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
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rewired (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 29 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. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rewired | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
TehKewl1 | 10 | 31 | 0 | 24 | Unsuccessful | 09:48, 5 November 2006 | 0 hours | no | report |
J Di | 54 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Saxifrage | 63 | 2 | 0 | 97 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ombudsman | 6 | 27 | 0 | 18 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Youngamerican | 71 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
GeeJo | 46 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Deon555 | 18 | 16 | 0 | 53 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Osgoodelawyer | 56 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rewired | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
TehKewl1 | 10 | 31 | 0 | 24 | Unsuccessful | 09:48, 5 November 2006 | 0 hours | no | report |
J Di | 54 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Saxifrage | 63 | 2 | 0 | 97 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ombudsman | 6 | 27 | 0 | 18 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Youngamerican | 71 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
GeeJo | 46 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Deon555 | 18 | 16 | 0 | 53 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Osgoodelawyer | 56 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
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 | % | ||||
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
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] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3] 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.[4] 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".[5] 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.[6]
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 10:33:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (0/3/0) Ended 18:39, 29 October 2006
Rewired (talk · contribs) – Over 2000 edits. Rewired 17:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
you bet
- 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: banning the most obvious vandals
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: no because nobody told me what to edit so everything i did was worthless
- 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: just aspergers but everyone has it here
- General comments
Discussion
Support
Oppose
- Oppose no real reasons given. --Alex (Talk) 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG OPPOSE - User has 9 edits and answers to questions seem like jokes. --Db099221 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and urge immediate delisting due to the facetious answer to question three. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't want to argue with any of the possible oppose votes but there is no sarcasm in what I said Rewired 18:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Oppose. Either this is a joke or the editor did not do any homework before nominating himself. Both are good reasons for immediate delisting. SuperMachine 18:21, 29 October 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.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (10/31/12) Ended 09:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
TehKewl1 (talk · contribs) – Well, this is my second attempt, maybe things will go better this time now that I crossed the 1000th edit bar and have an archived talk page, I started back in may or april as VandalKilla, and on IRC I was told it was too hostile, so this was all I could come up with, anyway lack of sysop capabilities gets frustrating, especially when I have to speedy a new article that is particularly obscene, I think it would be better for us all if I could just delete it. TehKewl1 07:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept TehKewl1 07:15, 29 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: Deleting spam articles, blocking vandals and protecting pages, as well as fixing up other admins mistakes to fully protected pages.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: The only thing I really like to see is the screenshot I made for XChat, it's nice to bring up the page in different places and see that I actually made a difference.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Yes, sadly I tried to fight fire with fire seeing as I go crazy when people make fun of Nintendo, I found it especially annoying when it's article was blanked and replaced with "NINTENDO IS POO!!!!!", so I went to his User page and noticed he had already been warned, and I stupidly put my two cents in. I'll never do that again, I'll just wait for the vandal to vandalise enough and then report him/her to WP:AIV or if I survive this, just block them.
Supplementary question from (aeropagitica):
- 4. Can you provide ten difs where you have cited policies and guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc, in contributions to XfD discussions or reverting vandalism and warning vandals?
Optional Question from Qaanaaq
- 5.Apart from vandalism, what is your biggest concern about Wikipedia?
- A: My biggest concern other than vandalism is exploitation and legal threats, people like Daniel Brandt etc who continue to try and tell users not to use wikipedia is something I cannot stand, plus his logging of our IRC channel is something I despise. TehKewl1 10:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification I just realised how badly I had wrote that. I meant more what issues are facing WP than concerns. Qaanaaq
- A: My biggest concern other than vandalism is exploitation and legal threats, people like Daniel Brandt etc who continue to try and tell users not to use wikipedia is something I cannot stand, plus his logging of our IRC channel is something I despise. TehKewl1 10:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Ginkgo100
- 6. Under what circumstances would you speedy delete a spam article?
- A: First I would check it's history, date and time of creation, then check it with the admins in #wikipedia-en-admins, and if they they agree, I would delete the article.
- Clarification. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Under what circumstances do you consider a newly created article to be deletable as spam? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A:A new article that is insanely NPOV or lacks or is about a non notable person. TehKewl1 07:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A: First I would check it's history, date and time of creation, then check it with the admins in #wikipedia-en-admins, and if they they agree, I would delete the article.
Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 8. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- A:
- 9. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
- A:
Optional question from MJCdetroit (talk · contribs)
- 10. What are your thoughts on sockpuppets or more correctly editors that do not acknowledge that they have multiple accounts?
- A:
- General comments
- See TehKewl1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
- TehKewl1 editcount summary stats as of 08:47, October 29 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 08:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TehKewl1 previous adminship request.--Konst.ableTalk 10:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor has had an editor review found here. -- ReyBrujo 14:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
- If you want to become more involved in admin-type activities, I suggest signing up for admin coaching, a program run by Esperanza. It will pair you with one or two current admins that will help you explore different areas of Wikipedia and help you start to perform "admin duties" (closing noncontroversial AfD's with consensus to keep the article, for example) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Weak-ish Support, Wikipedia would benefit from this user getting the mop & bucket. Although the answers aren't as in-depth as most noms, I get the general picture, and feel TehKewl1 would do these jobs amicably. Edit summary % is good, and I don't have editcountis, so I'm not going to bother to oppose purely for it; that said, I'd like to see some more, but I think that this could be an exception. I have a very good impression of this user. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, unlikely to abuse the toolS, good vandal fighter (though a bit too brutal at times ;)) I've known TehKewl1 since he first showed up on Wikipedia, and from my experience he would be great candidate for clearing AIV, which I have found to be ever-filling lately. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Even though there have been a couple dubious edits like this, but, since I'm assured that that was just a one-off, I'm convinced there won't be any abuse of admin tools... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nippoo (talk • contribs) .
- Uber Strong Supprot Good vandal fighter, and good channel-taker-over-er :) Will be a good addition to the team — Deon555talkReview 11:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak-ish support per Daniel Brandt (heh, pardon the pun); wish we could set TehKewlBot loose over Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 14:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support just cause I like the dude. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 01:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from my previous positive experiences with TehKewl1, and I can see no particularly compelling reason to oppose. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support keep up the good work Mjal 02:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- The nomination makes it seem that you've come here just because you've finally crossed 1000 edits. That's not what I want from an admin. Also, lack of proper article edits. Also lack of project experience. This ("Oh and btw.... j00 4r3 p00") was also fairly recent enough to concern me. – Chacor 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to strong oppose per updated Q6 answer. "Insanely NPOV" is not a CSD spam criteria. Neither is non-notability - that's CSD A7. – Chacor 07:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the wrong term, by "spam" I meant any article that would normally be speedied. TehKewl1 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The singular of "criteria" is "criterion", just for info... haz (talk) e 17:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the wrong term, by "spam" I meant any article that would normally be speedied. TehKewl1 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to strong oppose per updated Q6 answer. "Insanely NPOV" is not a CSD spam criteria. Neither is non-notability - that's CSD A7. – Chacor 07:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose AmiDaniel (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, well intentioned, but far too brash. Lack of real article contributions is a major concern. Sorry. —Pengo talk · contribs 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose sorry, but while I am not a supporter of the 1 FA requirement that some people have, I think at least some experience in actual article edits rather than janitorial work is necessary.--Konst.ableTalk 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Good vandal fighter, but only two users reported on WP:AIV. Four edits on main talk, 41 on project namespace and very little actual article contributions show lack of experience. Prolog 11:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Candidate has insufficient experience in every area, and doesn't appear to understand that adminship is just a mop, not a badge (or something for which to strive from one's first edit.) Nothing personal, but the candidate needs to be seasoned a bit more before his next nomination -- wait six months or so at least. Xoloz 13:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Weak answers, needs a lot more experience.--Húsönd 13:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Inexperience in vital aspects. Do some article-writing, perhaps work up a featured article, and get involved with internal processes say XfD. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, way short of required experience levels - see Prolog. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, lacks of experience, weak answers, try again soon and participate in admin activities. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, sorry, fails many personal criteria, this includes edit count, ridiculous question answers and a recent warning. Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Good intention? Yes. Suitable? No. If every user with 1000 edits are qualified to apply for adminship, that'll be chaotic. 40 Wikipedia Edits shows your lack of WP experience. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose needs more experience and weak answers.--Jersey Devil 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The lack of experience here is a major concern. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - as others have pointed out, little experience with policy ST47Talk 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Q3, and I don't even know what the answer to Q5 means. ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose. Definitely well-intentioned, but the end of your answer to question 3 is a little worrying. Admins should be aware of conflicts of interest and should avoid using their tools in such cases. The mention of Daniel Brandt is a bit out of left field (but then I'm not sure what purpose question five serves--is it context specific to this RfA? could someone provide clarification?). More experience generally wouldn't hurt. Irongargoyle 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that question very badly, What i meant was, 'Apart from vanadalism, what would be some of the issues facing WP, which would show how well he generally understands whats happening. Apologies :) Qaanaaq 07:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Oppose. I'm sorry, but to me, desperation is a sign of volatility and weakness. May be you should try working on other stuff instead of vandal-fighting for some time. Sysopping is a holistic upward movement. You'll see a change in yourself then and look at Wikipedia in a broader perspective. Cheers. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 06:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Lack of experience, lack of variety in activities, inadequate answers. Very little in the edit history to demonstrate breadth of understanding/promotion of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and goals. Lack of involvement in what Wikipedia is ultimately trying to create. Sounds like the user wants admin tools for loaded weapons. Wryspy 07:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Wryspy. Nishkid64 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to insufficient experience --Steve 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. TehKewl's contribution history shows a general lack of variety in contribution. S/he does not demonstrate very much knowledge of policy. I am disturbed by Chacor's diff - that type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable from any user, especially an admin. The statement of "maybe things will go better this time now that I crossed the 1000th edit bar and have an archived talk page" reeks of editcountitis and ignorance of other issues raised on the first RfA. 1,000 edits plus archived talk page does not equal adminship. TehKewl, please participate in XfDs and come back more civil (per that diff provided by Chacor, civility doesn't seem to be a strong point). Srose (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, I'm afraid per most of the comments above. Aside from what I see as perhaps a lack of maturity, there are some glaring deficiencies: only 4 article talk namespace edits, 1 wikipedia talk namespace edit, and 46 WP namespace edits. Jcam 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, due to the fact that your questions seem very, very weak. Please come back once you have more namespace edits.--Seadog
- Oppose per pretty much all of above. Weak answers, lack of familiarity with Wiki process. Come back in a few months with some more experience. And as a note: Spamming IRC for votes isn't a good idea either. -^demon[yell at me] 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack of experience. Michael 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to experience, but please stick at it and don't be discouraged. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all other users. --Lord Deskana (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Q3 ("I go crazy when people make fun of Nintendo"), Q5 ("...people like Daniel Brandt") and generally weak answers to the rest of the questions. Optional questions are (obviously) optional, but they're a chance to show that you have understanding of policy and process. --Daniel Olsen 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Whilst it is, I think, likelier than not that TehKewl1 is possessed of sufficiently good judgment that he would neither abuse nor volitionally misuse the tools, I can't conclude with any degree of confidence that his temperament and knowledge of policy are such that he wouldn't avolitionally (e.g., by acting whereof he does not know) misuse the mop, etc., and so I think it far from clear that the net effect on the project of TehKewl1's becoming an admin would be positive (my RfA standard). The failure to respond to the optional questions, too, is a bit disconcerting; if the candidate, upon his apprehending that the RfA might not succeed, was not further interested in partaking of questions—which would, I think, be quite fine—it might have been better had he said so explicitly. Joe 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It is a little early in the game. I think more seasoning is needed. Storm Rider (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral, leaning support. It certainly appears you have all the right intentions, but it might be helpful to wait a while longer and become more well-rounded. (Most admin candidates have >3000 edits and, more importantly, a history of good article contributions on top of the admin-like stuff.) I echo Chacor's concern about coming here just because you have 1000 edits, but then again, you do seem to know what you're doing and have a good use for the tools. I'm very torn on this. Grandmasterka 07:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Candidate needs a little more experience... not necessarily contributions to articles, though it would be nice to see some variety – Gurch 10:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Appears to be a good, reliable vandal fighter, but admins should ideally contribute more to article creation/revision, AfD discussions, and the like. One can easily be an effective vandal fighter without being an admin.--Caliga10 11:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral You mean well, but you need to get a better grasp of Wikipedia policy and custom.-- danntm T C 19:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good user, but not enough experience. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm going to with a neutral on this one as I think that TehKewl1 could be a good admin but that the answers above don't demonstrate a level of competence that I associate with admins. The lack of answers to my supplementary question is also particularly telling, as an admin is required to be aware of policy and guidelines. (aeropagitica) 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I see this user on IRC all the time, but until five minutes ago I was unaware that he edited. —freak(talk) 07:46, Oct. 30, 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral to avoid pile-on, please withdraw, the answer for number three is one of the worst I have ever seen in my time here, number 2 tells that he has no experince in article writing whatsoever, isn't ready for a while. Jaranda wat's sup 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral till he answers completely Doctor Bruno 15:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now. I think that you have good intentions and I would have kept the name VandalKilla. —MJCdetroit 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Is a truly great editor, but stick around for longer, seriously. haz (talk) e 17:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, really. You're a good editor, but I think you need some more time. riana_dzasta 10:05, 3 November 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 (54/0/2) Ended Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:34:32 (UTC)
J Di (talk · contribs) – I came across this user on the Big Brother WikiProject and he was one of the first users I connected with, even so far as to nominate him for RfA back in July (perhaps prematurely). The main problem there appeared to be his conflict with another user, which he unfortunately gave up on too quickly. I believe he has reformed excellently since July – a great mix of maintenance and article building is in his contributions, working in areas such as recent changes patrol and articles for deletion. He basically runs the Big Brother WikiProject, keeping all things like current AfDs and peer reviews there up to date. With over 15000 edits, a firm grasp of policy and a regular editor since April I believe this user is more than ready to have the extra buttons. --Alex (Talk) 16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. jd || talk || 16:27, 28 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 help out at WP:AIV, especially when it is backlogged as letting reports mount up here, for whatever reason, can seriously hurt the project and causes a lot of disruption. I would also help out at WP:CSD, another place where there seems to be a never-ending backlog. I would closely monitor CAT:PER, and would work through WP:AFDs that haven't been seen to.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I'm pretty pleased with my contributions to the Big Brother WikiProject, and most of my edits seem to have been made on the Project page and Big Brother articles. I can't really say that I've made many major contributions as I like to think that my edits are small but beneficial.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: When I started editing more frequently, I got in a lot of conflict on the Big Brother articles, and was unintentionally disruptive. I learnt quite a bit from all of that, and the incident showed me how much remaining calm and civil at all times helps prevent things from getting uncontrollably out of hand. I'd like to think that all my of interactions with other users since then have been civil, and that my actions have been non-disruptive for the most part.
Optional Question from Yanksox
- 4. Could you elaborate further into your desputes with 9cds? Yanksox 01:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you like to know? jd || talk || 01:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just explain what happened between you and 9cds, and how you devolped past it. Yanksox 02:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 9cds and I disagreed on a lot of things. My first interaction with her was on Talk:Big Brother 7 (UK), when I was still a fairly new user and wasn't familiar with any the policies or guidelines, despite having had a welcome message put on my talk page. I was intentionally hostile towards 9cds because of a disagreement over her redirecting an article with another because it was too detailed. After that were other disagreements after that about mostly minor things, and I felt at the time that the many warnings I was receiving from 9cds were left in bad faith, in an attempt to aggravate me. I opened a mediation case, but that ended with me wanting to leave Wikipedia because I was dissatisfied with the end result. After more disagreements, I decided to start editing other articles, so moved from Big Brother UK articles to Big Brother Australia articles. 9cds hadn't edited these articles before then, so I thought that she was stalking my contributions. More arguments followed after 9cds made major changes to the article that I disagreed with and reverted. I downloaded an IRC client and tried to speak to her about a major change she wanted to make to a Big Brother Australia article that I was opposed to, and one of the first things she said was that I was "wikistalking" her. After this, I thought that trying to remain civil was pointless.
- Just explain what happened between you and 9cds, and how you devolped past it. Yanksox 02:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you like to know? jd || talk || 01:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After 9cds was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, I felt as though most of my problems had been sorted, and that I could edit freely. I didn't think much about how badly I handled the situation or where I could have improved until after my first RfA, where it was pointed out that I may have given up too easily on mediation and civil resolution. Looking at it now, I can see that I handled something badly, and because I assumed bad faith at the time and made up my own mind about what 9cds was like based on one encounter, months of unnecessary arguments and disruption occurred when it didn't have to. Because of this, I have tried to remain civil at all times, as I do not want for something similar to this to happen again. I've also used talk pages more to discuss major changes instead of just doing them, and I've stopped revert warring over changes I disagree with. jd || talk || 03:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely optional and open-ended question from Konstable
- 5. What do you think is the biggest problem that Wikipedia has right now?
- A: I think the biggest problem at the moment is that there are so many articles with unsourced statements, or without any references at all. While I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, I can't help but think that there sometimes isn't enough strictness involved in enforcing WP:V, and articles can potentially be left to exist for months without a single reputable reference. Good articles also suffer as a result, and ultimately so does the rest of the encyclopaedia. jd || talk || 11:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional Question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 6. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
- A: I can see WP:IGNORE being a good thing when used only very occasionally, if policies prevent a user from doing something that would benefit the encyclopaedia, but I can't see it having many benefits over a non-biased community consensus and existing policies. I think the policies are pretty thorough and they seem to cover a lot of situations anyway.
- WP:SNOW may be good for some things, but I'd never use it as all I can see it doing is preventing a discussion from being allowed to properly develop. Previous consensus does not guarantee consensus in a later discussion, and closing a debate early also prevents opinions that could affect the votes of others from being added. jd || talk || 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- A: If a punitive block is thought to be appropriate, I see no reason for not trying to discuss the problem. If, when asked to stop, the person persists, a block to prevent disruption would probably be the appropriate course of action. jd || talk || 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
- A: I would consider something speedy deleteable if the article only promoted a company's products or services, if it would need a substantial rewrite to fit into the encyclopaedia, and if there was no non-copyvio content that asserted notability. jd || talk || 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See J Di's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
J Di's editcount summary stats as of 17:10, October 28 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Support
- Support as nominator. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 16:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Everything seems in order.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great user. --Terence Ong (T | C) 16:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything seems ok.--Húsönd 16:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. G.He 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support You are a generally nice guy to be around and I think you'll make a great administrator and be able to use the mop and bucket wisely :D user:wossi 18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom Doc ♬ talk 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This editor appears to have learnt the lessons regarding civility and good conduct that they had to endure at the beginning of their time here. I don't think that the admin tools will be abused. (aeropagitica) 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Willing to learn from past mistakes. Nishkid64 19:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good user who can definitely be trusted with the buttons. Good luck! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good luck.-- danntm T C 22:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems a responsible person per the User's Contribs Doctor Bruno 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good guy, bad internet ST47Talk 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the above. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure. KrakatoaKatie 04:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - very honest about the dispute with 9cds and a good edit count too. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:12 29 10 2006 (UTC)
- Support. DarthVader 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a good user. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 12:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good user.--Konst.ableTalk 12:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yay – about time. — FireFox (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2006
- Cliche — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. John254 15:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nothing really to criticize about. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Moneyballing 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major concerns here. A very honest editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Support - I've only had good interactions with this user, and can find no reason to oppose, yet plenty to support. Martinp23 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- GeorgeMoney (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike | Trick or Treat 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good user, giving my support. Hello32020 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 06:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Administratorfy. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shine On per nom. Impressed with answer to Question 5 too. Heligoland 13:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The user possesses the right balance of firmness and fairness for adminship. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Tra (Talk) 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no issues here --Steve 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent all round contributions --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)
- Support. Spams the IRC chats with join/quit messages. ;-) Misza13 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, will make good admin. --SunStar Net 20:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support, isn't likely to abuse tools. —Xyrael / 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Tawker 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - I'm actually lying in a hotel room at the beach but need to interrupt my 10+ day thus far wikibreak to support this man. Loooooong overdue, and an early welcome to the team mate, great to have you on board :) Glen 10:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good luck with the mop! Budgiekiller 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor. NauticaShades 20:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support keep up the good work Mjal 02:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like J Di is ready for adminship. Wouldn't dare hold bad net connections against him. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Michael 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I appreciate the concerns raised by Joanne and Mr Sox. However, my observations of J Di since the dispute have been positive and unless someone wishes to provide some diffs, I feel comfortable in supporting. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mustafa AkalpTC 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support FireSpike 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose. Spams the IRC chats with enter/quit messages. — Rewired (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- Why does IRC has to do with adminship, also is there any proof of that? Moneyballing 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closing bureaucrat: this is this user's 6th edit, out of a total of 12. --Alex (Talk) 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I too do not see this as relevant. It's not his fault if he has a faulty connection. — FireFox (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2006
- Neither do I - joins and parts are easy to ignore in most IRC clients, so J_Di's connection shouldn't need to bother anyone. In any case, it's not hard to just phsically ignore it! The closing bureaucrat might also like to note that Rewired posted a disruptinve and potentially offensive RfA, since delisted. Martinp23 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well user was blocked indef for trolling, the vote is safe to crossout. Moneyballing 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But he's telling the truth. J Di does spam channels with enter/quit messages. Its a problem with her ISP. Send them an abusive email. :P — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, actually I'm a guy... jd || talk || 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But he's telling the truth. J Di does spam channels with enter/quit messages. Its a problem with her ISP. Send them an abusive email. :P — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral Has clearly shown a turn around, but I am so deeply troubled by the extend of the dispute that he was involved in. It was so bad that it resulted in him "retiring"[1]. I hate to do this, but I feel uneasy with this blantant fact looming over the candidate. Yanksox 03:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I would have strongly opposed a few months ago, for several reasons. I see a lot of support votes and as I haven't been around much lately I'll have to take their word for it that he has changed. However, his talk page, for one thing, still worries me. The ´don´t remove vandalism´ sign is quite egoistical to me: J Di, do you want all readers of your talk page to see every penis or whatever kind of vandalism that is placed there if you don't happen to be around for a bit - rather than have someone remove it like everywhere else? Also, why the 'no messages on the talk page' thing? This makes it more difficult to judge the improvement - as even after reading the archives, I don't know what J Di did with those comments or questions from people that have complied with the request and emailed. These things might seem minor but against his background, they worry me. As I said, I haven't been around all that much in the last few months, so I feel hesitant about opposing, but I'm absolutely not comfortable with this candidate as a future admin either. --JoanneB 22:20, 2 November 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 (63/2/1) Ended Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:33:07 (UTC)
Saxifrage (talk · contribs) – I am fairly new to wikipedia, so I am not terribly familiar with the type of editor that typically is successful at passing the RfA, so I apologize in advance for the incompleteness of this description. Every encounter I have had with Saxifrage has been a disagreement. Yet, every time this has occured, I have learned something new about wikipedia editing, and every disagreement was handled professionally such that the prospects for an editing war were defused. Since that time, I have examined some of the work Saxifrage has done and found it to be of extremely high quality. Saxifrage has repeatedly demonstrated respect for the letter and spirit of the rules of wikipedia, and has executed a tremendous amount of positive edits. As someone who has had content disagreements with Saxifrage at nearly every turn, I can honestly say I would feel 100% confident with Saxifrage holding the mop. Nothing in his history suggests he would abuse the powers of adminship. PStrait 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I accept. I have to say that I'm touched that this nomination has come from someone who I've actively disagreed with from the very first. Even should this nomination not succeed, I'll come away pleased to know that I must be doing something right. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:51, 28 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: The times I have most wished to have the mop—if only for a moment—have been when I've begun cleaning up after a vandal only to find that their page is full of "last chance" warnings by non-administrators. Given admin tools, I expect I will be a scourge to vandals, though perhaps just a small scourge to the worst of them while I'm still getting my admin-legs.
- I often find myself discovering new articles and either paring them down into an encyclopedic form or suggesting them for deletion, whether speedy, proposed, or nominated. In line with that interest I'd like to help deal with the ongoing backlog of candidates for speedy deletion. As I become more confident with the mop, I would add processing prod'd articles to my rounds and (after quite a bit more confidence gained) closing AfDs.
- Though I am an active member of the Spam WikiProject, I don't expect to need or want to use admin tools in that capacity in the near term. I've found that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, persuasion is much preferable to risking biting newcomers. In the future I may help out with blocking the sockpuppets of banned spammers.
- My areas of interest at Wikipedia tend to ebb and flow, so I expect that which other administrative duties I put energy into will follow the same pattern. I expect that I'll be popping up here and there as time goes on, helping where I can and discovering new things that I can be good at doing. For instance, in the past I have done RC patrol, so that's something that I might return to.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I am a WikiGnome at heart, so my contributions tend to be small and spread out across many articles. (I particularly enjoy cleaning up unruly disambig pages so that they comply with the Manual of Style.) Of the few small articles I've actually created, my favourite is Burg Maus. It was particularly pleasing and challenging as writing it required translating material from German, both from the de:Burg Maus article and other sources I found for it. I learned a lot about the area and its history in the course of translating and polishing the article, and I think the result is neat and informative.
- Other contributions that I have found particularly fulfilling have been formatting inline references that I chance across using the Cite.php markup and the citation templates. I wish I had a more impressive set of articles or contributions to show off here, but such are the trials of being a WikiGnome!
- 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, and I've learned a lot from them. During my first few months here I don't think I handled conflict very well, I'm sorry to say, and on realising this I made a point of honing my diplomatic skills. I've come to believe that The World Will Not End Tomorrow is one of the best guides when things get tense. Though it specifically addresses determining notability, the spirit and name of the essay really apply to everything at Wikipedia. After all, it's the Wiki Way that if something really ought to be done, if I don't do it then someone else will. When I find that another user is causing me stress, the best remedy is to let that page or topic simmer for a while on its own while I go and do some non-contentious editing. When I come back, I'm inevitably more composed and better able to let the small things go. (Sometimes I even find that the point I wanted to make has been made by another editor by the time I get back.) No angry mastodons is another essay full of wisdom that's good to re-read occasionally.
- One of the most important tools I've used for maintaining good faith and civility while at Wikipedia is the preview button. When I am dealing with a difficult situation, whether it's a tense discussion on a Talk page or dealing with a vandal or misguided link-adder, stopping to reconsider what I've written helps immensely for identifying ways in which my words are not well-chosen, could be misconstrued, or are simply just not going to help the situation at all. Just taking the time to choose my words well and to deliberate on how they might be read does wonders for my own peace of mind, and from experience, goes a long way to fostering civility and good faith in the person I'm interacting with.
- In that same vein, I know that the tone of a message can make or break its effectiveness. The administrators I've been most impressed with are those who are cheerful and open even in the face of abuse and vitriol. In my work with the Spam WikiProject I've found emulating this approach has served me well on first contact with misguided link-adders.
- Finally, but not least, is the simple skill of being able to admit fault. Accepting that I might be wrong is a powerful tool for dealing with conflict, because we're all fallible and we will inevitably make mistakes. Being able to back down from an untenable stand or to apologise for mistakes made goes a long, long way toward reaching a positive outcome in a conflict. Contrary to popular belief, being able to admit mistakes tends to be appreciated by others.
Question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
- A: WP:IAR is a corollary of What Wikipedia Is (a project to build an encyclopedia and nothing else). Rules have been put in place because they seem to help the project progress smoothly toward its goal, not because rules are inherently good to have. Rules are important (and some are very important) but they should never become or be used as a straightjacket that hinders the project from functioning as it should. IAR exists because the community knows even good rules have corner cases where slavishly adhering to their letter is detrimental to our goal. It is also a recognition that our rules are descriptive of how things work and what is and isn't tolerated, not prescriptive for how we must do things.
- WP:SNOW is a specific application of IAR that encourages us to avoid red tape that is merely for the sake of red tape. Our processes have been put in place to keep things running smoothly. However, when an action is clearly in line with the spirit of the policies and goals of the project, going through the process may actually detract from the smooth running of the project. It's necessarily a judgement call, and should never be used to justify an action in the face of opposition. Both IAR and SNOW are recognitions that we're not robots—we can and should make use of our good sense to avoid getting bogged down in process.
- 5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- A: No. Punishment would make it personal and that's not what we're here for. There are two kinds of blocks that are regularly applied (though they very often overlap): preventative and instructional. Preventative blocks are used to interrupt disruption of the project: they bring a halt to edit wars or objectionable conduct and give those involved "time out" that might result in more well-considered actions when they return. These are usually clear-cut cases. Instructional blocks are easily confused with punitive ones, but have a very different purpose. An editor who doesn't understand or accept our rules will sometimes insist on acting against them or claim that those opposed to their actions are wrong. An instructional block (nearly always very brief) can be a convincing sign they are clearly in the wrong and need to re-evaluate their understanding of what is required of them as participants in the project. In practice, instructional blocks are almost always also preventative blocks: such a block stops the objectionable activity and sends a clear message that it is objectionable. Circumstances where only an instructive block would be warranted are rare, and admins usually prefer to warn users instead when immediate prevention isn't called for.
- 6. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
- A: I don't have unambiguous criteria so much as a set of heuristics for recognising article spam. (We've yet to teach a computer to recognise spam reliably, so I don't think being unable to come up with rules a computer could use is much of a failing.) It's also more of a continuum than a clear division. Some red flags of mine are: the article is a single-edit text-dump; the author's only edits are to the article and there are no substantial edits by others; it contains no discussion of the company; prominence is given to products or services; there is lots of inappropriate "keyword" cross-linking on other articles in a short time; it reads like a press release or business directory entry. None of these are conclusive on their own (and there are many more that I can't translate from brain to text), but they point to an article being advertising. Of course, the key word in CSD:G11 is blatant. When there is no shadow of doubt, when it is advertising and then some, speedying is warranted. Otherwise we have prod and AfD, not to mention the judgement of other admins who might chance across the same article. In the end, the CSD are just WP:SNOW codified for easy reference.
- General comments
- See Saxifrage's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Saxifrage's editcount summary stats as of 08:03, October 28 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 08:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Support
- Support Saxifrage has acted in a manner that made me assume when I first encountered him that he was an admin. I was quiet surprised to find that he wasn't. I support him wholeheartedly, without reservation. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Passes my criteria †he Bread 06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like everything I've seen so far. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought they were an admin already - Trysha (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, impressive contributions and diplomacy.-gadfium 07:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Also not afraid to ask questions when he's not sure, which is something we could use in more admins. – Chacor 07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support. I don't know Saxifrage very well, but he played a minor role in helping me set up Requests for feedback, a process where newcomers can seek feedback on articles they write (or major edits they make). For some time, he helped respond to feedback requests posted there, but he has not responded to a feedback request for a long time. Requests for feedback is getting backlogged, and desperately needs Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers to respond to feedback requests. If Saxifrage continues to respond to feedback requests, I will change my support level to Strong, and may even use MSN Messenger to bribe several Wikifriends into supporting him (just kidding about the bribing part). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This editor could really use the admin tools; they seem to be an admin in all but status-change anyway! Good interactions with users, good use of edit summaries, contributions to main/Wiki/Project/userTalk spaces are all in order. (aeropagitica) 08:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike | Trick or Treat 12:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Shows an impressive level of civility in his interactions with other users. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. But my account is two and-a-half hours older :) RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 14:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good. Rama's arrow 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; all is well, and appears to be a fine candidate indeed. I'm impressed by the nomination, by the way: it's quite a fine gesture. Antandrus (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An impressive nomination, but more importantly, an impressive contribution to Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be any threat of abuse from this editor. AuburnPilotTalk 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen plenty of good and nothing bad from Saxifrage.--ragesoss 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good by me.-- danntm T C 18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen nothing but great edits from this user. Keep up the great work. =) Nishkid64 19:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like the candidate's self-realisation in Q3, which says a lot about his wiki-character. Experience and trustworthiness are areas in which I have no reservations about, either. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Fairly new? You've been here 4 times as long as many admins. Shows good knowlege of wikipedia's policies, including Image policy --T-rex 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the nominator who is fairly new, not Saxifrage.-gadfium 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, that explains that... --T-rex 04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the nominator who is fairly new, not Saxifrage.-gadfium 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Had shown Good Judgement in the past and expect the same from him in future too Doctor Bruno 23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Nominator Support As per above. PStrait 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great answers to The Questions. KrakatoaKatie 04:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom, answers, comments above. Quality editor, no issues or worries. The sole oppose comment to date (below) appears highly unconvincing. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I had no idea that he wasn't an admin already. — TKD::Talk 07:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but please don't be a scourge! - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even just a little one? :) No, I think I understand what you mean. I don't plan on being a scourge, just that I will likely be taking care of vandals who earn and waste their last chance templates, often enough. I probably could have worded that better. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I must admit that I did not read all of the nominated's answers to the questions. It's too long! hah. [cough] User is definetly qualified in most aspects. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An editor whose first edits are to a a sandbox, and who immediately started using edit summaries back when practically no one made a fuss about them. I like that a lot. Seems eminently sane. - BanyanTree 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Mentors come in different forms. I'm confident that this nominee will make a good admin. Cheers -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Always seems civil and restrained. --Blue Tie 08:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything seems ok, no cons.--Húsönd 19:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No diffs. --Kbdank71 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although I don't always agree with this editor, that should be taken as major vote of confidence for this user. It's clear he's open-minded, fair, supportive and, most of all, civil. Good choice. --Marriedtofilm 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no danger of abuse --Steve 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good contributions. PS to the nom- never be apologetic in your nomination. Just state the facts --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a civil and reasonable editor. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support -- valuable spam fighter. --A. B. 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whenever I come across Saxifrage, he is dealing with problematic spammers or vandals. There's a real risk if you do enough of that stuff that you'll cross some line once in a while -- usually WP:AGF (my own weakness) and/or WP:CIVIL. I have never seen that with Saxifrage. It's unusual to see so little opposition to a candidate who's done as much spam fighting; that says a lot about his suitability. --A. B. 16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Once, in a dispute with Saxifrage, he had a very legitimate reason not to assume good faith (I had requested arbitration, the arbitration did not go my way, but then after discussing with the arbiter, he changed his mind. I stated that I had successfully dealt with the issue in arbtration and Saxifrage pointed out that I lost). When he realized the mistake, he profusely apologized for not following AGF in a situation where I cant imagine anyone would have been able to AGF. That was one of the reasons I think he is a great wikipedian. PStrait 20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whenever I come across Saxifrage, he is dealing with problematic spammers or vandals. There's a real risk if you do enough of that stuff that you'll cross some line once in a while -- usually WP:AGF (my own weakness) and/or WP:CIVIL. I have never seen that with Saxifrage. It's unusual to see so little opposition to a candidate who's done as much spam fighting; that says a lot about his suitability. --A. B. 16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, roused me from giving a one sentence reason for non-deletion here:[[2]] to a well rounded argument even though it contradicted his own opinion. Mallanox 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; will be an asset to the community. Bucketsofg 00:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support him, for his trying to reach NPOV, but he still has a lot to work to improve himself. Somehow I did sensed a little frustration about him, he sees some personal attacks where instead it was an irony towards his lack of arguments. Overall I trust him to be a good admin. Wissahickon Creek talk 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Crossed-out vote by sockpuppet of banned user. Khoikhoi 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A good editor who will make a good admin. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Saxifrage edits well, is seemingly fully qualified, and is a solid Wikipedian. Sharkface217 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - One of those "I thought he was an admin" cases. I've seen him work on the WikiProject Spam quite a bit and he's the type of guy that needs a mop and will use it effectively. Pascal.Tesson 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - He edits well, he's always polite and civil, and he doesn't lose his temper. He does a lot of admin-like work already, so the tools will just help him be better.--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support. Looks like a good editor. NauticaShades 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support bodes well as budding admin. Agathoclea 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support keep up the good work Mjal 02:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. This is a very rare type of nomination, a well-thought-out, well-written nomination from a newer user, which reflects on the candidate in a very positive way. Best of luck to you, against the vandals and trolls (like the one on this page.) Grandmasterka 07:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Pile on support. Looks good to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of those people whom I rarely agree with but nevertheless think of as a constructive discussion partner. Join the mop mob! >Radiant< 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:25 3 11 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Michael 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Supports below come after the RfA is supposed to have ended └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mustafa AkalpTC 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems good ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ (Ŧ) 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --no kiddin. I thought you were already an admin! --SB_Johnny|talk|books 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Strong Oppose Saxifrage has used the highly uncivil tactic of libelling users as wikipedia policy violators on their talk pages in the convincing format of making a polite suggestion that deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties). That is a tactic that can not be spotted in a single edit (and therefore does not threaten one's reputation much), but must be seen by comparing multiple edits, and that is what makes it so underhanded. Saxifrage has also committed wikistalking. Saxifrage would therefore no doubt abuse the admin tools. GoodCop
- Such strong accusations MUST be backed up with diffs. Otherwise this is purely uncivil and is a personal attack. – Chacor 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Chacor. Note that GoodCop's talk page has since May 2006 had at the top the legend, "Note: Do not use this page to post libel in the convincing format of polite suggestions that deceptively appear to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties). Such behavior violates the wikipedia civility policy and will be reported." I don't know quite what is being referred to here as a general matter, and having quickly scanned Saxifrage's contributions I don't see any examples of this type of practice, either. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally an oppose vote! I was thinking it was too good to be true that there had been none so far. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of this. If it's true that I've managed to write in a way that looks deceptive, I'd like to pick that apart and figure out how to avoid coming off badly in the future. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In defence of the opposition, no one's participation must be backed up with diffs. To declare otherwise is quite inappropriate, especially considering that no Wikipedians who chose to support this RfA provided any diffs. Furthermore, while the wording is quite strong, it's definitely not a personal atttack - this is an RfA and the above is the Wikipedian's opinion of the candidate's admin abilities. Please don't jump on the lone opposer, especially as the RfA is highly likely to succeed. Every Wikipedian has the right to participate at RfA without fear of reproach. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I am still curious though. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll switch the emphasis. No one must provide diffs, but if they're not willing to back up their argument with evidence, they also can't expect it to be given the same weight. RfA is a consensus building exercise and evidence along with solid reasoning is most valuable. - Taxman Talk 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In defence of the opposition, no one's participation must be backed up with diffs. To declare otherwise is quite inappropriate, especially considering that no Wikipedians who chose to support this RfA provided any diffs. Furthermore, while the wording is quite strong, it's definitely not a personal atttack - this is an RfA and the above is the Wikipedian's opinion of the candidate's admin abilities. Please don't jump on the lone opposer, especially as the RfA is highly likely to succeed. Every Wikipedian has the right to participate at RfA without fear of reproach. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou, Chacor and Newyorkbrad, for being supporters of Saxifrage that demonstrate a similar behavior to what Saxifrage has done -libellously accusing your opponents who have made appropriate vote comments of violating wikipedia's civility and NPA policies, and in so doing, violating the very policies that you pretend to support. However, the fact that the civil Hoopydink supports Saxifrage certainly does not help my case against Saxifrage. A request for diffs is reasonable, but the accompanying libel is obviously not. I do not remember what pages I saw Saxifrages' abuses on (which I saw a while ago), and I don't think that I'll be able to find them within the vast number of edits. If people don't trust me, then that is their prerogative, but any libellous statements that I have violated wikipedia policy for making valid vote comments are unacceptable. I should also mention to third parties that Chacor was previously the user NSLE (as is admitted on Chacor's userpage), who was one of the most power-abusive admins in the history of wikipedia, and was de-sysopped by the ArbCom for it [3] (At least I found a diff THIS time). No wonder that Chacor would be so underhanded against RfA opponents; he's just acting as he usually does. I also note that Saxifrage is the only candidate on the WP:RfA page that Chacor supports. That is strong circumstantial evidence that Chacor supports Saxifrage so strongly because Chacor thinks that Saxifrage will abuse power as Chacor/NSLE did. Saxifrage has suggested that I help him to improve himself, and whether that request is honest or a ploy I do not know. I might implore Saxifrage to "not deliberately misinterpret appropriate statements as violations of wikipedia policy, particularly civility and NPA", but it likely would not change Saxifrage, the reason being that a person's fundamental behaviors are typically as immutable as one's politics. A personal attack is something that is false, irrelevant to the dispute at hand, and/or designed to discredit without an explanation. GoodCop 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make these kinds of accusations against those arguing in support of the candidate. Chacor's past is not the issue here, and from what I can tell, you're jumping to conclusions (just because someone only has one vote on the RfA page at the moment does not mean they have an agenda). Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Coredesat 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And thank you, Coredesat, for implicitely falsely accusing me of violating the POINT policy, and libellously accusing me of making accusations simply because people support Saxifrage (when I had clearly criticised them for having made false accusations). In so doing, you commit the same false accusation behavior that I have seen from Saxifrage, Chacor, and Newyorkbrad, and yet you did not make the same accusation of Chacor or Newyorkbrad (supporters of Saxifrage) who the accusation would be less inappropriate for, and in so doing, you are disrupting this RfA. You know full well that past actions are related to current character and motives, especially when those past actions are related to specific current actions, as is the case here. As for jumping to conclusions, I said that it is 'circumstantial evidence', not 'proof'. GoodCop 03:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone: Keep your comments pertinent to the matter at hand, please. We're not here to resolve disputes or slam each other up and down the block -- we're here to decide if Saxifrage should be an admin, and nothing more. Any further discussion in this thread of discussion should be directed to this RfA's talk page. Luna Santin 10:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- GoodCop, could you please provide some diffs and information, so we can investigate your allegations against Saxifrage? If you don't, we can't do anything. In the real world, if you walked up to someone and called him a thief, he could sue you for slander. Even if he really was a thief, you would have to prove, using evidence, that he's a thief. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone: Keep your comments pertinent to the matter at hand, please. We're not here to resolve disputes or slam each other up and down the block -- we're here to decide if Saxifrage should be an admin, and nothing more. Any further discussion in this thread of discussion should be directed to this RfA's talk page. Luna Santin 10:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Makes me nervous. Everyking 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Spawn Man 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - I have no opinion on this user whatsoever, hence why I'm placing this in the "Neutral" section. In fact, I don't even know this user, so it begs the question why I even placed a neutral vote here in the first place. Hope you make it Saxifrage... Damn, I just made myself un-neutral. I better go.... Spawn Man 05:13, 30 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 (6/27/8) Ended Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:15:39 UTC
Ombudsman (talk · contribs) – Ombudsman has made very large and informative contributions to Wikipedia. He has also done policing work. He is a very fair and rule-abiding person from what I've seen. The user Osbus had previously recommended that he run for admin, but did not officially nominate him. Even the name 'Ombudsman' is a sign of good character (an ombudsman is a person that fights abuse of power). I therefore conclude that Ombudsman would make an excellent administrator. GoodCop 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted appreciatively. Ombudsman 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Co-Nom
I've more or less stopped editing on Wikipedia, due to personal thoughts on the project. I've shared my thoughts with Ombudsman; though he agrees with me on a few points, he, unlike me, has had the faith and strength to continue to better the WP project. One of the qualities that I believe an admin must have is faith in the project. As demonstrated above, Ombudsman will continue to put effort into ultimately creating the ideal encyclopedia.
Since I've been gone, Ombudsman has been through a lot. Users who choose to continually harass him, abusive admins, and not to mention some dealings with ArbCom. It would have been easy to simply just stop and quit. Once again, I stress that Ombudsman is determined to stick through to the ultimate goal: creating an encyclopedia.
I dont think anyone will argue that he does not have enough edits; if one shall doubt it, I suggest looking at his userpage. With an impressive number of articles started and edits, it is without a doubt that Ombudsman has devoted much of his expertise and knowledge of the medical field to the Wikipedia project. These contributions have been valuable. There is also a lack of admins who specialize in medicine.
Wikipedia is constantly changing, and constantly facing new challenges. An admin should always be steadfast and determined. Ombudsman has the characteristics mentioned, the edit count, and the experience, not to mention the friendliness/approachibility not to be had by every admin.
I rarely feel that admins make a difference. However, I feel Ombudsman would be someone to step up while being fair and doing the right things. ArbCom's ruling, if I dare say it, is faulty, due to reasons stated by SLgrandson.−Osbus 02:55, 28 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: That's not easy to forecast, having always concentrated on contributing articles up to this point, but helping out on an 'as needed' basis will probably consume a lot of spare time initially. Finding a proper niche will probably happen within a couple of months. Keeping an eye on what needs to be done with the aforementioned backlogs will help with the learning curve, but in general the objective will be keeping a sharp focus on accomplishing tasks that will most effectively contribute to building the Wikipedia community, especially by encouraging collegiality, civility and party directed mediation, and by fostering a better community understanding of best dispute resolution and prevention practices.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: The 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference article immediately comes to mind, perhaps because the event itself has come to be more widely recognized as a major turning point in the autism epidemic controversy, but also because the article still manages to briefly cover the issues debated at the event with some detail, and because the article seems to have remained fairly stable while withstanding scrutiny from a number of perspectives. Starting the Holonomic brain model article, albeit inelegantly, was significant, in that the model of cognition, developed by Karl Pribram and David Bohm, adds a critical dimension to the Wiki's institutional memory cache, and offers a strong alternative to prevailing concepts like biological psychiatry and the chemical imbalance theory. Otherwise, contributing a variety of biographies and starting the WikiProject Running has also been a distinct pleasure. Ombudsman 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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: Supporting other editors who were dealing with Wikiturfing/astroturfing conflicts has led to an RfC (due to intervention on behalf of User:Whaleto) and an RfAr (on behalf of User:Cesar Tort); both cases were hastily initiated, and as a result they wound up taking much to longer to resolve than necessary. The situations required a great deal of patience, and it was helpful in both cases to concentrate as much as possible on sticking to the content issues, rather than buying more than necessary into the many threads focused on personalities. Among a number difficult aspects of the cases was the feeling that the interventions may have contributed to the grief experienced by the new users, who understandably took umbrage at the fierce Wikiturfing tactics and the apparent suppression of their good faith contributions. In the future, trying to use more diplomacy, as well as continuing to focus on content issues, will be the top priority. Ombudsman 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
- A: WP:IAR is an essential policy, but one which must be used with due caution. The snowball clause looks like a simple admonition to use common sense when confronted by overwhelming opposition, e.g., to such things as an ill-advised application of WP:IAR. The policies will be applied in good faith.
- 5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- A: Basically, no. The policy is pretty straightforward here, blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption and should not be used punitively. The policy is also common sense.
- 6. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
- A: If a case can be made that an article needs to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic, then the arguments for speedy deletion would have to be considered. Otherwise, 'blatant advertising' should routinely be speedied.
- General comments
- See Ombudsman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Ombudsman's editcount summary stats as of 18:55, October 27 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
- Ombudsman placed on Probation: "Ombudsman is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing." How can you assure potential voters on this RfA that you fully understand and apply the WP:NPOV policy in the light of the above arbitration case? (aeropagitica) 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, the ArbCom found the NPOV tag at the center of the dispute, originally placed by Cesar Tort, was justified. During the ArbCom case, the most reasonable course of action was to wait out the storm, as much as reasonable, while continuing to make good faith efforts to participate. Under the circumstances, it would have been unseemly to partake in the mudslinging that was unleashed.
The dispute may have been triggered by an NPOV issue, but the RfAr (perhaps due to faulty design) turned out to be little more than a springboard for whithering personal accusations, seemingly for the purpose of suppressing non-medical establishment views (i.e., Wikiturfing). The new editor who filed the case may have gotten the wrong impression from the wrongful tag removal by other, more established editors. It wasn't exactly the ArbCom's fault that, because the process allows open-ended personal attacks (which makes bunkers the only safe vantage point), the committee only succeeded in playing pin the tail on the donkey. Too, the discussion leading up to the ArbCom hearing the case didn't lend itself to cooling off the situation, or achieving NPOV, but instead amounted to little more than smoke signals indicating a prospective whooping.
Since the matter had been turned upside down from an NPOV tag issue into a personality conflict, what was learned from the situation was that personality conflicts can be manufactured or magnified beyond recognition to distract attention from achieving NPOV. That seems to be the strategy being used on an ongoing basis to sustain the Wikiturfing that apparently is taking place along the entire spectrum of the Wiki's medical articles (it was intimated early in the ArbCom proceedings that the issue would be inestigated, but it was not).
Getting back to NPOV, as a fundamental tenet of the Wiki, NPOV should be the paramount objective, in order to assure content quality. NPOV can best be collaboratively developed, which means that RfAr discussions should be made safer for discussing NPOVing, without having to wait out personal assaults in a bunker. Fully understanding NPOV involves developing an appreciation for and skills necessary for developing consensus on issues.
More than once, User:ClockworkSoul has pointed out that NPOV eventually seems to be worked out, when a measure of patience is applied. Given the above, it is clear that retaining a positive attitude about the good faith of other editors is helpful, too. Ombudsman 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support (being the nominator) GoodCop 03:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I see now (due to the edits that Sandstein and Aeropagitica mentioned, which I did not see before) that Ombudsman has some POV-bias in the subjects of psychiatry and George W Bush. Still, I think that the good outweighs the bad. Although Ombudsman is POV-biased on some issues, I think that he is NPOV at times when other people are very tempted to push their POV. GoodCop 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom Doc ♬ talk 18:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pretty good user, deserves the tools. Hello32020 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice, intelligent user. Dr.khan 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has a lot of faith in the project ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -Osbus 00:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportNever seen anything less than politeness, even graciousness, from Ombudsman. BTW, the idea that users are somehow more NPOV in editing if they have a mainstream pov doesn't make sense to me. All significant viewpoints should be included, and who better to represent a minority viewpoint than a determined, polite, fairminded, and knowledgeable person like Ombudsman? Supporting minority viewpoints is not tendentious. Further, someone below is still not satisfied with his patient acceptance of an arb decision he (very civilly) disagreed with. That someone wants him to agree with it when he doesn't agree. In most cases, that is an unreasonable demand.Rich 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Reluctantly oppose due to indications of suboptimal understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I started off with randomly browsing the articles Ombudsman lists as having created, and I'm concerned that most of those I looked at - including those whose history shows he remains involved in editing - tend to be light on (esp. inline-cited) sources; e.g. 1, 2, 3. More pressingly, one of his articles, Bush Crimes Commission, was eventually deleted (AfD 1, 2) due to, inter alia, NPOV and OR issues. His comments in these AfDs (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) lead me to believe that he might have trouble fairly applying policy to articles on politically charged subjects. I remain open to be convinced otherwise about the foregoing, of course, but in general I think we should not seek out administrators who have open, strong controversial opinions on anything, as good as they may be as editors. Sandstein 18:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed from support due to the ArbCom case. - Mike | Trick or Treat 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the diffs that Sandstein gives. I actually want to encourage editors to have strong openly held opinions about subjects, but all editors are expected to strictly abide by WP:NPOV, its one of our core policies. If you let your opinions override this you cannot be an admin. Sorry. I realize the Bush Crimes Commission AfD was several months ago, so I'm open to being convinced that this is a past matter, but the Arbcom ruling does not help. Gwernol 20:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the fact that the user is currently under permanent ArbCom sanctions. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Sandstein, I'm not a Bush supporter either but this is troubling "This AfD is just a matter of gaming the system and an attempt to impose upon the Wiki the same propagandistic mindset that has corrupted mass media in the US."-Ombudsman ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above Bucketsofg 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because he is under sanctions 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:29 29 10 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Users who can block others and protect pages should not have a history of POV-pushing fringe theories. Also, taking up the cause of one-track-mind extremists sounds like gullibility and lack of critical judgment. Opabinia regalis 00:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Per Sandstein. I do not think that adding text such as "Many severe autoimmune diseases are known or suspected to be caused by vaccines" with an edit summary "restore common sense reference to known side effects routinely listed in disclaimers" [5] with no actual source is appropriate. Ombudsman also has a pattern of interesting edit summaries (e.g., [6] [7] ). --Limegreen 02:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose after reading both the article (deleted but still mirrored) and the recent AfD on Don Paul. I also share Zoe's concerns about the inappropriate username which affects a role the user doesn't have. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per concerns raised above. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The ArbCom case is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unfortunately, the ArbCom case raises serious doubts over the ability to maintain true neutrality as an administrator. Dryman 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Was going to stay out of this to avoid pileon, but the comments at the AfD raise sufficient doubt along with the probation to lead me to go ahead and !vote.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'd have to say that the user's point-of-view get's in the way of his chances of being an administrator. In my eyes an administrator should be like a judge, no one should be able to tell what he'll decide to do from his tone but that is not possible here. There is a way of having strong personal political beliefs and not letting that get in the way of how you edit.--Jersey Devil 22:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Spamming user talk pages regarding Don Paul AFD, alerting only users with same viewpoint as his. [8] [9] [10] [11], and other issues with POV pushing. --Aude (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ArbCom case is a concern; a prospective admin shouldn't be the subject of any current cases SunStar Net 23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per concerns raised above, Derktar 07:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Under ArbCom sanctions worries me a little. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, due to being under ArbCom sanctions. If you appeal that successfully and come back, I'd probably support. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I don't feel I can support someone for adminship who is currently under significant ArbCom sactions. Zaxem 01:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Absolutely not. Treats Wikipedia as Indymedia, history of revisionism in many areas, not collaborative when confronted with accusations of POV editing. Likely to abuse admin powers to further his agenda. JFW | T@lk 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is your statement supposed to be an example of restraint? Is this the type of accusation you are talking about? Or was this intended to get things started off on the right foot? Did you think this edit would immediately foster collaboration? Or do you think restraint in such cases might have been warranted, especially since it so happens that it was neigh impossible to think of anything positive to say about that accusation? Would you describe this shot across the bow as an example of WP:CIVIL? It would be appreciated if you would begin letting up on the pressure, after one full year, because your latest statement makes it appear you are still using the same foot that you started off on, and only that foot. Ombudsman 22:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to being on current editing probation. Yes its an indefinite probation, but that doesnt mean infinite, I'd seek to get that cleared up before going for RFA again. — xaosflux Talk 19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Anyone with a long history of having difficulty interacting constructively with those he disagrees with should not be an admin. I believe that the likelihood that this user would misuse the tools of adminship is too high. Deli nk 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to current editing probation. Maybe you should have tried after your probation was over? Nishkid64 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to indefinitely on Probation. A good name does not a good admin make --Steve 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. In previous interactions with this editor was he displayed very poor understanding of WP:NPOV in pushing fringe science in the biological psychiatry article. That experience leads me to believe providing him with admin tools would be to the detriment of the project. Sadly nothing in his more recent editing has led me to reconsider Rockpocket 05:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- This user has been placed on probation by the ArbCom, which I think sends a negative message to many people. Scobell302 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Beyond the fact that the ArbCom may have erred in accepting the case at all, since the matter unreasonably bypassed intermediate dispute resolution steps, requests to review the decicison, e-mailed to two of the committee members, were basically ignored. The one committee member that did acknowledge receipt simply couldn't remember the case; several follow up messages did not elicit responses. The committee based its decision on a vague term (600 google hits for 'tedentious' at the time), and imposed what amounts to being a punitive threat of blocking, while also allowing the impression to be given that it had chosen to ignore the Wikiturfing that has undermined the quality of the Wiki's medical articles, the very reason that the NPOV tag placed by Cesar Tort needed to be restored. At least the ArbCom did agree about that. Ombudsman 22:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment TeNdentious [12]: "having a partisan, biased or prejudiced opinion; implicitly or explicitly slanted".--Limegreen 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Beyond the fact that the ArbCom may have erred in accepting the case at all, since the matter unreasonably bypassed intermediate dispute resolution steps, requests to review the decicison, e-mailed to two of the committee members, were basically ignored. The one committee member that did acknowledge receipt simply couldn't remember the case; several follow up messages did not elicit responses. The committee based its decision on a vague term (600 google hits for 'tedentious' at the time), and imposed what amounts to being a punitive threat of blocking, while also allowing the impression to be given that it had chosen to ignore the Wikiturfing that has undermined the quality of the Wiki's medical articles, the very reason that the NPOV tag placed by Cesar Tort needed to be restored. At least the ArbCom did agree about that. Ombudsman 22:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm going to suggest withdrawing this RfA for the timebeing, as an Admin who is on indefinite probation from ArbCom for WP:NPOV-related edits isn't someone that I would feel happy having review editors' contributions. I suggest working on getting the indefinite probation lifted, if possible; performing admin-related tasks such as new page, recent change and vandal reporting wouldn't hurt. So to would be submitting contributions backed up by reliable and verified sources - no one can argue with those. The lifting of this probation would send two signals - that you thoroughly understand WP:NPOV, having been through the mill, and you have raised your game to aspire to the high standards that we all work to uphold. (aeropagitica) 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, the ArbCom chose to apply WP:IAR, presumably for the expressed purpose of investigating what had been happening with the Wiki's medical articles. Without a doubt, Wikiturfing has taken place there, due to the double standards that have evolved favoring the suppression of non-mainstream content. For whatever reason, the ArbCom was unable to address the double standards that have undermined the NPOV of medical articles, and again evidently chose to creatively apply WP:IAR to justify the use of apparently unique and unprecedented 'tedentious' editing standards in coming to its seemingly punitive WP:IAR sanctions. The rules state that the ArbCom must convene to decide the lifting of such sanctions, but based upon their actions in the case, and the mudslinging that the faulty process induced, the option of making such a request still does not make much sense. In the alternative, several attempts were made to work things out with the ArbCom via e-mail, but these efforts were met with virtual silence. The lifting of the indefinite probation would likely be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing by the ArbCom, similar to the prospects for an admission by the pharmaceutical industry that thimerosal should immediately be removed from all vaccines (instead, the industry is fighting such legislation all across the US. Such admissions by either group would seem to violate the principle of WP:SNOW. Ombudsman 21:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral; agree with aeropagitica. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: His probation overshadows his potential for adminship (the same thing happened with a new admin, Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), some time aback). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I would oppose on the basis of this User's username, which implies a level of authority which he does not have. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Some more time needed (after the ArbComm Case) for Adminship Doctor Bruno 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Arbcomm probation. DarthVader 11:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'm not happy with Ombudsmans' replies to a couple of Neutral votes above, especially User:Scobell302 where Ombudsman states Beyond the fact that the ArbCom may have erred in accepting the case at all, since the matter unreasonably bypassed intermediate dispute resolution steps, requests to review the decicison, e-mailed to two of the committee members, were basically ignored.. This, for me, smacks of arrogance, where Ombudsman cannot accept he may have been wrong, that he may not fully understand or want to follow WP:NPOV. Heligoland 22:32, 30 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 (71/0/0) Ended Fri, 03 Nov 2006 05:45:21 (UTC)
Youngamerican (talk · contribs) – A registered user since February '05 and a dedicated contributor since that May, Youngamerican has been a pleasure to deal with and an asset to this community. He has 6,200+ edits, of which a healthy proportion are in projectspace and talk. In my experience (and I have a lot of interactions with this user) he has demonstrated good judgment, a cool demeanor, and an enviable deliberateness. So unlike me, this user is not known to jump into fights, run off his mouth, etc. That is generally a very good thing. In the mainspace, Youngamerican has toiled to greatly expand the world's knowledge of all things West Virginia (which apparently is a state somewhere) - but can venture out of its borders as well, see, e.g., Idit Harel Caperton. He has not told us what his views are on race-gender-sex-politics-God-eventualism-Jimboism-chocoholism, keeping his userpage completely devoid of anything remotely resembling a userbox. Finally, let me throw in his considerable experience at AfD, a handful of reports at AIAV, and his status as one of the founding fathers of Wikipedia:WikiProject KYOVA Region (five bucks to anyone who can guess what KYOVA is without clicking). So, in conclusion, while he will not be an administratively obsessed sysop like, say, me, he will definitely benefit the project more if he is armed with an Uzi, a Roomba, and The Club. This November, Vote Youngamerican. Bring Accountability Back to KYOVA! - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:05, 27 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 believe there are several areas where I can be an effective sysop. As Wikipedia continues to grow at an rapid rate, the backlogs of needed administrative actions also expands. I would focus much of my attention on sorting out the various articles and images nominated for speedy deletion by deleting those that clearly meet accepted criteria and assigning those that do not to more appropriate methods of deletion (prod or AfD) or removing those from consideration that are nominated for speedy in bad faith. I would also work to clear out prodded articles that had been tagged for the proper amount of time and close AfDs by paying careful attention to the arguments presented and to community consensus (regardless of my personal opinion). Additionally, I would assist Wikipedian photographers that want to move their images to the Commons by deleting their photos from the 'pedia once transwikification has been properly completed help out other users as needed as my skills with the mop develop over time.
- Essentially, I would use my new tools with the utmost respect for the trust placed in me by the community with a pragmatic balance of caution and diligence while always placing the good of the encyclopedia above all else.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: In addtion to the Idit Harel Caperton article which I worked to morph from a boderline promotional piece to a "Good Article," I have worked on several other articles and topics on Wikipedia. I have used my time as a Wikipedian to bring balance and compromise to the article on Robert Byrd, expand upon issues related to the hot dog, enhance and create, in a neutral manner, various articles related to West Virginia, and keep an eye out for vandalism to the 400 or so pages on my watchlist. I have also taken several pictures for the encyclopedia (some good, some utilitarian) in an effort to bring visual context to several articles, especially those dealing with a geographic feature or location.
- 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: That is how I met CrazyRussian! A few months back we butted heads over some AfDs regarding shopping malls. After our various sparring sessions, we developed a mutual respect and admiration (if not universal agreement) that has improved the quality of my work on Wikipedia. This and other instances of contention has taught me that these disagreements, when handled in a respectful and constructive manner, allow for excellent opportunities for networking, consensus building, and personal growth to the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole.
Totally optional question from Konstable (talk · contribs)
- 4. Under which circumstances would you consider putting an indefinite block on a user who is not new but is not really well established either (say someone who's been here for a month or so)?
- Excellent question. I would only take such extreme actions (especially early in my career as a sysop) under specific circumstances where the user was putting the safety, welfare, or career of another editor in peril. I would immediately report my actions and the reasons for said block to Arbcom and Jimbo, as policy dictates. I would want any such action to be completely transparent and open to oversite and, if neccesary, being overturned.
Question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
- A: Ahh, good ol' IAR. One of the most important lessons that an intermediate Wikipedian learns is that while policy and process are important, we must not be slaves to rigid dogma. I've always been a firm believer in the power of common sense, so IAR can and should be used in cases where it is a "no-brainer." For example, I argued that the article on Dixie Chili and Deli should be kept, even though it might not have lived up to WP:CORP in its purest reading. However, I believed that the article should be kept as it dealt with an important part of the social fabric of Cincinnati and the city's popular and unique variation of chili. But when the policy is used, the user (especially if they are an admin) must know exactly what they are ignoring and why such circumvention is necessary and proper in case they are called ot explain their actions. In other words, know what your doing before you do it (or, as the case may be, don't do it or do something else).
- As for the snowball clause, I think it is an important read for any Wikipedian. I think a great example of its use on AfD is a speedy keep (although I am not sure that I would directly cite it as a reason for closing an AfD as such). I would be less-inclined to include it in my reasoning for issues that would remove content from Wikipedia. With speedy deletes, for example, I'd be more likely to look for user's making a case for one of the CSDs for a speedy delete than a mound of consensus. In those cases, I'd be more inclined to let it be for the five days, unless a compelling reason to delete sooner was given by one or more users.
- 6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- A: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the word "punitive." If by punitive, you mean blocks for disrupting Wikipedia as listed in the above link (3RR, vandalizing the bio of a living person in a manner that can harm Wikipedia, etc),
yes. Punitive blocks are at times appropriate.(note: I see that is a matter of semantics, these blocks are defined not as "punitive", but rather "protective." I, however, stand by my contentions of when blocks are and are not appropriate, just not by my original understanding of the use of the word). I am, however, less inclined to block for what amounts to basic crankiness or what some might call incivility. As long as a user is not making threats or character assassinations, it is not appropriate to block because someone is just being a "big meanie." For example, there is a user who edits the Robert Byrd article that is very intelligent, very opinionated, and very strong-willed. He or she is prone to not using pleasantries and demanding that those that differ in their opinions use quality sources and logic to back up their beliefs on how the article should be structured. Basically, if you cannot deal with smart people that disagree with you and aren't always nice about it, then you are in for a big shock in the real world. That being said, if their comments devolve into personal attacks against the other user, threats, or other disruptive behavior, thenpunitiveprotective blocks are in order. But as far as mediating these sorts of disputes, the role of an admin should focus more on enforcement of RfCs and Arbcom judgements as opposed to riding into a conflict like an Old West sheriff with his posse.- Update: Based on the use of the word "punitive" on the blocking policy page, the correct answer is simply "no."
- A: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the word "punitive." If by punitive, you mean blocks for disrupting Wikipedia as listed in the above link (3RR, vandalizing the bio of a living person in a manner that can harm Wikipedia, etc),
- 7. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
- A: After reading G11 carefully, I feel that it would be best used to delete an article only in the case where said article was written about a company that by no stretch of the imagination merited an article in Wikipedia AND the article itself was written in a manner that made it appear to be someone using Wikipedia as free webspace to promotoe their product or service. In other cases, prod or AfD should be used.
- General comments
- See Youngamerican's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Youngamerican's editcount summary stats as of 04:54, October 27 2006, using Wanabee Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 04:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Support
- Strong Support Smart, effective, and overal great user. Crz summed it up quite well. Yanksox 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong nominator support - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, someone who wants to be an admin and has experience in the areas they want to help out in as an admin? That is something you don't see every day.--Andeh 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike | Trick or Treat 03:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support should have been done a looong time ago. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems unlikely to abuse the tools - PStrait
- Strong Support despite the crazy nomination. Youngamerican appears to be an excellent user who is certainly to be trusted with the buttons given his longstanding experience and dedication to volunteering for the project hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems a level-headed editor with many effective contributions; unlikely to abuse the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nom is crazySupport! Can't think of any reason to doubt that Youngamerican will be a fine admin. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Oh, and they've demonstrated willingness to accept mistakes in a friendly, mature way, which gets a major tick from me. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a he, DD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and they've demonstrated willingness to accept mistakes in a friendly, mature way, which gets a major tick from me. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per excellent nom. Rama's arrow 05:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support balanced and fair Wikipedian. I have come across him a number of times.--Alex 08:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, mainly because I like your answers to the questions. Image-knowledgeable admins are very helpful. Grandmasterka 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Crazy Young Russian-American Support Per nom and his good standing with wikipedia. Liked your answer to konstable's question --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good answers, definitely has experience and a good endorsement from a crazy Russian!--Konst.ableTalk 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Alex (Talk) 10:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. Enjoyed reading talk pages.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support 0L1 Talk Contribs 13:24 27 10 2006 (UTC)
- Pepsidrinka supports. 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I offered to nominate this user some time back, but he refused the nomination. I am glad he accepted this nomination now. On top of this, this user is the one who welcomed me to this project way back in January 2006! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent candidate that will help out a lot. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent candidate, I have seen him around and he makes wonderful contributions. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom, answers, comments above - good user with no issues. Newyorkbrad 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; an excellent editor, likely to be an excellent admin as well. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support easy enough. Teke (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support easily based on a convincing nomination, persuasive replies to the questions and a solid record. Sandstein 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good user, deserves the tools. Hello32020 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Grue 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- End-of-cold-war Support. Seriously though, some of the best answers I've read on RfA. Irongargoyle 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A consistently responsible and thoughtful contributor, in my experience. Malepheasant 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all of the above. Khoikhoi 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very persuasive nom, thoughtful and experience contributor.-- danntm T C 04:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--MONGO 05:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Impressed by his answer of Q4 (I would fall into that catergory ;)), plus seems to have a good record Qaanaaq 11:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great guy, will make a good admin. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Youngsupport ~ trialsanderrors 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great user, who will make a great admin. Nishkid64 19:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the answers Doctor Bruno 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, of course. Someone's got to explain West Virginia to us. ProhibitOnions (T) 23:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per... everyone! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; I've seen great work from Youngamerican at AfD and various political articles. --Allen 02:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seen him around, will mop wisely. KrakatoaKatie 04:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems like a sensible and experienced editor, don't see any issues. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Roombas? All I got was a toaster! How times have changed. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Upon review of this user's work I feel comfortable echoing what everyone else is saying. Congratulations!--Caliga10 11:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 11:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. John254 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jay(Reply) 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; everything looks good here, and he should be an excellent admin. (The easter eggs were pretty, and the nominator owes me five bucks ... just kidding ... used to live around there.) Antandrus (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support T REXspeak 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Consensus says so.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ctizens, please "!Vote".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Let's make happy some guy on the edge of the world, in West Virginia. - Darwinek 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Pleasure to deal with. Brings a sense of fun and humor to WP (which is very much needed). Armed with a Roomba —he probably has a Flowbee in that gunbelt too. I'm MJCdetroit, and I approved this message. 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above --Steve 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, I guess Jaranda wat's sup 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent user, will be a fine admin. gidonb 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. --A. B. 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Canderous Ordo 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Great Candidate Support – Yes sir! JungleCat talk/contrib 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By this point, a completely unnecessary support. Everything I wanted to say has already been said - damn! :) riana_dzasta 13:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Tawker 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seen YA around a lot, my impression is overwhelmingly favourable. Guy 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like a very good candidate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Answered all the questions perfectly. NauticaShades 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support As per looking at this user's history, I think its a spot on choice.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support keep up the good work Mjal 02:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 3 November 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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (46/0/0) Ended Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:14:42 UTC
GeeJo (talk · contribs) – I've been working on Wikipedia for over a year now, racking up over 12,000 edits (EDIT: Interiot's JS tool tells me I've just breached 13k :) ), and haven't really felt the need for admin tools 'til recently. I've worked across a wide range of projects and namespaces, mostly in areas where there was no real need for fast admin intervention, such as Stub sorting and Image tagging. I'm applying now not out of any need for recognition or power, but because when I do come across a problem or task requiring an admin, it'd be handy to be able to do so myself rather than add a notice to the page and wait for a response. I'm after the mop and nothing more :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination, acceptance implicit. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:20, 26 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've spent a lot of time flitting around Template talk:Did you know, with around 15 nominations to my name and a lot of work fixing or rewording the prose of others' noms. I'd gladly welcome the opportunity to begin updating the template itself when it's overdue (at the moment, gaps of 15-30 hours aren't uncommon over the weekend.) While I've not spent a great deal of time assisting with RC or AFD, which will probably not change in the near future (though I would in all likelyhood start working on keeping Category:Candidates for speedy deletion empty), I have a lot of experience working with Image tagging, and I'd be more than happy to start actually emptying out {{NowCommons}} and {{Redundant}} rather than adding to the list by tagging images for some other poor admin to revisit.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Article-wise, my favourite contributions have to have been contractum trinius, forest swastika, and Panjandrum. While each of them has its own problems, I'm fully confident that these incredibly obscure topics would never have gained a place in Wikipedia had I not created them myself, which made them all the more fun to work on. I'm also happy with the work I've done outside of article creation, such as sorting through the 25-page monstrosity that was Category:Mythology stubs last year by hand (I hadn't found AWB back then,) solo!
- 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: My editing tendencies have generally kept me out of the centre of controversies, but from time to time a topic has proven contentious. For example, my first few non-stub articles were on various anabolic steroids. Since their creation it's been an on-and-off battle trying to keep ad-spam and unlicensed product images out, and I've been accused more than once of being anti-drug. When presented with specific problems, I attempted to help users find a way to rework their contributions in such a way as to be acceptable (for example, helping them figure out what was needed for a good Fair Use image rationale.)
Question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
- A: IAR is a very handy safety valve, but should be used rarely and only with extreme caution. As a general rule, if someone – especially an admin – chooses to use it then they should be willing to back it up with rational argument and be willing to compromise. Outside of a Foundation decision, it should never be used to go against a clear informed consensus. WP:SNOW deals with a specific sub-section of IAR, and is probably one of the few uncontroversial (in my opinion, anyway) areas where the policy can be applied. If consensus is established without doubt then a process can be ended prematurely. When operating outside of an area where consensus has been established (Speedy deletion for example), then only in absolute clear-cut situations can the snowball clause be put into effect. If anyone (in virtually every case, even the author) raises a cogent argument against a speedy deletion, consensus should be sought through the normal process. To prevent bias, someone else should be responsible for invoking the first part of the snowball clause should consensus be established early in such a case.
- 5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- EDIT: my previous response to this question was made under a false assumption, which has been clarified in talk pages.
- A: I can't think of a single instance in which a block for punishment's sake would be warranted. the blocking policy is very thorough, and outlines exactly what should be considered a blocking offense. There's no need to step outside of it, and if the boundaries around an action are fuzzy, either the benefit of the doubt should be given to the person in question or consensus in the form of a request on the administrators noticeboard should be sought.
- I'm sorry, I'm not following your answer here.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
- A: There's a simple checklist to run down in such cases: Tone, length, formatting, references. All of them can be checked quickly by just reading the article. From there, a bit of common sense is required. A good rule of thumb is "Would someone wanting to rewrite the article be able to use any of the material here?" If the information is there, but just needs either rewording, cropping/expanding, formatting, or referencing then the relevant cleanup tag should be added. If it needs significantly more work – to the point where an editor would be better off creating an article from scratch – then deletion would probably be warranted.
Question from Jeff503 (talk · contribs)
- 7 How would you, if promoted, help new users learn the basics of Wikipedia easier?
- I rarely come into contact with new users directly, though I do pop onto the Help Desk every now and then. Beyond adding welcome templates to new users I see contributing to Special:Newpages, I generally aim to help with any issues that are brought to my attention, either by a comment on my talk page or that of an article I'm keeping an eye on. I don't forsee my habits changing dramatically if I'm promoted.
Question from Richardshusr (talk · contribs)
- 8a Regarding your comment on Jusjih's recent RFA, why do you believe "admins should be aware of Chinese law when making decisions on the Chinese Wikipedia as per your example, just as I'd expect editors of the English-language Wikipedia to have at least a basic awareness of what is appropriate under US/EU/AUS law"? Is it your sense that the English Wikipedia is subject to US/EU/AUS law? How about Canadian and New Zealand law? Is the Chinese Wikipedia subject to Chinese law? Is the Spanish Wikipedia subject to Spanish/Mexican/et al law?
- To bring this into context, Jusjih had commented that he wished to be able to delete offensive usernames from the Chinese equivalent of Special:User list. As Chinese law is particularly draconian in this regard, and given the PRC's view towards internet use, it is not out of the question (though unlikely) that they could request a Checkuser against these users in order to pursue legal action. This is a prefect example of why knowledge of local laws is a very handy, though not requisite, thing to have when working on an international project such as Wikipedia. It's not a question of WP being required to follow EU/AUS law (The English-language project technically need only observe U.S. Federal and Florida State laws, since this is where the servers are physically based,) its simply that having background knowledge in such an area can only serve to help.
- 8b Assuming the answer to the rhetorical questions in (7a) is "Yes", do you believe that the English Wikipedia is subject to German law? Why or why not?
- Wikipedia itself is not subject to German law, though its contributors may be. As I've answered above, the English-language Wikipedia is only required to follow U.S. law, as this is where the servers are physically based. The project's contributors, however, are required to follow local laws. Despite this, it's still common courtesy to observe German law when working on a related article, provided that doing so will not hurt an article.
- General comments
- See GeeJo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
GeeJo's editcount summary stats as of 12:46, October 26 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 12:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
For the answer to Q8a for better clarification, I never said deleting offensive usernames. I said that if a new function were to be enabled, making permanently blocked offensive usernames visible to admins only may be desirable. (Why show them to the public to give Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wiktionary bad images even if there is nothing illegal?) I never said that Chinese Wikipedia would be automatically subject to Chinese laws, but users from Red China are. I also support the answer to 8b while German Wikipedia has voted against fair use images while doing so is generally no good for most of its contributors.--Jusjih 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Yay, first support! --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good contributor in all relevent areas of WP; well-written nom, too. I don't think that the tools would be abused. (aeropagitica) 12:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Michael 14:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Come back when you have 20,000 edits.Strong support. Good contributions and good answers above. Jcam 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Support - per experience and extensive upload log --T-rex 16:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And those are just the ones on Wikipedia. I've uploaded far more over on Commons :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Apparently GeeJo is responsible for 60% of the images on wikipedia... --T-rex 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support a very good editor and a very positive nomination. Rama's arrow 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (...he's not already?) --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some good contribs in DYK and excellent user page by the way --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support High upload and edit count, as well as great answers to the questions. 0L1 Talk Contribs 20:45 26 10 2006 (UTC)
- Supporting a Good Editor Doctor Bruno 20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike | Trick or Treat 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the amount of hard work this user is able to generate in such a short time amazes me. KazakhPol 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems to be an excellent candidate who has shown quite a commendable dedication to the project. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above answers, is also a prolific contributor in writing articles and the improvements of them. see: User:GeeJo/Gallery User:GeeJo/DYK :GeeJo also participates at the Wikipedia Reference desk. [13] ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good answers and obviously experienced.--Konst.ableTalk 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support- A very good editor.Nileena joseph 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, excellent user. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Alex (Talk) 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have no major concerns here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and yes please, we need more admins who are knowledgeable about images. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per statement and answers. Good editor, has made valuable contributions, no troublesome issues. Newyorkbrad 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support per all above. (first Wikipedia contrib on Vista RC1!) ~crazytales56297 O rly? 03:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no problems here. Khoikhoi 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good.-- danntm T C 04:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user needs the mop? Go for it and good luck to you. Gryffindor 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Jusjih 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Richard 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I'm satisfied with the answers to questions 8a and 8b above. I think I could find a few fine points to pick on but this is not the place for that kind of discussion. Comment to Jusjih and GeeJo, I grant that Jusjih's explanation clarifies any ambiguity about whether he thought Chinese law applied to Wikipedia (Chinese or English). I would have been willing to support Jusjih's RFA if he had clarified the issue better during the time that his RFA was open. --Richard 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. Nishkid64 19:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess my vote Good user, I'm seeing his detailed DYK nominations all the time. He has a lot of experience as well. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this candidate. Conscious 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support yup. KrakatoaKatie 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support: I'd rather see this user spend more time in the RC patrol for once (per user talk edits). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. John254 15:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - familiar face on WP:DYK . Bakaman Bakatalk 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, dedicated user and good answers to questions. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Only 14 contributions to AfD since March is a bit of a problem, but the ones I've checked have substance. ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Zaxem 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mkdw 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 1000-edits-a-month-avg is decent. I love ur answer for Q.8b. I can see consistency in your edits. Plus most of ur edits are in project namespace. You're one of those backstage people, aren't you? I believe u'll make a great admin. Cheers. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 07:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. --A. B. 15:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Steve 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Tawker 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see him at the DYK area. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:33, 2 November 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 (18/16/8) Ended 02:55 2 November 2006 (UTC),
Deon555 (talk · contribs) – I have over 2,000 edits, and have been at Wikipedia for over 7 months. I use VandalProof, Godmodelite (Rollback), popups and Lupin's Anti-Vandal tools for vandal fighting. I do RC and NP Patrol, probably slightly more NP Patrol, to watch for small pages like "Wow can i really edit here",attack pages, copyvios and anything else that is Speedy Deletion material. I am involved in several WikiProjects, such as AfD closing, and stub removal, although I haven't been paticularly active in them recently. I'm almost always in #wikipedia-bootcamp on Freenode helping out users who add the {{helpme}} tag to their talk pages, I'm also a Channel operator there and help users who come in to chat. I try to answer questions at the Help Desk, and the Reference Desk where time permits. I have also been a verified user of the Wikiproject on Open Proxies for some time now, and that is one of my main priorities. I check there a few times a week for alerts, and then try to join the #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en channel to get an admin to block the proxies once verified. One of my other main priorities at the moment is Abuse Reports. From what you can see above I am very anti-vandalism, and Abuse Reports helps Wikipedia do that one more little thing to stop persistent vandals. I have both investigated and contacted in several cases, and am currently investigating a very large case of range vandalism.. I had an RfA in early July, which unfortuanely failed to acheive consensus at (0/9/1), primarily due to the fact that I had only 245 edits then. Thanks, — Deon555talkReview 01:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept — Deon555talkReview 01:40, 26 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 intend to help out primarily at WP:AIV, but also in the two backlog categories mentioned. Also, I'll be monitoring WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:AN3 constantly. I'll also be using my tools first hand, speedy deleting tagged pages (and candidates), blocking open proxies, blocking vandals on RC Patrol etc.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: My first real article was DECv. I'm proud of that because (if you look at the diffs), it started of such a crummy article when I made it, then overnight it became so much better, I put sources in, Image, Infobox, and I'm very proud of that, although I do realise I don't own it. I have made several templates that I'm proud with Template:CSDNotice (to alert people a page they just made is about to be speedy deleted), Template:Notaproxy (for proven Non proxies), Template:Unnode(for taken-down Tor node's).
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I haven't been in any major conflicts. There are minor conflicts you have now and then with other editors.. but nothing major.
- Optional question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)
- 4. How would you balance your contribution as an admin and as an editor?
- A: I would try and fit in editorial tasks such as writing articles, RCP, Wikification, Cleanup etc, but at the same time would use the mop, I would try to make it the same amount of time, if not more on Editorial, because the vandals will evenutally stop: the editing won't.
Question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
- A: I'll be honest. I've never really understood IAR, and it looks like (well I hope) I'm not the only one. The five pillars of Wikipedia, the fifth in fact, states Wikipedia does not have firm rules, but they do say rules are there to be broken.. IAR points out that it's important to remember rules shouldn't be "broken" as such, they should be ignored, not ignorantly, but carefully and intentionally. As for SNOW, it's an essay, not a policy, so theres a different approach. We see SNOW put into practise regularly, for example the new WP:CSD additions, are there so such pages dont clutter AfD, because they have "not a snowballs chance" of bringing in an unexpected result.
- 6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- A: No. Not ever. I don't want to quote policy all day, but blocks are clearly there as a technical measure to stop the editor from well, editing. Blocks should never be applied as a punitive or punshing way, as that's not what they are there for. That's not to say that "In-blocks" aren't disallowed. (See [14] for example).
- 7. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
- A:
- General comments
- See Deon555's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
- See Deon555 edit count using Interiot's Wannabe Kate Edit Counter. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might want to duck out of here. You have around 400 article edits, the majority being marked as minor- mostly semi-automated vandal rollback and typo fixes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- People will also pile-on oppose based on the fact that your form was lodged incorrectly - that's unfortunate, I feel that people shouldn't be lazy in that way and simply oppose on the basis of a mislodged form, claiming "incompetence" but should investigate the candidate's record to see if this correct. However, they will do it anyway.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Support
- Support A fine editor of Wikipedia - friendly, courteous, and helpful. He has a good record, and I think there's little chance of misusing the tools. I do hope that he can offer further clarification of the questions above, though. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a competent and intelligent user. If your RfA is successful, I would really like to see greatly increased involvement in admin activities - that is, so that there's a genuine reason to give you the tools - but on the basis that adminship is "no big deal" and a simple assumption that you're willing and able to learn, I see no compelling reason to oppose. Good luck. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support, the only thing that gives me pause is a slight lack in article contributions and XfD discussions. Otherwise, I think that you are well-suited to being an admin. Daniel.Bryant 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user meets my qualifications, and I'm not going to fret over the exact quality of contributions.-- danntm T C 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral support You seem like an editor who could use the tools and who won't abuse them. Some more experience would be nice though. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral support You have the right motivation and may one day make a great admin, but for now I suggest a withdrawal and concentration on experience, especially with encyclopaedia writing in the mainspace, TewfikTalk 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support unlikely to misuse the tools ` Doctor Bruno 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Helps out users a lot. G.He 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust Deon with the tools, but I agree he needs to work on his mainspace edits. My recommendation is he consider withdrawing at this point and wait until someone is willing to nominate him. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't believe that this user would misuse the tools. Besides, adminship is suppose to be "no big deal", right? Or has it become de facto a gigantic deal? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to believe he'd misuse the admin tools, and he's a good-faith editor. --Slowking Man 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support I can support a dedicated vandalfighter, but only with more total edits. One can quickly increase one's edit count vandal !fighting, so it takes more to convince me to support. You need more than vandal !fighting to become an admin. There are ~17,000 articles in Wikpedia;cleanup. I would suggest helping clear out that backlog. Some of those articles backed up from 2005 might need deleting, so this might be a good opportunity to gain experience sifting wheat from chaff. Find a niche. There is probably something you know about or can get information on that could be your unique contribution. Join a project and work with a team. There are many encyclopedia building ares to choose from. 66.230.200.131 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry, IPs can't !vote. Please log in. MER-C 11:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. That was weird. Trying again after edit conflict. LOLCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support switch to neutralI can support a dedicated vandalfighter, but only with more total edits. One can quickly increase one's edit count vandal !fighting, so it takes more to convince me to support. You need more than vandal !fighting to become an admin. There are ~17,000 articles in Wikpedia:cleanup. I would suggest helping clear out that backlog. Some of those articles backed up from 2005 might need deleting, so this might be a good opportunity to gain experience sifting wheat from chaff. Find a niche. There is probably something you know about or can get information on that could be your unique contribution. Join a project and work with a team. There are many encyclopedia building ares to choose from. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good dedicated user, unlikely to abuse the tools. Hello32020 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nice guy, works hard, can definitely be trusted. As is the case with many, myself included, I wish he'd write more articles. -- Samir धर्म 02:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great to work with, knows his way around very well, and very trustworthy. Will make a good addition! --Skywolf talk/contribs 07:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor, diligent, and unlikely to leave us soon. TehKewl1 10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - admins dont need tons of mainspace edits to clean up wikipedia.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Geo. 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Sorry, you appear to have some knowledge of Wikipedia's internal machinery, but your contributions denote that you might require some more experience. For instance, you have been involved with countervandalism only in the hours prior to this RfA. I also see no recent XfD participation. And your edit summary usage is also a bit below of what would be expected. :-( --Húsönd 04:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi. Countervandalism diffs from September [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I can assure you I didn't just "take up" Vandal fighting just before RfA. AfD's: Yes, I'll admit, the most recent is probably around late August: [20], [21], [22], [23]. Edit Summary Usage is 93% for Major and 100% for Minor.. Sorry if that's a little too low, although I don't think it's too bad.. — Deon555talkReview 04:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't check your edit history beyond the last 500 edits as the past two months were already covered in that sum. Anyway, it is a big concern to me that in the past two months you did not fight vandalism (until today). If you haven't been fighting vandalism for so long, nor participating in page deletion discussions, then I can't see why would you need the tools. 93% edit summary usage for major edits is not too bad, but it's not too good either. You are a good user and your willingness to get involved with administrative tasks is commendable, but you must provide clear proof that you are experienced enough to be given access to the admin tools.--Húsönd 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi. Countervandalism diffs from September [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I can assure you I didn't just "take up" Vandal fighting just before RfA. AfD's: Yes, I'll admit, the most recent is probably around late August: [20], [21], [22], [23]. Edit Summary Usage is 93% for Major and 100% for Minor.. Sorry if that's a little too low, although I don't think it's too bad.. — Deon555talkReview 04:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. There is more to Wikipedia than vandal wargames. Someone wishing to be admin should at the very least have a strong list of substantive contributions to the actual encyclopedia. Rebecca 06:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. However, if you were to significantly help a few articles reach FA status, I'd be the first to support you. yandman 09:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per above. I'll also note that before today I've never heard of you (no offence). I have a good number of vandalfighters' pages watchlisted and I've never once seen you, so it's hard for me to make a good judgement on whether you would use the tools well. I'd definitely like to see more article contribs. – Chacor 13:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I would like to see more actions in editing aside from vandal warning. Michael 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I would also like to see more substantive article editing, as well as a little more participation in a variety of pseudo-administrative tasks. More edits on the whole would seem in order to show a real affinity for the project as a whole. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Low number of mainspace edits indicates vital lack of experience. Xoloz 15:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'd hope also to see more article writing as it helps You to better evaluate other articles (speedy candidates). Why didn't You mention Your very first RfA attempt in late May [24]? feydey 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi. When I say "speedy candidates" I mean anything deletable under WP:CSD; as for the RfA, I explained that in my RfA, I don't even count that as an RfA. The non-existent page wasn't transcluded for 2 minutes, and I thought otherwise (WP:SNOW)— Deon555talkReview 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not enough experience with article building. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose candidate lacks experience in matters of substance. Pete.Hurd 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rebecca. Dionyseus 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I would like to see more experience in the actual editing of articles. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Siva1979. A featured article of your topic of interest would be the best way to go. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not enough experience with article creation. Per Husond. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rebecca. T REXspeak 21:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Rebecca and Siva1979 --Trödel 15:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral I suggest withdrawing this RfA and seeking an editor review instead. As mentioned above, 400 article edits, the vast majority of which are vandal reverts and spelling corrections, doesn't allow you to demonstrate your abilities to contribute encyclopedic content and communicate effectively. An admin needs to be able to perform both of those tasks to a high ability in order to interact with other editors and assist them in their article-building efforts. In order to build up more experience in these matters, I suggest joining projects such as the Featured Article and Good article drives. These will allow you to express your opinions from the point-of-view of policies and guidelines and also to develop your research and encyclopedic writing abilities at the same time. I would further suggest assisting new editors at the Help and Reference Desks in order to become familiar with the range of resources available to Wikipedia and the different experience levels of editors - postgrad/doctoral/faculty to high school - and effective means of communication for each. You can also patrol the new and recent changes pages in order to revert vandals, warn them and finally report them to WP:AIV or other appropriate place. This will allow you to become familiar with one of the big admin-related tasks, reverting vandalism. (aeropagitica) 04:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Aeropagitica sums it up for me. Think this user will be a great admin when a little more integrated into the editing of the encylopedia, although personally I'm not insistent about FA involvement. If this Rfa fails and you run again in a few months, please drop me a line on my talk page. --Dweller 09:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral — I have always seen deon to be a good editor, but there are a few reasons why I can't support at this stage. Firstly, appears to be very (IMO too) eager to get a sysop flag, and has applied previously on wikiversity and simple, as well as here. Also, I'm not a supporter of WP:1FA, but I think you should write some articles (not neccesarily featured ones, but stubs always help), because when it all comes down to it Wikipedia is still an encyclopædia, and we need articles. On a more positive note however, your project-space contributions have been quite good. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral — I'm in no way an advocate of 1FA; however before I could ever give someone my support I require a healthy ammount of contributions and good use of edit smmarys, come back in a few more months with a few more edits under your belt and i will definitley consider giving you a support. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral due to not wanting to pileon, but you don't seem to have enough experience of the sort of controversial areas (e.g. Afd) that admins need to get involved in. Cynical 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm not one of those "FA or else..." people, but I (and I want to be frank, not to discourage Deon, but simply being honest...) find it disturbing that a self-nom's answer to #2 is what amounts to a really long stub article. In many ways, this is the inverse of many failed Rfa's. Many of the opposes above usually vote nay when they see an excellent writer who isn't involved in the other aspects (Rfa, Afd, vandal fighting, etc.) You've got the hard part out of the way... now go write ! And write some more ! I'll be watching your edits over the next month. Once you show you are willing to help write this encyclopedia, I will nominate you myself. Jcam 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Neutral I can support a dedicated vandalfighter, but only with more total edits. One can quickly increase one's edit count vandal !fighting, so it takes more to convince me to support. You need more than vandal !fighting to become an admin. There are ~17,000 articles in Wikipedia:cleanup. I would suggest helping clear out that backlog. Some of those articles backed up from 2005 might need deleting, so this might be a good opportunity to gain experience sifting wheat from chaff. Find a niche. There is probably something you know about or can get information on that could be your unique contribution. Join a project and work with a team. There are many encyclopedia building ares to choose from.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. It looks like you've made great strides since your last RfA and I applaud you for it. Don't think I can support an admin position for you at this point, but please keep up the good work.--Caliga10 21:27, 29 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 (56/0/2) Ended Wed, 1 Nov 2006 23:41:11 UTC
Osgoodelawyer (talk · contribs) – Oz has been an active Wikipedian over the past year, accumulating 7100 edits to date across the board. His time here has been spent making quality contributions to several articles, participating in maintenance work, and uploading original images – all of which have added greatly to many articles. I have found him to be a respectable, hardworking, dedicated member of the community, always displaying civility and sound judgement. He is your all-round Wikipedian, who is ready and willing to serve the community with a mop. Jay(Reply) 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:27, 25 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: The current approach of spreading my contributions across many areas has, I think, worked well for me so far, and so at the risk of sounding like I'm weaseling out of making a commitment, I think I'll likely do a little bit of everything. But if I have to name a couple areas, I would say that I anticipate working on WP:IFD and image tag problems a bit, and since I've already been reverting a fair deal of vandalism, I'll probably keep an eye on WP:AIV so I can help work on preventing it.
- Clarification for User:dlohcierekim: By preventing, I simply meant that with the block button I would be able to stop recalcitrant vandals from further vandalizing.
- A: The current approach of spreading my contributions across many areas has, I think, worked well for me so far, and so at the risk of sounding like I'm weaseling out of making a commitment, I think I'll likely do a little bit of everything. But if I have to name a couple areas, I would say that I anticipate working on WP:IFD and image tag problems a bit, and since I've already been reverting a fair deal of vandalism, I'll probably keep an eye on WP:AIV so I can help work on preventing it.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: The two articles I'm most proud of would probably have to be Flag of Labrador and Newfoundland Tricolour, both articles on unofficial flags from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where my wife is from. I'm proud of them because I think that they're pretty well written and in the case of Newfoundland Tricolour, well-sourced (I haven't yet gotten around to sourcing Flag of Labrador, unfortunately).
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Of the conflicts I've had in the past, only one could be considered major, and I would be lying if I said that dealing with the (subsequently permablocked) user never caused me any stress. That said, I think I generally kept a cool head and learned much from the experience. I now know that I can just step back when a minor dispute threatens to become a more serious conflict and take a short break (if you're "in the right", there will always be other editors to back you up).
Question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)
- 4. How would you balance your contribution as an admin and as an editor?
- A. I hope that the majority of my edits continue to be substantive edits to articles, as that's what I like doing most around here. But, of course, if I didn't think I was going to spend more than just a minor amount of my time on administrative tasks, I wouldn't have accepted the nomination. I don't know if it's realistic to give percentages since I do not know exactly how much administrator-type issues I might come up against in my daily patrol, but I'd guesstimate 75% editor, 25% admin.
- 5. You edit summary usage for minor edits is pretty low, how would you explain that?
- A. Well, my minor edits generally are just that, minor. I don't feel an edit summary is generally needed for edits such as spelling corrections, which I do a fair bit of.
- I've already supported and don't think this criterion has much to do with an RfA, but for future reference, a quicky edit summary ("sp" for a spelling correction, "pn" for punctuation etc.) can save time for RC patrollers. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, will keep that in mind for future minor edits.
- I've already supported and don't think this criterion has much to do with an RfA, but for future reference, a quicky edit summary ("sp" for a spelling correction, "pn" for punctuation etc.) can save time for RC patrollers. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Well, my minor edits generally are just that, minor. I don't feel an edit summary is generally needed for edits such as spelling corrections, which I do a fair bit of.
- 6. Additional question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional) Hello, Osgood. Thank you for submitting your RfA, I have this question and then perhapd a follow-up. You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note at the top of the page from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do? Thanks,
- A. I go searching for the site the page is supposedly cut from, and if I find it (and it's not from a site that's free-use), I delete the page as a copyvio (and hopefully recreate a non-copyvio page in its place). I've done this more than once already (without the deleting, of course). See my work on Burhan Doğançay for an example (in that case I did not request a deletion--perhaps I should have--I just worked the information into a non-copyvio article).
Question from Ginkgo100 (talk · contribs)
- 3a. Can you be more specific about the conflict you alluded to? Diffs and/or talk page links? Thanks.
- A. Unfortunately, as I mentioned below in the Neutral section, the discussion took place almost entirely on the talk page of User:WikiWoo, which is now deleted.
Question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 7. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
- A: I'm not a big fan of WP:IAR. The instances where ignoring all rules will actually lead to an improvement of the encyclopedia are few and far between, and I've seen editors use it as a justification to go against clear consensus that has been well thought out and is in the best interests of the community. Content and policy issues are better tackled by working towards changing the rules, not simply ignoring them. That said, there are certain cases where IAR can be used without too much controversy. For instance, a blatant vandal who has made it obvious, through an examination of his or her actions and words, that he or she is not going to stop may be blocked without the requisite number of warnings. In addition, if leniency (such as not blocking when it is usually appropriate) is considered a form of ignoring all rules, then that is another case where IAR can sometimes be an appropriate policy. Finally, WP:SNOW is an explication of the beneficial use of IAR when things such as AfDs and RfAs are going one way. But the situation really does have to be unambiguous; even if an AfD is overwhelmingly in favour of deletion, if the one or two keep votes actually bring up salient points, WP:SNOW should not be applied. Such a use of WP:SNOW prevents subsequent users who might be better at articulating from expanding on those points and perhaps turning the AfD around (or at least giving more support for a deletion review).
- 8. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
- A: I thought hard about this question, not wanting to give a straight up and accepted "no", but in the end I do have to come to that answer anyway. To clarify, however, preventative blocks might look punitive to some. As an example, in Jusjih's RfA he claimed that a punitive block could be put in place for offensive usernames. I wouldn't consider such a block punitive at all, since its purpose is to prevent offence being taken.
- 9. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
- A: The first step is to actually read the article. While doing this, common sense will be your best tool for determining if something is blatant advertising. It should be obvious to most editors when they come across gratuitous self-promotion, that they're reading an advertisement (we're bombarded with them all day long). A further pointer is that the article may completely lack wikilinks (of course, this is not proof of advertising). You might also want to see if the main contributor has a username connected with the company or product. Once it has been determined that the article is unambiguously an advertisement, and not just the product of an overly enthusiastic editor, salvage options have to be taken into consideration. If the article is short (or largely encyclopedic), and it would only take a few edits to bring it into line with the standard on Wikipedia, then those edits should be made. However, if the article is a lost cause, requiring a complete rewrite in order to become acceptable (and the admin is not willing to do that), then it should be deleted under CSD:G11. However, if the article has previously withstood an AfD (not likely if it really is an advertisement), then it should not be speedy deleted and should instead be sent to a subsequent AfD.
- General comments
- See Osgoodelawyer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
Discussion
Support
- Good news everyone! I support the Holophoner player. - Mike | Trick or Treat 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I remember Oz's discussions with the (subsequently permablocked) user he discussed above. Although the situation must have been stressful, Oz stayed admirably civil and constructive. His recent edits show even more maturity and judgment, and I'm confident he would wield a mean mop. TheronJ 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no reason to oppose that I can see. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Although I only met the user earlier today, I have to say that I see that this user is a great article-builder who has the experience to handle tough situations and deal with user requests. Best of luck with your RfA! Nishkid64 22:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Jay(Reply) 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rama's arrow 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Michael 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and answers. Quality editor, will use tools effectively, no concerns. Plus we need more lawyer-admins. :) Newyorkbrad 00:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - why not? ST47Talk 00:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Polite. Solid contributor to the encyclopedia. Seems a good bloke despite the whole lawyer thing. If he uses the tools, I expect he will use them well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - of course! Khoikhoi 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Won't abuse the tools. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. meets my standards. Answered my question well. Doubt he'll bite or block newbies in fits of zeal. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User often forgets to warn vandals, but apart from that no cons. Furthermore, he appears to be a great editor and it's good to see someone willing to work on WP:IFD.--Húsönd 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support When you revert this kind of thing, though, be sure to delete (or speedy) the offending pages. As you left it, the offending page and its talk page redirect to the Raiders. Al Davis wouldn't like it – and he gets cranky. I put the {{db-attack}} tag on them, and I doubt they'll last long now that this particular audience is paying attention. ;-) KrakatoaKatie 01:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user, won't abuse the tools. :) Hello32020 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets my burden of proof for the tools.-- danntm T C 03:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good editor, handled himself well when dealing with a difficult editor over quite a period of time, I suspect he'll do well with the tools. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor/contributor in a wide range of issues. Has image uploads in science, sports, from the Arby's logo to an old flag of Waziristan, seems fair minded in afd issues, and looks to be level headed over all. ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 07:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can't see why not. The neutral !vote below about not warning vandals is a reasonable point, but there are many admins that I know of that do not warn vandals. --Alex (Talk) 10:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support But do recommend that Ozzy refrain from biting the head off of bats/chickens/newbies if/when they become admin. Jcam 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good, well-thought out, and nuanced answers to a lot of questions, esp. #9 -- many editors are too quick to apply this to articles. Stayed level-headed with User:WikiWoo. Can use the tools and won't abuse them. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent answers to questions. Clear thinker. —Malber (talk · contribs) 17:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have always said we needed more lawyers as administrators. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good, well-rounded, experienced editor likely to be a good admin. --MCB 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Zanimum 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, conscientious user with a wide range of contributions. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Support a good candidate with whom I only had good experiences, even if we disagreed on some points, TewfikTalk 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (Edit Conflict) Seems almost disturbingly well-suited to be a wiki-admin. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Really good answers to the questions, and I like his answer to the first question. Although you need to increase your edit summary usage, as admins are selected Wikipedians, and therefore should give good examples to the non-admins. Cheers -- Imoeng 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Responsible person Doctor Bruno 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. By the way, we still have a game of hangman to play. bibliomaniac15
- Support Seems like a rational enough guy. --InShaneee 23:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Experienced and dedicated editor. utcursch | talk 12:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Godd editor! Anger22 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now now, I'm not God. =) └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sure, looks good. Need more Canadian admins -- Samir धर्म 02:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, need more lawyer admins :-) -- Seriously, the well thought-out replies and the solid record are convincing. Sandstein 06:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian ※ Talk 07:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nice edits, good observation skills.Dr.khan 16:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. DarthVader 11:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. John254 15:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. I reviewed the deleted Wikiwoo talk page and nothing seem alarming on Osgoodelawyer's part. Irongargoyle 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conspiratorial support (see below) I thought Oz handled himself well in dealing with a difficult (and delusional) user, who was convinced half of Wikipedia's editors were in the pay of the Ontario regional governments. JChap2007 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without question. -- Kicking222 01:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers, good edit history, appropriate variety of experience. Wryspy 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no problem here. I have come across Osgoodelwayer a few times, and each time he has shown the right kind of balance of politeness and firmness in dealing with problem users, especially WikiWoo. Guy 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've had limited interaction with this editor in regards to City infoboxes. He was the first person to bring up some very good points about their mechanics.
Given that we couldn't see all of his interaction with wikiwoo it was hard to judge how Oz will use his admin powers in a silimar situation.I would hope that he would be very careful and not "jump the gun" using them. Given what I have seen so far, I think that Oz will be very careful with these new superpowers and weigh all the evidence first. Besides the Ontario government paid me $10,000 (one card off from a million) so I guess I too am part of his "Conspiratorial support" (see above). —MJCdetroit 16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. I found some of the discuss between WikiWoo and everyone else (not just Oz) here and boy was that boring to read —Regional Canadian politics. Oz conducted himself very well and the only objectable thing that I saw was that he forgot to capitalize the g in "God". There is a right way and a wrong way to do things here and Oz appears to have done it by the book. P.S. This time can the Ontario government please pay me in American dollars? —MJCdetroit 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good replies and the solid history --Steve 00:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --A. B. 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a smart, capable editor who will make a strong positive contribution as admin. Gwernol 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've dealt with user and he seems reasonable. Bastiq▼e demandez 17:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Tawker 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
OPPOSE Brampton 2006 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Has a tendacy to go on witch hunts and has a fixation on a past user WikiWoo who he apparently worked hard to ban. If given Admin tools may very well use them in illigitimate ways do to his apparent fixation and urge to hunt down people that don't agree with his point of view in articles.[25][reply]- The above oppose has been discounted as it came from a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user WikiWoo per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/WikiWoo. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- <sigh> The user above has (unless he is WikiWoo, which is entirely possibile), been in contact with me (and been editing articles) for only three days, and is upset that I am requesting citations for his additions to Brampton municipal election, 2006, and asking him to remove POV-riddled statements from that article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you went after WikiWoo with the same nitpicky attitude you are applying in my case, I can see how you can drive people over the edge. Not the kind of administrator I would want having tools that can be abused. Reviewing some of the material you do seem to push a particular POV and take or make issues with anything of a political nature. You may make a good editor for being so attentive over particular topics, but I think it should count against you as an administrator since you show a set point of view about certain things and do not allow other editors much leeway to be creative with articles and contribution. You also seem overly possesive of certain articles and individuals, especially pver political elections type issues. Generally you are now so respectfull fo other people greater effort. It is not fun to edit with you on their back and tends to frustrate editors especially newer participants. Lastly you are a lawyer, and educated in representing things in ways that suit your objectives or agenda. Judging from some of the writtings of WikiWoo he was clearly not well educated, but obviously quite bright, informed and made good serious contributions untill he was driven over the edge. I notice some colaborating going on with Jchap which does not look like reasonable activity for lawyer administrators who need maintain a level of public trust, ethics and personal integrity.Brampton 2006 23:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, could you make it any more obvious that you are WikiWoo? JChap2007 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. No, he could not. My only question is why he's not on the list of WikiWoo's suspected sockpuppets. -- Kicking222 01:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect he will make his way onto the list soon. Evidence is being collected. JChap2007 02:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A request for check user has been filed on Brampton 2006 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WikiWoo. JChap2007 07:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which saved me the bother, and I will block the account anyway due to the problematic edit history. Guy 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A request for check user has been filed on Brampton 2006 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WikiWoo. JChap2007 07:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect he will make his way onto the list soon. Evidence is being collected. JChap2007 02:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. No, he could not. My only question is why he's not on the list of WikiWoo's suspected sockpuppets. -- Kicking222 01:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- <sigh> The user above has (unless he is WikiWoo, which is entirely possibile), been in contact with me (and been editing articles) for only three days, and is upset that I am requesting citations for his additions to Brampton municipal election, 2006, and asking him to remove POV-riddled statements from that article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
I know only good of this candidate, and am glad to see the name here, but I'd like to see chapter and verse for Question 3 before I support. The idea of asking about conflicts and stress isn't to let you show you can say something discreet and proper—it's a request for information that'll give people a chance to evaluate how you handled those conflicts. Can we have diffs, please?Bishonen | talk 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]- Moved to Support. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I'll let Oz (or someone else) pick the diffs, since the debate was scattered all over Wikipedia, but here's what I recall. WikiWoo was a relatively new user who was convinced that Wikipedia should be edited to expose some kind of procuring conspiracy in Ontario government, and edited all kinds of pages to try to show the conspiracy. Oz was involved in a lot of the Ontario pages, so if you follow WikiWoo's contribution trail, you'll probably find Oz nearby. I came on near the end of the process as WikiWoo's advocate, but was unfortunately unable to prevent him from being banned. IMHO, the best thing that the conflict shows about Oz is that he kept his head, even when WikiWoo was accusing him of being a paid agent of the Ontario government out to censor the truth. Oz had a few frustrated comments here and there, but by and large, Oz stuck to policy, stayed basically civil, and didn't lose it. TheronJ 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- TheronJ has summed the situation up well. However, practically all the discussion took place on WikiWoo's talk page, which has apparently been deleted, so I cannot provide diffs. As an admin, I assume you can look at the deleted page and see how the discussion went, but I will admit that TheronJ is correct, it was not my finest hour, but I think considering the situation, I did not cross the line into incivility. I have most certainly learned from the experience, however, and nothing like it has occurred since. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hasn't warned quite a few vandals recently, and I don't know of any reason why not.--Andeh 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: Yet again promising, but might need some time in spellchecking, copyediting and, more importantly, patrolling (per minor edit summaries and performance in user talk). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 04:51, 29 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.
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 initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ 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