you does not mean I'm acting in bad faith. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a different opinion is not the problem. In fact, I share your concern on the length of time the nominee has been editing issue. The problem is that you've called the nominee a liar. If the use of "patently false" isn't a failure to AGF, it certainly seems uncivil. Agent 86 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncivil? I disagree, Agent 86. I believe Hoopydink is not calling Merope a liar per se, but he is just merely saying that Merope has possibly stretched the truth a bit about his length of experience here on Wikipedia in the coming months. However, that's just my interpretation of what Hoopydink said. And by no means am I taking Hoopydink's side on this issue. I actually think his words were a bit rough, but not bad enough to be considered uncivil. --Nishkid64 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a different opinion is not the problem. In fact, I share your concern on the length of time the nominee has been editing issue. The problem is that you've called the nominee a liar. If the use of "patently false" isn't a failure to AGF, it certainly seems uncivil. Agent 86 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because I have a different opinion than you does not mean I'm acting in bad faith. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can say is assume good faith. Agent 86 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that the seemingly self-aware choice of diction is innappropriate and gives an untruthful representation of the nominator. I think that the way the registration date and length of time actively editing was approached is indeed very misleading. The nomination as it stands now, is inappropriate, in my opinion. As such, a misleading nomination (in my eyes) is a huge red flag for me. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why, but I feel compelled to say that there is nothing "patently false" (very strong words, by the way) about the candidate's statement. It is absolutely true that the increase in this editor's contributions was "dramatic". To have pause over the short period of intense contribution is one thing (it's a concern I share), but I don't think the way the candidate phrased the statement is any reason to call her honesty into question. Agent 86 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand several to mean a few, i.e., three. I believe I have been editing consistently for July, August, and September (which ends tomorrow). I would be happy to change the wording if you feel this is misleading. I never made claims to frequent edits of WP before then, but I have been involved--WP has been my homepage on my home and work computers since 2003, and I read articles every single day. My level of activity has increased--I've gone from being a passive observer who made occasional edits to someone who's committed to improving the project. I feel that before I dove in to editing (which I did in July), I spent a lot of time reading policies and trying to understand the system (which, as you know, takes a lot of time and effort). I will happily change my request, but my intent was not to be misleading; I believed that a simple check of my earliest edits would confirm what I said. -- Merope Talk 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - try again in 6 months... --T-rex 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, 3 months is my cut off date. Most likely support next time if there is one seeing as you are probably gonna pass. T REXspeak 15:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Like the others, I feel the user has insufficient experience. Eusebeus 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - would like to see some more experience first. RFerreira 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Inexperience.--Mcginnly | Natter 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose - would support with another month or two of experience, and more contributions to administrative areas of WP. --Storkk 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral
- Neutral - I'd like to see a bit longer of active posting. Under three months really isn't enough. Michael 01:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, very much lean to support. Impressive number of edits given that this nominee only really started contributing in early July; however, I am hard pressed to find any real work on content. Vast majority of contributions in the main namespace appear to be "minor" edits, largely the adding of templates, adding categories, minor clean-up, etc. While this is indicative of a potential need for the tools, I am concerned about the lack of work towards building an encyclopedia or indication of contributions that expose this nominee to the policies an admin should be familiar with. I am also concerned about the number of times the nominee has flagged articles for "speedy" that weren't really speedies (although, to be fair, some had the speedy tags removed by editors who salvaged the articles), or re-applied the speedy (and subsequently the prod tag) when other editors removed it. In those circumstances, the proper thing to do would be to take it to AfD. However, the nominee has some good answers to the questions, no real mistakes, and a talk page that discloses no concerns, so I doubt there will be any abuse of the tools. However, I think I just need that something more before I can support, given that I've now changed my mind between neutral and support a few times before clicking "save" on this comment. As adminship is no big whoop, I may well change my mind before this RfA closes. If not, I'll be pleased to support next time around, once a bit more experience is evident. Agent 86 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Those are absolutely valid concerns. I feel I've improved recently in this (certainly in not re-applying speedies or prods), though if articles have been deleted, this would not be reflected in my edit history. I will be more mindful of this in the future. As for encyclopedia building, I admit that it's an area I need to develop in; hence my joining projects. I've created a few articles, I maintain a to do list, and I am spending some time doing research to improve some existing articles (particularly the ones concerning the types of the Enneagram). It's one of those things that requires a lot of time and attention, and I'm a perfectionist. I recognize that there is a problem with an administrator/contributor dichotomy, and I don't want to perpetuate that. Thank you for the feedback. -- Merope Talk 02:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced - see my new entry under "support". Agent 86 04:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The edit history and answers to admin questions seem fine. Recent activity is also impressive, but I find it difficult to gauge long term staying-power based on less than 3 months of active editing. As a result, I can't fully support just yet. Still, I don't see any particular reason to oppose. --Alan Au 06:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning precariously towards support – keep running into you, and have been consistently impressed. Like Húsönd, I was thinking about commenting on your editor review, when I found you here :) However, it's the time issue – 3 months of active editing doesn't really convince me. If this RfA doesn't work out (hard to tell right now), try again in a few months time, and I will be delighted to support you. Best wishes, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Bah... support. :) — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- To you, and to the other users who have expressed concerns over my length of service: I completely understand. I debated whether it was premature of me to request adminship after so short a term of duty, but I feel that I have a good handle of policy and would be able to serve the project in a greater capacity with sysop tools. I spent a lot of time reading various users' standards for adminship and recognized that several people will understandably oppose me based on that. It is hard to demonstrate committment and trustworthiness in so short of time, and so I respect your reticence. If this RfA fails, I will learn from it and try again. I'm finding that, as nerve-wracking as the RfA process is, it is increasing my enthusiasm for the project and showing me how I can be a better contributor. Thanks for your feedback. -- Merope Talk 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - No real reason to oppose, but the relatively short period of activity prevents me from supporting. Burnout (temporary or permanent) can happen to the best of us, and Merope isn't yet at the period where we know if that will be the case here. I would also like to see some more encyclopedia building. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - per cholmes75. I have no doubts about your skills however I feel the possibility for burnout is a valid concern. Take it easy if the RfA passes, ok? Roadmr 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: Mostly for the time concerns. If the RFA doesn't make it, the user should definitely try again in a few months; shows great promise. Heimstern Läufer 04:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Final (14/20/13) Ended Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:34:22 UTC
Jc37 (talk · contribs) – I've been editing on Wikipedia since around March, and reading it for several years now. List of characters on The West Wing (and my general leaning towards organization) finally persuaded me to make my first edit : ) Since then I've still been a "reader", but also joined several WikiProjects, and am active on CfD. jc37 06:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Self-nomination - jc37 06:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: Helping with the "X"fD pages (especially CfD) And helping with the "Speedy" work, as well.
- Well, Categories for deletion, such as WP:CFD, C:CSD (and WP:UCFD), as I'm the most familiar with those, but also templates, articles, and miscellaneous for deletion. I also would be interested in helping out with Wikipedia:Requested moves. (expanded at 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC))
- A: Helping with the "X"fD pages (especially CfD) And helping with the "Speedy" work, as well.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are particularly pleased with, and why?
- A:
- I've done some ReOrg work on several list pages. (I enjoy organizing, among other things.) These are a few of my favourites:
- The West Wing was what finally got me to break down and edit Wikipedia the first time. (See: User:Jc37/Archive/The West Wing for some examples.)
- Did a massive clean-up and page organization of the Wikipedia:Userboxes gallery pages, especially the old Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media page (now apparently deleted): I split it into subsections, then moved the sections to individual pages, leaving "media" itself to be a page of links to the other pages; and the Wikipedia/Userboxes/Interests page, moving several subsections to their own pages (such as science and history).
- Did a clean-up/ReOrg on Robin (comics) that I liked.
- List of locations of the DC Universe Complete ReOrg, and also standardized listing (locations of the locations at the end; added punctuation, wikifications, etc)
- I created the userbox for Wikipedia:WikiProject Greyhawk.
- Did two major ReOrgs of Userbox policy proposal. The first separated the list of guidelines by theme, and general clean-up; the second, broke those themes into sections, and clarified throughout.
- I'm also rather active in CfD.
- 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: Edit conflicts would seem to be the way of Wikipedia, these days. "Communication is the key." The best answer is discussion. Find out what the issue is, and why there may be a disagreement, and discuss. Keeping an open mind is a good thing (though allowing someone else to walk all over you is not : )
- Have I been involved in any conflicts over editing? - Yes, I presume you could say that : )
- As I said above, it seems to be the way of Wikipedia these days.
- For example: WP:DENY - there have been issues over whether it should be a guideline yet. Eventually I started a new page for discussing it, in order to hopefully slowdown/stop the tag reversion warring. There was also a discussion in which I was the "third party" discussing the Islamic Barnstar, which bled to talk pages, among other things. Recently I attempted to start a talk page discussion about whether or not Darth Vader should be categorised as an icon of evil (in order to attempt to slow down that edit war as well). I find I am being called on lately to act as a "third party"(see my talk page). Which is fine with me, I like to help : ) (expanded at 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC))
- A: Edit conflicts would seem to be the way of Wikipedia, these days. "Communication is the key." The best answer is discussion. Find out what the issue is, and why there may be a disagreement, and discuss. Keeping an open mind is a good thing (though allowing someone else to walk all over you is not : )
- 4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer may sound flippant, but it's not: It depends on the situation.
- There's a list of various reasons to block on WP:BLOCK, but typically it's to give a "cool down period" or a "slow down" period. Doesn't matter if it's WP:3RR, WP:VAND, or WP:CIVIL.
- I note your use of "established user". Except for the added weight such a user has on various process pages (such as this one), I think the rules are set up to be equal for all. That's one of Wikipedia's strengths - "anyone can edit". : ) - jc37 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there are the basics, such as WP:3RR: If an editor is constantly reverting a page so that he or she is disrupting the work of others, a block is possible. Or consistant/persistant vandalism (page blanking, the various page move vandals, etc.) But the problem I see with the inherent question, is that I would hope that most experienced editors wouldn't be doing such things. Same thing for violations of WP:CIVIL to the point of (again) disruption. Though in most cases I can think of, there is usually a "ramp up" to such situations, and time to drop a quick word (such as the admin's noticeboard) to get advice, or if I felt it necessary, help in mediation of the situation. (I'm a strong believer in "many eyes".) There are also the various legal concerns, dealing with copyright or personal info or threats, but again, I doubt that those would be things I would be involved in the blocking of. Two main key words are "persistant disruption". I keep feeling like I am attempting re-writing (or at least summarising) the WP:BLOCK page : ) - (expanded 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC))
- General comments
With only a day remaining (I believe), and this RfA nearing closure, I think that this is a good time for me to stop and share my thoughts. I have said a few of these things elsewhere, but I thought bringing it all together in one place would be a "good thing".
(A note to closing bureaucrat(s) - this is not a withdrawal. I would like this to continue at least to the end of the 7-day period.)
Unless some surpise "miracle" happens (like a sudden influx of support votes, or oppose/neutral voters changing to support), it's likely that this RfA will fail to "no concensus".
I know that it's likely to come across "superficial", but I seriously appreciated everyone who came to share their opinion. I have to admit, I was really appreciating the neutral votes those first 2 days. So many nice things have been said about me, it was almost embarrassing to read.
I would like to make it as clear as I possibly can that I am in no way "upset" concerning such a result. (A little disappointed, maybe, but that's human nature : )
In my opinion. the current RfA process allows for whatever criteria a person may have. The criteria doesn't have to be about policy. RfA is essentially about trust, and whether each individual feels that I should be trusted with "the mop". So, to me, it's like asking a poker player what's lucky for him...
So with that in mind, how could I be upset?
In hindsight, however, I do think I made 2 mistakes.
- 1.) I am aware that personally, I sometimes have been known to give what others may consider "long answers". Also, in my readings over time of RfAs, I've noticed quite a few "run-on" meandering responses that led more to confusion, than clarity. So I made the choice to attempt to give "short, straight-forward" answers to each of the questions. In hindsight, that seems to have been a mistake, as I've been made rather painfully aware. Though I think the expansions are a bit of a compromise between my wont to give a short answer, but yet add clarity, it may have been "too late" by the time of their addition.
- 2.) With as slow as the RfA started out, I was starting to wonder (as I noted below) if it was possibly because Geni had withdrawn so soon after my request. So I went and "read up" on the RfA guidelines. I read this:
- "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal."
- I also noted that it's 2 steps above "elaborate signatures". So to me it seemed to be a question of "personal opinion". So after reading that, I decided to do some research, and found WP:SPAM#Canvassing which I felt/feel clarified it rather well. (And by the way, I strongly urge all wikipedians to read those sections, because I've seen violations of those guidelines on talk pages nearly every day.) And I have a feeling that many who voted below may also not have been aware of the guideline (I think it should probably be noted on WP:GRFA). So what do I feel was my mistake? Well, I did not fully enough take into account what I said above. Whether it's policy or not, Wikipedians may feel that even a friendly notice is "too much" for them, and may automatically vote "oppose" on those grounds. As noted on WP:GRFA, and as I noted above, I believe it's well within their rights to do so. And I should have taken that more into consideration. I had actually considered posting a message on this page commenting about what I had done, but I decided (mistakenly) that it shouldn't be a "big deal", so I didn't. Not that it matters, but just as an overview, I believe that most of those I posted to, didn't respond, and I have a mixture of support, oppose, and neutral as responses from the few who did. I had no expectation when I sent it, and was (and am) appreciative of the responses.
And just for an overview of several comments below:
- I have an entry on WP:ER. I placed it several days before this RfA, and received only one response. This RfA has served well, I think though, in lieu of that.
- If my nomination didn't represent me very well, it's likely my own fault (since I chose what answers to give to questions).
- Please feel free to take my appreciation of irony however you see fit.
And while I thought all the comments were interesting, I want to single out one person - User:David D. He not only went through my contributions list (and I have to admit, I really liked hearing from everyone who obviously did so), but he also showed how much of an encyclopedist he is, and cited sources from it. Even though he voted support, I hope that no one will misunderstand when I say that once this RfA is over, I intend to give him a barnstar for his efforts. It's intended as a "nudge" so that he continues this sort of work on RfA and elsewhere in wikipedia.
One final thing I'd like to share, and that is that I learned quite a bit about all of you as well. Since it was my hope that others would look to see what I have done, I felt it only fair that I should do the same. So I've been through every commenter's contribution list. It was also helpful, since I discovered some new pages, and many that I added to my watchlist. : )
Partly because of the concerns of advertising during this RfA, and partly because it sounds like too much work (smile), I don't plan to thank everyone individually on their talk pages.
So again, I want to thank all who responded. It was much appreciated - have I over-used that word yet? : )
Thank you very much. - jc37 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Jc37's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
- Random diffs and edit count on the talk page. --ais523 08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
Support
- Weak Support. Despite the pile-on to Mcginnly's position, I actually thought the nominee's response to question four was reasonable. The nominee gave an answer supported by his reasons and cited policy to support that answer. I find it a stretch to turn "I think the rules are set up to be equal for all" into "the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors". My only real hesitation is the low number of contributions given the length of time here, hence my weak (moral) support. Agent 86 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When you go through my contributions list, you may see several edit summaries saying: "misc comments" for my CfD responses. I tend to answer all CfDs on a page at once (when possible) rather than a single edit for each nomination, so you could probably multiply my CfD edits at least by 8 (or more). My main edit on Robin and other articles/lists are typically done mostly in one or two edits as well. I guess I never saw the need to "rack up" my edit count. But I do understand your concern. Thanks "chief" : ) - jc37 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Mike 19:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Because the user is interested in XfD, The Wikipedia namespace edit count is good. This user is interested in deletion tasks by the look of it--not vandal fighting--so I think that should be kept in mind when evaluating this RfA. I know that an admin has a wide range of responsibilities, and it seems as though most opposition stems from answers to the blocking questions. I don't think there is anything within the user's past edit history (or within said answers) though, to indicate anything but a calm and fair temperment applied to what little blocking Jc37 is likely to be doing. Irongargoyle 02:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support i've been looking over the edits for this candidate and he seems quite communicative and level headed. On the wizard talk page he kept his cool despite the consensus going against him. Seems to make good use of the user talk pages too. A long series of edits in April on User talk:Hnsampat re:TWW categories (here is one diff) seem informed and friendly. A recent discussion with Cyde on userboxes shows initiative [37] as well as one on CfD at David Kernow talk page. I could go on giving examples since there are very few fluff edits in his user page edits. this user has a consitent history of working on categories, including categories for deletion. All in all, it seems he could use the tools. While the first answer above might be brief it is valid. I have now problem with his answer to Mcginnly's guestion as outlined below in response to Mailor Diablo. David D. (Talk) 04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I especially like the answer to the blocking an established user question. Established users and even (gasp) admins are not above the law. The rules do in fact, apply to them too. --Kbdank71 14:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support. You appear to be a fairly good user, but the message on my talk page indicates that you're not fully aware of some important - if obscure - facets of Wikipedia. I'm certainly not going to oppose you on this basis, especially since this is not the kind of thing that people draw particularly attention to (unlike actual policies...), and the obscurity of this particular point doesn't lead me to neutrality either. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uninformed support. I have no real idea what requirements or views a user should have to be an admin, so take my position for what it's worth. But I like Jc's attitude and adaptability, and think that's good for Wikipedia, so I presume it's good for adminship.--Mike Selinker 15:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Changed my mind again, due to a good response below. Weak because this RfA should not have been advertised and the edit count is a little lower than my standards, but the answers are now satisfactory. --Alex (Talk) 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. I wonder how many of the people weighing in on this have looked at his edit history as opposed to going only by Jc37's responses on this page. I have been impressed by Jc37's contributions in many ways and have been particularly impressed by how well this individual handles conflict. In fact, I know of someone who recently solicited Jc37's input on a matter where that individual was trying to avoid an edit war with someone else. Even though the one soliciting Jc37's input had actually disagreed with Jc37 about a key point about the same article, he considered Jc37 the appropriate voice of reason to call upon. Jc37's arguments had been rational and articulate, and Jc37 had shown great patience dealing with an unreasonable user who repeatedly runs into conflict with others. Wryspy 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Whilst I understand some of the hesitation indicated in the sections below, my experience of and interaction with jc37 mirrors that which people describe above, so I'm happy to support. David Kernow (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The user did some comment advertising, against WP:SPAM, however, this does not concern me, since the user is repentant and wouldn't do it again. Lesson learned, policy understood. A user does not have to understand *all* policy, as this is quite difficult in practice (there is so much, and it contradicts). It is far more important to understand the policy surrounding the admin tasks that the user is going to specialize in. -- RM 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Canderous Ordo 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I feel that some opposition to JC's RfA is unfair, as his nomination didn't represent him very well. I very much agree with his views on blocking and other admin-related policies, and he has my vote. Steveo2 19:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Answers to questions, particularly blocking. I need a more thoughtful analysis than just 'the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors'. 'Cool down blocks' on established users are also rather questionable in their effectiveness on established users in my opinion. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I respect your freedom of choice to such an opinion, I disagree with your assessment of my response. I did not say "Rules are rules". We live by the WP:5P here, and that includes WP:IAR when appropriate. My response was and is: "It depends on the situation". It doesn't matter if you're a 7 minute vandal or an experienced user with 50,000 edits. If you revert an article 5 times in 5 minutes, there's a fairly decent likelyhood that you're going to be blocked. If there is a heavily contested debate going on, wading in and blocking everyone is a typically a bad idea. For one thing, it likely isn't going to help move toward resolution of the debate. And there are other ways to cool a situation besides blocking, as well. It's a matter of reading the situation. And don't forget what I said in answer 3 about communication. All in all, there are just too many additional possible circumstances to list. As I said, every situation is different, and in my opinion, blanket statements about an unknown future are likely not helpful. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I don't happen to own one either : ) - jc37 05:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Mcginnly. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: per above. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Mcginnly. Michael 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all reasons above. Please try again after three months. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Lack of experience of encyclopedia building, per low mainspace edit count and preponderance of minor edits (often not marked as such). Espresso Addict 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fails several of my criteria and poor answers. Themindset 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. I suggest withdrawling and trying again in a few months. Stubbleboy 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all above, particularly your answers to the questions and low main space edits. Wikipediarules2221 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Advertising your RFA is usually frowned upon [38]. The JPStalk to me 14:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that "spam" was the concern (similar to a situation we had the other day with an AfD), which is why I only chose a small set number of people who I respect (and who, have not always agreed with me, as noted above). And as it said, the choice was tough, and I know I've forgotten someone else who was likely as deserving. In my time on Wikipedia, I have come to respect many editors, including those (as I said) who may at times not agree with me. I also was wondering if perhaps it was "slow" because Geni withdrew his nomination soon after I placed mine, so it may have not shown up for any length of time on watchlists of those who watch this page (and who may not have the specialised templates which also monitor this page). In any case, thank you for taking the time and effort to come comment. - jc37 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem a great user, and would be happy to support in the future. The JPStalk to me 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that "spam" was the concern (similar to a situation we had the other day with an AfD), which is why I only chose a small set number of people who I respect (and who, have not always agreed with me, as noted above). And as it said, the choice was tough, and I know I've forgotten someone else who was likely as deserving. In my time on Wikipedia, I have come to respect many editors, including those (as I said) who may at times not agree with me. I also was wondering if perhaps it was "slow" because Geni withdrew his nomination soon after I placed mine, so it may have not shown up for any length of time on watchlists of those who watch this page (and who may not have the specialised templates which also monitor this page). In any case, thank you for taking the time and effort to come comment. - jc37 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Weak answers but I stayed neutral, but advertising for comments is not a good idea. It's against policy. An admin will need to know policy better than that. See the "Canvassing" section in WP:SPAM. While I admit that this is a grey area, admins need to know policy better to stay away from grey areas. Moreschi 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice That's from the arbcom. And besides, admins stray into grey areas all the time. It's part of the job. Doesn't mean they are bad admins, or have abused their tools. --Kbdank71 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking for comments in your RFA is a very bad idea, flat. I know the user (who, I will, by the way, be delighted to support in the future when more experience has been acquired) meant no harm, but there are wicked people in the world who do not assume good faith as they ought and I hate people like that!! Plaigarised jokery apart, the problem is that an admin has to know policy better than this. Anyone who sails very close to the wind in the middle of their RFA will hit the buffers as an admin, who have to know policy inside out. My vote stands: I don't feel that the user knows enough about policy for adminship to appropriate at this time, quite apart from the weak answers to the questions. With best wishes for the future, Moreschi 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
#Weak oppose (change from neutral). A good editor, but even after expansion the answers still seem very vague, particularly question 4, and I also don't like the fact this RfA was advertised - users can look here for themselves. I'm not sure I understand your blocking policy. --Alex (Talk) 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Vague because I chose to not make blanket declarations of what arbitrary policy I may have come up with? (I ask, because I have not come up with an arbitrary policy such as described. Hence, "it depends on the situation", because I don't think that every situation will fit in some arbitrarily designed box. My answer is still the same: communication. Find out what the issues are - usually through discussion and reasearch of contribution pages - and attempt to work out an amicable solution, if possible.) If you feel I misunderstood your statement, please feel free to expand on your responses. Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to voice your thoughts. If you have any further questsions, feel free to ask. - jc37 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't really explain why you would block a user. Yes you've said what the rules are, but haven't really explained what exactly you would do. --Alex (Talk) 18:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, are you looking for a hypothetical? (an instance where I might think a block is necessary?) - jc37 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, relating to an experienced user. --Alex (Talk) 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. First let me state that I tend to try to avoid hypotheticals when applied to people because they can tend to polarise, etc etc etc. (Similar to agreeing with Tolkien in regards to analogies in fiction being a bad idea.) However, with that in mind, I believe you've asked a sincere question. Give me a moment and I'll put my imagination to work and try to come up with some. - jc37 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, relating to an experienced user. --Alex (Talk) 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, are you looking for a hypothetical? (an instance where I might think a block is necessary?) - jc37 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't really explain why you would block a user. Yes you've said what the rules are, but haven't really explained what exactly you would do. --Alex (Talk) 18:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (starting indent over)
- Well there are the basics, such as WP:3RR: If an editor is constantly reverting a page so that he or she is disrupting the work of others, a block is possible. Or consistant/persistant vandalism (page blanking, the various page move vandals, etc.) But the problem I see with the inherent question, is that I would hope that most experienced editors wouldn't be doing such things. Same thing for violations of WP:CIVIL to the point of (again) disruption. Though in most cases I can think of, there is usually a "ramp up" to such situations, and time to drop a quick word (such as the admin's noticeboard) to get advice, or if I felt it necessary, help in mediation of the situation. (I'm a strong believer in "many eyes".) There are also the various legal concerns, dealing with copyright or personal info or threats, but again, I doubt that those would be things I would be involved in the blocking of. Two main key words are "persistant disruption". I keep feeling like I am attempting re-writing (or at least summarising) the WP:BLOCK page : ) - jc37 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking the time to explain your answer, which I'm pretty impressed with. Changing to weak support. --Alex (Talk) 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there are the basics, such as WP:3RR: If an editor is constantly reverting a page so that he or she is disrupting the work of others, a block is possible. Or consistant/persistant vandalism (page blanking, the various page move vandals, etc.) But the problem I see with the inherent question, is that I would hope that most experienced editors wouldn't be doing such things. Same thing for violations of WP:CIVIL to the point of (again) disruption. Though in most cases I can think of, there is usually a "ramp up" to such situations, and time to drop a quick word (such as the admin's noticeboard) to get advice, or if I felt it necessary, help in mediation of the situation. (I'm a strong believer in "many eyes".) There are also the various legal concerns, dealing with copyright or personal info or threats, but again, I doubt that those would be things I would be involved in the blocking of. Two main key words are "persistant disruption". I keep feeling like I am attempting re-writing (or at least summarising) the WP:BLOCK page : ) - jc37 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice That's from the arbcom. And besides, admins stray into grey areas all the time. It's part of the job. Doesn't mean they are bad admins, or have abused their tools. --Kbdank71 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Mcginnly and RfA advertising, which is heavily frowned upon. Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. RfA advertising? Why shouldn't he (he?) call upon people who are familiar with his contributions to look at his RfA? Check the spam guidelines. A friendly notice is not spam. Jc37 didn't ask anyone to vote for or against. He notified some people who are familiar with his work. He notified me regardless of the fact that in his recent disagreement with B___ (name omitted), D___ and I backed B's opinion, not Jc37's, but I admired the rational, patient way Jc37 presented his side of the issue and managed a compromise. Jc37 risked the possibility that I'd vote against him. He had no idea where I stood with regard to him personally. He just respected my work. I find that commendable. Frankly, if anyone who contributes regularly to the same kind of pages I do applied for adminship without notifying those of us who'd be most affected, I'd resent it. I found it weird to see comments here from people who didn't seem to know much or anything about his past work. Wryspy 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now I was, I believe, among the first users to interact with Jc37 and I've been working with him/her quite a bit, especially on the various articles related to The West Wing (TV series). I think s/he is very friendly and has a knack and dedication for cleaning up and organizing articles. (The current organization of List of politicians on The West Wing is largely due to Jc37's efforts.) However, I must oppose the RfA for now for several reasons. Jc37 has come a long way since the early days. Back then, s/he could be a bit stubborn (although always very cordial). Specifically, it took a rather forceful, concerted effort on the part of me and Scm83x to get Jc37 to be more cooperative in a dispute we had over some West Wing articles. This is not a problem these days. Jc37 has matured as a user quite a bit over the past six months or so, but I feel as though there is some maturing left to do. Furthermore, while Jc37 has worked hard to understand Wikipedia policies and such, I feel as though there isn't enough of a grasp yet to merit adminship. Jc37 works tirelessly and is very friendly, but isn't ready to be an admin yet, in my opinion. Perhaps after some more experience, Jc37 will be ready to be an admin. --Hnsampat 02:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. One's participation in compiling List of characters on The West Wing doesn't excuse his antagonistic and reckless attitude towards quality editors. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I disagree with your caricature of my "attitude", Please accept my appreciation of your comments, and the appreciation of the irony. - jc37 10:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose As per Mcginnly --huntersquid <°)))>< Calamari Cove 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per nominee's lack of mainspace editing experience and, perhaps more importantly, the "appreciation" offered to Ghirla. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Angus McLellan (Talk) --Pan Gerwazy 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Markovich292 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the above comments. RFerreira 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per his comment to Ghirla, which seems to me to rather prove Ghirla's point, as well as per Canadian-Bacon. Heimstern Läufer 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per everything above. Wikipediarules2221 00:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - this is your second vote to this page : ) - jc37 00:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per everything above. Wikipediarules2221 00:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. Per Moreschi. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Seems like a good editor with a good edit count, but the answers to the questions were not at all impressive, particularly when replying to Mcginnly's. This vote may change either way.Changing to oppose. Advertising is not on. Moreschi 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Moreschi – perhaps try again in a few months' time? — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Jc37 seems like a very friendly, helpful editor, but I don't think s/he quite grasps the nuances of WP policy as it pertains to blocking. Perhaps admin coaching might be a better next step. -- Merope Talk 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Answers to 1,3 & 4 don't demonstrate a range of experience with other editors or show an understanding of policies. I suggest that this editor either goes for an editor review and/or admin coaching before reapplying in ~3000 edits time. (aeropagitica) 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral You need more experience before I can support you.--Húsönd 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Looks like a good editor with good contribs. Just need more experience. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, this user scored
1619 on my RfA points table, enough to warrant a Neutral. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Neutral Weak answers.-- danntm T C 01:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Poor answers to questions. The "speedy" stuff? Please revise them. --Kevin_b_er 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral The answer to #4 was strong; the rest of them were very weak responses. Jcam 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
#Neutral as above, weak answers, but I'll change my opinion if you expand on them. --Alex (Talk) 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to weak oppose. --Alex (Talk) 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. This future is bright, but I am concerned by some minor points. Ian¹³/t 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I was flattered to be notified by this user about his RfA, but I don't feel I know enough about the user to contribute to the RfA. Carcharoth 13:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Heart's in the right place and will probably get adminship at some point, just perhaps not right now. --kingboyk 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Strong oppose. Suggest that you take some time to read through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano, and re-consider Mcginnly's rationale. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Abstain. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I don't think the Giano case is relevant with resepct to his answer. Anyone who is persistently revert warring could be blocked regardless of their status. The Giano case you cite was a strange case where Tony blocked him since he 'thought' his opinion was disruptive. That is a completely different ball game to a block due to disruption on an article. Mailer diablo, i respect your opinion, but are you implying that a long term user can never be blocked? This makes no sense and as jc37 states "It depends on the situation." I would hope that any admin or established user who was blocked for persistent disruptive editing on any article would admit their transgression and apologise for acting like a child. I would also hope that such circumstances are very rare. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not implying that established users cannot be blocked, in fact no editors/sysops are immune. Even then, it's usually the ArbCom who handle them (as you said, they're rare). I find his answer to Q4 poorly thought out, and I'd want to point out that blocking is a serious matter used for clear-cut, serious violations and should not be handed out arbitrarily, and the case I quoted above is to illustrate the possible controversies of a "cooling down block". Hope this clears up, :) - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've seen, "established users" are blocked a bit more frequently than apparently you surmise. Tony Sidaway himself was during related events to what you pointed to above (and I believe that he has stated that he does not contest it was appropriate). I might suggest you check out this link, for some further examples and discussion. You may also wish to note my edit on that page, which predates your initial comment here : ) - jc37 08:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I get what you actually mean now. Wishing you the best. :) - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've seen, "established users" are blocked a bit more frequently than apparently you surmise. Tony Sidaway himself was during related events to what you pointed to above (and I believe that he has stated that he does not contest it was appropriate). I might suggest you check out this link, for some further examples and discussion. You may also wish to note my edit on that page, which predates your initial comment here : ) - jc37 08:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not implying that established users cannot be blocked, in fact no editors/sysops are immune. Even then, it's usually the ArbCom who handle them (as you said, they're rare). I find his answer to Q4 poorly thought out, and I'd want to point out that blocking is a serious matter used for clear-cut, serious violations and should not be handed out arbitrarily, and the case I quoted above is to illustrate the possible controversies of a "cooling down block". Hope this clears up, :) - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the Giano case is relevant with resepct to his answer. Anyone who is persistently revert warring could be blocked regardless of their status. The Giano case you cite was a strange case where Tony blocked him since he 'thought' his opinion was disruptive. That is a completely different ball game to a block due to disruption on an article. Mailer diablo, i respect your opinion, but are you implying that a long term user can never be blocked? This makes no sense and as jc37 states "It depends on the situation." I would hope that any admin or established user who was blocked for persistent disruptive editing on any article would admit their transgression and apologise for acting like a child. I would also hope that such circumstances are very rare. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Final (90/0/0) Ended 10:18 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Duja (talk · contribs) – He should have become an admin a long time ago. But he just refused to accept the nomination: first offer (in Serbian) and then a bit later the RfA he declined; offers over the email I cannot link here, but I know I asked him more than once. And now he finally accepted the nom, and all of us from former Yugoslavia community can start celebrating, because he is the most levelheaded and one of (let us all now bow to Joy) most respected editors this ebullient area has ever seen. I just can't remember him making any enemies which is a fact that keeps me in a continued state of awe knowing how easily you make enemies on Balkan related issues (saying he enforces strict NPOV would be an understatement here). Except from being a great contributor to former-Yu themes, he does all sorts of other things on Wikipedia, which is extremely rare (ex-Yu editors usually stick to ex-Yu themes). He also contributes content to linguistic themes and bridge. He has been with (some of) us for more than 2 years (see his first edit for an example of his good manners - the man introduced himself even before he started editing) and accumulated more than 5500 edits. His interaction with community is abundant both on his talk page and on wikipedia_talk pages. He started WP:WPCB and is one of founding members of WP:FY. He also takes part in the dirty tasks: he is a regular on WP:RQM, has voted on AfDs, TfD, CfD, has contributed to WP:CP and has reported vandals to WP:ANI. If I didn't mention something important, that's probably because I forgot it, not because he didn't work on it. Come on, let's give him a mop. --Dijxtra 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I accept the nomination. Duja 10:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: For the start, I'd like to help clearing up backlogs at Category:Requested moves and WP:AfD, and later perhaps more engage in handling things like WP:AN/I. I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside).
Like Dijxtra said (and my contribs hopefully confirm), I'm kind of a "polymath" (please substitute a less pretentious and more ironic English word, can't find one) or a "dabbler" — while I've touched many aspects of Wikipedia by contributing, talking or merely reading (WP:RM, WP:AfD, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:CP WP:WSS/P, WP:RfC, article space of course, categorization, numerous templates like those etc.) I'm not really profound in any. For the bad or the good of it, my potential admin activities will probably also be "a bit of everything". Duja
- A: For the start, I'd like to help clearing up backlogs at Category:Requested moves and WP:AfD, and later perhaps more engage in handling things like WP:AN/I. I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside).
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: In line with the above, I'm more a "patcher" type of editor (format/wikify/NPOVize/expand/categorize/reorganize/reference/you name it) than a comprehensive in-detail writer. Consequently, I don't have a FA behind me (although I do have a plan :-) ). If I'd have to single out some articles, I think I did a good job in Bidding box and Screen (bridge) mostly by myself, and significantly shaped up Differences in standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, Montenegrins, Gorani (Kosovo), Torlakian, Contract bridge glossary and Duplicate bridge. I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge (hmm, a bit slowed down lately).
As I see it, perhaps my best plus side is my ability to NPOVize things (cynics would say, use weasel words); I think I'm mostly able to distance myself away from the subject and present the conflicting POVs in a fair manner. Duja
- A: In line with the above, I'm more a "patcher" type of editor (format/wikify/NPOVize/expand/categorize/reorganize/reference/you name it) than a comprehensive in-detail writer. Consequently, I don't have a FA behind me (although I do have a plan :-) ). If I'd have to single out some articles, I think I did a good job in Bidding box and Screen (bridge) mostly by myself, and significantly shaped up Differences in standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, Montenegrins, Gorani (Kosovo), Torlakian, Contract bridge glossary and Duplicate bridge. I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge (hmm, a bit slowed down lately).
- 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: Having dealt with numerous pages related with former Yugoslavia-related issues — you can bet it. Here, fringe and extreme POVs abound, and trying to tone the conflict down is often an impossible mission. I'd skip the examples here (I'd be happy to provide them at request). I think I managed to maintain a cool head and stay within WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the most part (not that I wasn't frustrated on occasion). I even walked away from some articles I still don't agree with (perhaps not a good thing for encyclopedia, but at least better for mental health).
To be honest, I don't think I handled e.g. this case well—I probably should have taken a deeper breath; it settled one way or another, anyway.
Even if I become an admin, I certainly don't intend to change my approach in conflict resolution—I am well aware of the policies which prevent taking admin privileges in content disputes and getting involved into a conflict of interest. There's always an option of posting at WP:RfC, WP:AN/I or WP:AN/3RR. Duja
- A: Having dealt with numerous pages related with former Yugoslavia-related issues — you can bet it. Here, fringe and extreme POVs abound, and trying to tone the conflict down is often an impossible mission. I'd skip the examples here (I'd be happy to provide them at request). I think I managed to maintain a cool head and stay within WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the most part (not that I wasn't frustrated on occasion). I even walked away from some articles I still don't agree with (perhaps not a good thing for encyclopedia, but at least better for mental health).
- Question from Andeh
- 4. Hi, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations? (They should still be on your watchlist) Or any AfDs discussions you have been a part of. Thanks.
- Question from Mcginnly
- 5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
- A: If under "established user" we understand a user with a long primarily constructive (i.e. WP:V out of consideration) contribution to the project, I'd say it would be breaches of WP:3RR, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In cases of disruption, I'd like to get more opinions on WP:AN first (although e.g. mass page moves should be stopped quickly). In any case (and even with non-established users), I would give user a warning first (and/or require an apology in cases of WP:NPA). I think "established users" in the above sense should be given some leeway but not a "blank trust" either. In case of 3RR, some leeway needs to be given in cases when the other side in the edit dispute is obviously inserting cruft, crank or other material clearly against e.g. WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (note that 3RR excludes "simple vandalism" but there are many borderline cases). Duja
- NOTE; I didn't add question 5! Check the history.--Andeh 11:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Andeh - I'd changed the link but not the proxy. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from Andeh
- 6. In answer one you stated "I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside)", are you suggesting that users should become admins before gaining the required experience? Please explain/expand this. Thanks.--Andeh 12:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Sorry, but I don't see how it can be plausibly interpreted like that. I referred to "fresh admins", i.e. newly promoted admins, not "fresh users". If one gets hired as e.g. journalist, should he immediately jump into editing the newspaper's equivalent of Watergate affair? I've just said that I'd refrain from using the heavy weaponry, (like e.g. blocking another admin as an extreme example), until I gather some experience. (I said it perhaps subconciously having in mind the entire post-Carnildo RfA affair that I'm fairly acknowledged with). Duja
- {{subst:weaksupport}} it is.--Andeh 12:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Sorry, but I don't see how it can be plausibly interpreted like that. I referred to "fresh admins", i.e. newly promoted admins, not "fresh users". If one gets hired as e.g. journalist, should he immediately jump into editing the newspaper's equivalent of Watergate affair? I've just said that I'd refrain from using the heavy weaponry, (like e.g. blocking another admin as an extreme example), until I gather some experience. (I said it perhaps subconciously having in mind the entire post-Carnildo RfA affair that I'm fairly acknowledged with). Duja
- Question from —Wknight94 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Will you spend any time in CAT:CSD? If so, what will you absolutely never ever forget to do when you pull up a speedy candidate? And I mean ever... (A short answer is acceptable)
- A: Ugh, I spent a bit of time tagging Special:Newpages but frankly, I got tired soon. I probably will spend some time. I will absolutely never ever forget to copy the page to WP:BJAODN if I find it amusing... :-)
Now seriously, before deletion, I would check the page history to see if it wasn't vandalized rather than being outright CSD candidate. If not, I would check whether the CSD criteria apply, and if so, specify the reason for deletion in the summary (otherwise, AfD it if eligible). Finally, I would notice the article's creator. I'm not sure which of those steps you will consider "essential" but there's the answer...- Perfect! Too many admins don't check the history and they delete valid articles that were just changed into ridiculous attack pages (I've saved three articles so far). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Ugh, I spent a bit of time tagging Special:Newpages but frankly, I got tired soon. I probably will spend some time. I will absolutely never ever forget to copy the page to WP:BJAODN if I find it amusing... :-)
- General comments
- See Duja's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
I am concerned that this RFA will, like many in the past having to deal with Balkan editors, get nationalist sockpuppets. Reflecting nothing on the suitability of the candidate, but I must voice my strong concerns. The crats will have to monitor this closely. – Chacor 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Concerns have obviously not materialised, although it's worth keeping an eye on this. – Chacor 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the voting period, I wish to express my thanks for all of you who supported me (and to those who didn't :-)), rather than spamming the numerous talk pages. I hope I will justify your trust. Duja 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)
- I would trust Duja with admin tools. – Chacor 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Provded no socks come out of the woodwork, i think I would support Duja. 205.157.110.11 03:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support as nominator --Dijxtra 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We need more admins and I have a good impression of this candidate. I'm not particularly worried that he has 'only' 94% edit summary usage and less than 200 template edits :) Haukur 10:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Petition firmly accepted. Unquestioning approval. Duja is a good man and will make a fine admin. - FrancisTyers · 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Will be nice to have such a clear-minded admin. --dcabrilo 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Michael 12:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A fine candidate. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Very good answer to question 1 too. Good luck! --Alex | talk / review me | 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support, experience seems to fit with what they want to do as an admin. Even though they haven't done much vandal fighting, the users last reverts were in July and showed they know the basics, besides I don't see anything in the nom suggesting vandal fighting. User has been here a long time too.--Andeh 12:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Balkan, South Slavic and former Yugoslavia issues definitely need a devoted admin who knows the matter well. Todor→Bozhinov 12:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems like an excellent user. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Why not? The Land 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support - Concerns met (per Oppose #1) - and per AndehPandy.UK thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good, although I don't understand why you added these extra fair use rationales. The standard {{logo}} and {{bookcover}} seemed to me to explain the fair use adequately already. By the way I am an admin and have less than 20 image edits, and most of my template edits are trivial. Kusma (討論) 13:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rama's arrow 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Mangojuicetalk 14:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks like a good and civil editor that has touched various places and followed protocol - plus a perfect answer to my question. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: How can one object to this nomination? Also, Novi Sad is indeed a lovely city! Finally, at last, I found someone I can trust to take my block-virginity! •NikoSilver• 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Levelheaded and civil editor. Regards, Asteriontalk 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a true NPOV user. —Khoikhoi 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Undoubtful Gargantually Strong Support. There are little (or no) admins from where he comes - and he more than qualifies according to wikipedia's standards for one. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Apparently level-headed, long-term editor with many substantive edits. Espresso Addict 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good editor. Hello32020 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks like a great editor. Themindset 19:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a perfectly good admin candidate, based on answers to questions above. (aeropagitica) 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears to be an excellent editor. Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Less than 200 template edits support. Ringing endorsement from nominator and good answers. Grandmasterka 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good enough for me. Actively works on a wikiproject. Also, we need more serbian editors --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets my standards, and has shown his longevity and dedication to Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 23:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Critical thinking, moral integrity, emotional maturity & tactful reserve are characteristics of this user- at least this is what I see when I look at his wiki personality . I doubt such traits could be detrimental to the wiki admin position.Mir Harven 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I am quite impressed by your editing and handling of conflicts. It becomes even more commendable if we bear in mind that you are deeply involved with such hot topics as the Balkan-related ones. I'm also glad to learn that you are willing to clear the backlog on WP:RQM. Many more pros. Definitely yes.--Húsönd 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the nominee's answers, and the experience definitely a bonus. Excellent editor. --Coredesat talk! 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I know him for a long time, and until now I did not know that he live in the same city as I do. LOL :)))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per excellent answers to questions; seems to be a good editor and will do well with those power tools! All the best, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why did HolyRomanEmperor remove my last support vote? TruthCrusader 04:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I cannot believe my eyes: an admin candidate from x-Yugoslavia and nobody objects. Duja, you should be a magician. Besides this, Duja satisfies all my criteria abakharev 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Conscious 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- MaxSem 13:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - thoughtful response to questions, good edit history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Haven't met him much before, but what I see now looks good, and anybody reaping so much praise after getting their hands dirty with Balkan-related topics simply has to be mature and reliable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. From what I can tell by his edit history, Duja seems to be a valuable and experienced editor, civil at the core despite taking part in topics that can easilly derail. He has also been involved in various administrative aspects of Wikipedia. As a slightly negative note, his experience in both editing and administration is lacking depth, but he told that himself and I wouldn't hold that against him, especially seeing as I seem to be doing the same thing. He has my support. Equendil Talk 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per MatthewFenton and a willingness to edit contriversal articles --T-rex 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport - per nom, a willingness to get into the mud (in a good way) and the fact that we need good admins -- Tawker 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Thoughtful answers to questions and a great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I thought he was an admin already, and his answers are good. Also, is the mathbot report not working for anyone else? It gives me some weird login page. --tjstrf 17:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom, good editor Anger22 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - absolutely no reason to expect abuse of buttons. Zocky | picture popups 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - we absolutely need more admins interested in Balkans-related issues, and when speaking of a trustworthy and solid editor like Duja, support IMO is the only reasonable vote.--Aldux 21:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - This is the kind of hard working admins that we need here in Wikipedia.Doctor Evil 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason not to. - Mike 22:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a strong candidate gidonb 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My kind of Admin, passes my criteria †he Bread 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great candidate for admin on Wikipedia. User has my full support. --Nishkid64 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor, has my full support. Wikipediarules2221 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor, meets my criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian - Talk 02:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editor, will be a good admin. --MCB 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great editor. --Terence Ong (T | C) 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Never intereacted w/ the user but i trust most of the votes above. Good luck. -- Szvest 11:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He will make a great admin. Hectorian 12:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent editor; should do well as an admin. PJM 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Courteous, conscientious user with a solid background and a clearly stated need for admin tools (in areas that need more admins). -- Merope Talk 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. I support Duja over 150%. With all his edits on topics of the regions of former Yugoslavia. He is the right man for the job. I agree with the nominator. Though, here's a tip for Duja, be careful and don't create many Serb propagandas and write too Serbcentric. Crna Gora 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per good answers to the questions above: Give-em-the-mopTM JungleCat talk/contrib 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent, deserves to be an admin. Shyam (T/C) 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good. --Ligulem 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Duja scores 20.5 on my Admin Assessment scale, enough to warrant a Support -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and all of above. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom, particularly impressed with the answers. Irongargoyle 01:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and good answers. Garion96 (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent answers to questions and Strong Support Jcam 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as everyone else has covered. I've never run across the user, but the contribution history is great and so are the answers to questions. Duja is what adminship is for. Teke (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --lightdarkness (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've never actually interacted with Duja, but everything looks good. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STrong Support - strong editor, has the core mission of WP at heart. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Easy call. Do it. Williamborg (Bill) 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support as per nom. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 05:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just pile it on! -- RM 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pileon Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Jumping on the pile Support Seriously, Duja is certainly a trustworthy user and will make good use of the extra buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think you'll do a great job. zephyr2k 03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because I believe he will make a wonderful administrator. Yamaguchi先生 06:11, 30 September 2006
- Support ~ trialsanderrors 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support no problems here. Wikipediarules2221 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)- Duplicate !vote[reply]- regarding that, it was completely unintentional and I was not acting with malicious intentions. Sorry! Wikipediarules2221 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Full Support. Meets my 2k and civility requirements. I also really like the answer to Question #7; besides being accurate, it shows the candidate has a sense of humor, even in situations where he is under pressure. I like that. We all need a sense of humor on Wikipedia. Too many don't. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This one's obvious, and I thought he was one already. 1ne 05:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems sound.--Holdenhurst 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There's nothing quite like a pile, especially when you're all the way on top. Seems like a pretty good user. alphaChimp(talk) 03:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... 90th person to Support Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
*Oppose- User does not meet my criteria (Major edit summary is less then 94%, i require 95%. Less then 20 image space edits. Less then 200 template edits. Also this, this and this bother me, there are no fair use rationales on those images.) - User requires a little more experiance first. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding images there is always a possibility the user contributes to Wikimedia Commons and therefore has a low image-space count. – Chacor 10:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- commons:User:Duja has more than 200 image edits. --Dijxtra 11:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I upload most of my self-made images to Commons (commons:User:Duja my contribs there;) only a few fair-use ones are on en:. As for the fair use rationale, I initially did mark them with {{Non-free fair use in}}, but then I discovered the {{logo}} which states that it's fair use "...to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question". Those images are indeed used only in American Contract Bridge League, World Bridge Federation and The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge pages (the latter image has also {{Non-free fair use in}}). Sorry, but I don't see which additional rationale is called for.
I admit I'm less than perfect in edit summaries, most often when I make several consecutive edits—I tend to forget to mark all of them. Duja 11:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] - I disagree with the above oppose vote, there is nothing in the nomination or answers suggesting the user wants to get involved with anything related to images, and many users don't provide fair-use rationale. And the edit summary usage is a few percent out? So.--Andeh 12:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use rationales are a must for my support, i'd be willing to switch to a support now I know of his commons account but i'm unwilling to do so until his fair use images are rationalies: (per: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many users, including admins don't provide fair-use for their image uploads, I urge you to reconsider your vote. Neutral is just below!--Andeh 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know they dont, but it isnt much to ask a user to start using them now and add them to there present fair use uploads (I believe there is only 4 or 5) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I added the rationales. Duja 13:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerns have been met and i've switched accordingly. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I added the rationales. Duja 13:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use rationales are a must for my support, i'd be willing to switch to a support now I know of his commons account but i'm unwilling to do so until his fair use images are rationalies: (per: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The candidate doesn't have the moon on a stick either. That's no reason to oppose them. (200 template edits? How irrelevant ca you get?) The Land 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't understand the value of manually adding a fair use rationale rehearsing what the fair use template is already stating. Equendil Talk 16:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding images there is always a possibility the user contributes to Wikimedia Commons and therefore has a low image-space count. – Chacor 10:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John Montagnino
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
Related requests
- Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
- Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
- A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors