Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

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

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 02:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC). —

Current time is 02:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC). —

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

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

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Monitors

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

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 02:53:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

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

Davewild

Closed as successful by Cecropia 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) at (38/0/0); Scheduled to end 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Davewild (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate Davewild for adminship. Dave has had an account here for more than two years (October 1, 2005) and has compiled more than 14,000 edits in that time. He's an active vandal fighter (resulting in quite a bit of user page vandalism and barnstars) and is active at WP:AFD [1] and CAT:CSD [2] and created several categories[3]. Template work includes creating all of the Icelandic election results. His talk page is full of thanks for his vast WP:RFA experience, article assistance and mistake-catching, and I could not find anything even approaching incivility in his messages to others. He is even good about letting folks know when their articles have been nominated for deletion. An all-around solid Wikipedian and candidate for adminship. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, many thanks to Wknight94 for his nomination. Davewild 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I hope to continue doing a substantial amount of article work but there are a couple of main areas where I feel I could benefit from using the admin tools.

If I am given the tools I would be interested in blocking persistent vandals after they have received warnings instead of having to take them to Administrator intervention against vandalism as at the moment. I have got over 3,000 pages on my watch list and try to keep an eye on them for vandalism. I hope I could also help to deal with any backlogs that arise at WP:AIV.

I would also hope to help out in deletion at each of WP:AFD, WP:PROD and WP:CSD. I have nominated quite a few articles to each, especially speedy deletion and proposed deletion, and contributed to AFDs - I generally read down the list of AFDs the day after they are nominated for deletion and will contribute to any that really catch my eye. I have noticed backlogs sometimes on these pages and have previously wished I could help clear them, so in the future hope to be able to do so.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: When I first started contributing to wikipedia I was greatly assisted by help from some other wikipedians who stopped me from making too many mistakes and I hope I will always remain open to feedback. I have since created a lot of election articles which I have a strong interest in. However I have not limited myself to election articles having started articles such as Erwin Huber when I find an area I am interested in.

I have also been active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year where I have made some significant contributions such as on List of state leaders in 1999. Fairly recently I joined Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and am pleased at the work I did on Alan Craig which was easily going to be deleted until I completely rewrote the article.

As well as bursts of fighting vandals, I also spend time trying to reduce the backlog on Category:Category needed. As well as categorising articles I try to improve articles where I feel I can and nominating those articles that clearly need it for deletion via whichever process seems appropriate.

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

A: When I was quite new on wikipedia I got into a bit of a content dispute on the Lytham St Annes page. After a a few edits each and a user talk page discussion failed to resolve the dispute I took it to Wikipedia:Third opinion and this resolved the disagreement.

Since then, apart from vandalism, which does not really bother me, I remember a few deletion discussions where I have strongly disagreed with other users but believe I have always remained civil and tried to explain my thinking.

Generally I have avoided getting into too many stressful incidents for me. I have got a bit stressed occasionally on wikipedia, generally when I disagree with other users actions/remarks but have tried to avoid escalating any disagreements and hope that whenever I do get involved in any conflicts I will continue to be able to take a breather, keep my cool and remember to assume good faith!

4. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?

A: The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking which I would certainly follow. As the policy states I would contact the blocking admin and discuss it with them to try and reach agreement on the block (as a new admin there would probably be something I missed and the other admin would be able to show me this). If we are are unable to reach agreement or the other admin is not available (and I would be very careful before assuming the other admin is not available) then I would post on WP:AN and open a discussion there. If consensus emerged that the block should be reversed I think it would be better if another admin then performs the unblocking to demonstrate that this was after discussion and not just me unilaterally reversing the block. Davewild 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Davewild: Davewild (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Davewild before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support– Anybody who has over 3,000 pages in their watchlist just to fight vandalism definitely is dedicated to the cause. Heck, I don't even have 1% of that... literally. I've got less than 30 pages in mine. Ksy92003(talk) 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support: As nominator. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Mr. elections Dave. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Per above reasons!! Pat^{Politics rule!} 22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support a dedicated editor who clearly shan't abuse the tools. Marlith ^T/C 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. You seem extremely well-experienced with vandalism work, and the tools will help you continue. As has already been commented on, you've got great dedication! Dylan 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Very good user--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, definitely. Neil ☎ 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Ρх₥α 23:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Great Track and Vandal fighter with 14000 edits and has been a very regular contributor.Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Excellent user: no evidence to suggest that he will abuse the tools. Acalamari 01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Very strong anti-vandal. Definitely seems worthy of adminship. tosh²^(talk) 01:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support per above. NHRHS2010 talk 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Weak Support. Good vandal-fighting work. Some additional article-writing experience will make you an even better editor and admin. Majoreditor 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support John254 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Usually when I go to the 2nd lot of 500 contribs and pick at random 10 non-vandalism reverting ones, I find something I disagree with. Not here, will make a good sysop --Pumpmeup 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support A great editor and vandal fighter. Time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Sure thing. Jmlk17 05:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Easy (and Strong) Support per the same reasons I supported GlassCobra's above. Good editor, strong contrib set, good answers to questions, etc. K. Scott Bailey 14:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support GOOD LUCK Dustihowe 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Impressive, should make a good admin. LАМВDОІD ^{T C} 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - Over 50 reports to AIV, ALOT of experience, great user! Tiddly-Tom 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - huge edit count, especially at AIV. A vandal-fighter like this could use the tools, and will likely be trusty with them. Bearian 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support east.718 at 21:57, 10/29/2007
26. Support - good work at CSD, more of an inclusionist than average, but knows the policies and won't misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support I reviewed your contributions earlier and failed to then back that up with comment here!! Candidate ticks all the boxes in terms of CSD, AFD, Article work, civility etc etc. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - flicked through, looks fine. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
29. the_undertow ^talk 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support, a dedicated vandal fighter with a civil attitude, great combo. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Nothing to add. Phgao 03:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
33. Support, seen this user a lot at AIV, great candidate with a good deal of experience. --Coredesat 05:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
34. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with all article deletion backlogs. Somebody has to – Gurch 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Woo, I'm not the only blatant inclusionist running! Good luck! GlassCobra 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
36. I see no reasons why not to oppose. Good luck:)--SJP 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
37. Support--MONGO 01:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - No reason not to. Best regards, Neranei (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Icestorm815

Final (talk page) (2/10/7); Ended 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Icestorm815 (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nomination. I have been a part of Wikipedia for two months. Some may say that that is a short amount of time, but I feel that I grasp the knowledge of the Wikipedia core policies and procedures that would make me a good admin. Although, I have to admit that I don't know everything! There are certain areas of Wikipedia that I'm not a master at (ie:specifics about image licenses), however, I'm not afraid to ask for help! I am an active fighter of vandalism and report new pages that don't belong in Wikipedia. I'm an optimistic person that tries best to assume good faith. Overall, I just like to help out, and I think that becoming an admin is another way of helping out even more.

• I am withdrawing my nomination. I thank you all for giving me great feedback. Hopefully I will become an admin later, when the time is right. Icestorm815 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: If I do become an admin, a major part that I would help with is WP:UAA and WP:AIV. I would also like to assist in other areas like WP:RFPP and WP:SPEEDY/CAT:CSD. Eventually, I would like to be involved with WP:AFD. I will most likely begin to help out by closing and deleting/keeping articles with blatant consensus, and then proceed to assist with articles that aren't so obvious. There have been plenty of times where I wished I had admin powers to clear up certain issues quicker. For example, I believe one time I had a post up for two hours at WP:AIV and had to track their user contributions to revert vandalism. Blocking this user would have allowed my to prevent their vandalism and contribute elsewhere. Another simple case is dealing with with user who make multiple vandal edits to a page. It would have been easier to do a rollback instead of manually fixing each edit. Finally, I ran into a case where an article had faced vandalism by multiple anons and needed page protection. I posted it and it took about three hours before the backlog was cleared and the page was semi-protected. (I would just like to say that these examples are not inclusive to how I would help out Wikipedia, just some ideas to show why admin abilities would aid me in making Wikipedia better. Also, I'm not, by any means, trying to make current admins look bad. I just want to help them out with the load of work they got!)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I feel that my best contributions to Wikipedia are my constant efforts to keep Wikipedia good looking. I like to help with vandal fighting, do some Wikignoming, and contribute some music samples to articles here and there. Mostly, I do some helping out here and there on articles. In my opinion, I think that vandal fighting and wikignoming is a process that usually goes unnoticed. However, it can be considered a very important part of this wonderful place we call Wikipedia. Think of it like a restaurant, our writers as the chefs and people similar to myself are the Maître d' and the waiting staff. Although a chef would provide a wonderful meal for their guests, it is the responsibility of the staff to ensure that the guests' meals are presented in an acceptable manner and are capable of preventing any issues (formating pages and removing vandalism). Most people return to a restaurant (and Wikipedia) based on their food and, equally as much, their overall quality of service. [4] As they say, most people eat with their eyes first, and then with there mouth.

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

A: Yes, I have been in a conflict with one editor so far. It was concerning an Afd over a school article that was up for deletion. I felt that a user posted a statement that showed some bias, and to make a long story short, we had an argument on the discussion page. At one point I felt that it was going too far and posted the discussion at Editor assistance. I believe that the issue was resolved quit quickly. I posted an apology to the editor on his talk page and he accepted it, and we were able to move on and edit in peace. I did however, take precautionary actions to ensure that this never happened again. I read over WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:DISENGAGE, WP:Wikiquette, and in the end I knew what I should have done was just leave the comment as it was, and let an admin who would close the discussion take into account the credibility of the statement and not create a debate.

4. (Self-posed Question) Hey, I was checking out your edit summary and saw that your article writing is a bit low, what gives?

Good Question! As an admin, I believe what you truly need to focus on is actual admin related activities, like WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFA, etc. These areas show the community how you would handle the buttons as an admin. I think that knowing how to use the mop, and demonstrating that you won't abuse it, is more important than proving you have powerful prose by writing articles. Some may say that writing articles shows the community how you would interact and communicate with other users. That is certainly true, but it isn't the only way. Discussing your reasoning on talk pages and asking questions can prove that your not hot-headed and can be capable of editing with other users just fine. Essentially, it is important to know what and why the user is saying something, and address why they might be write or wrong. After my incident described above, I make a conscious effort to proofread my statements so no user may see them as offensive or confusing. Here is a few links for some examples of how I interacted with users so you can see my approach to talking to a user. [5] [6] [7]

Thank you for your time and consideration! Icestorm815

3 Optional questions by User:Mr.Z-man - Answer as if you were an admin.

5. A request is made at WP:RFPP for semi protection of an article for the reason "IP vandalism." You are unfamiliar with the article's subject. You look at the history and see that one anonymous user has been removing a significant amount of text and 1 registered user has been reverting it as vandalism. This has been going on for a couple days. The only talk page discussion is the registered user giving vandalism template warnings on the anon's talk page. What do you do and why?

A. First off, I would not protect the page. Since the article is being vandalized by only one IP address, there is no need to protect the page. The first thing that I would do is to check and make sure that the actual reverts are vandalism, and not a disagreement on content. If it was a disagreement on content, I would give a 3RR warning to both users and ask them to discuss the problem on the talk page. If they continue after the warning they will get a block for violating 3RR. I wouldn't issue a block immediately because they may not be aware of what they're doing wrong or the existence of WP:3RR. If it was a case of vandalism, then the registered user would not be blocked or issued a warning at all because reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR. I would however, inform the person that they should have reported the claim to WP:AIV instead of WP:RFPP. I would issue a block to the IP, given that a final warning was issued for removing content.

6. What are some situations where you would block a new user without a warning, besides username issues?

A. Some situations where I would block a new user is if they were, with given evidence, a sock-puppet/meat-puppet, if they were an account that was created to evade a block, or I would block them if they were an open proxy.

7. What is your opinion on the plan to re-enable page creation by anonymous users?

A. I'd have to say that I'm leaning towards letting anons create articles. It would reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is a place that anyone can edit. There are plenty of anon users that do edit constructively in our present articles, and this allows them to take this a step further. Others may say that this will lead to additional vandalism, but I have to agree with some of the users on the discussion link. It isn't much harder to create an account and vandalize Wikipedia that way. Maybe the programmers of Wikipedia could create an admin feature that prevents those IPs who abuse their ability to be blocked from article creation, much similar to blocks for account creation and blocking the e-mail this user feature from those who abuse that as well. I think between the admins deleting articles and the community listing articles for speedy deletion, it shouldn't be a problem. From my knowledge first hand from patrolling the new pages, it usually only takes about less than a minute for blatant violations of wikipedia's policy to be deleted/listed for speedy deletion.

General comments

• See Icestorm815's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Icestorm815: Icestorm815 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Icestorm815 before commenting.

Discussion

• I see that some users have concerns over the number of edits/length of time contributing to Wikipedia. I would be willing to become part of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall to assure the community that I would use the admin abilities properly. Icestorm815 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason. Wikipedia community takes preventive and not punitive measures. The admins listed there have enough experience and it is not necessary to be listed there indeed. Wikipedia has been working w/ and w/o that list. Any admin (listed there or not) is and should be open to recall in fact. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. PxMa 01:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Unlikely to abuse (or even misuse) the tools. He knows enough to get around as an admin, plus, adminshup is no big deal--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 10:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is no big deal? Then why do we have a consensus on it? :) — jacĸrм (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose only 1398 edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Do we really need to go through the editcountitis stuff again? O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:47, 28 October 2007 (GMT)

   No, but this is way below the radar horizon. Let's call it lack of experience instead of too few edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose insufficient experience. Please reapply in several months. John254 01:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose Too few edits. You've only been really active since September, and a candidate for adminship ideally needs several months of experience with admin-related fields. Your answers above seem good, but textbook knowledge (as it were) doesn't beat real experience. Continue what you're doing, consider expanding into other admin areas, and come back in a few months. You should breeze though given some more time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   If you don't mind me asking, what other admin areas would you suggest? Thanks! Icestorm815 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose per answer to question 5. This type of dispute is most likely a content dispute. Telling the registered user to report the anon to AIV for blocking is not the best way to go about the situation. At the least you should ask for more details by one or both editors for more info. Mr.Z-man 05:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral after a more thorough review of the answer. Mr.Z-man 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   The way that I saw it was that he would only tell the user to use AIV 'If it was a case of vandalism' . Tiddly-Tom 12:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with Tom here. The original RFPP request was made because a single IP was vandalizing the page. That's something more appropriate for WP:AIV. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose Just not enough overall experience around here... yet. Jmlk17 08:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Inexperience. Daniel 08:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Question 5 reeks of "content dispute". Blocking the IP is not the way to resolve a content dispute. Come back in a couple of months and you've got my support vote. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 11:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Struck in light of a comment on my talkpage. Changing to neutral. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Putting the editcountits and timecountits aside, you have not made any significant contributions to the actual encyclopedia, so I oppose. Please try to drop by WP:RA if only occasionally. Mainspace contribs help you work collaboratively and show knowledge of our content policies, as well as willingness to help us reach our goal. --Agüeybaná 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Zman's question and comments above. (Perhaps this one should be WP:SNOWed?) K. Scott Bailey 14:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose A good candidate, however, a few more months will be reccomended and perhaps an WP:ER to identify you strengths and weaknesses. Marlith ^T/C 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
9. September --> October? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Not enough experience. Pat^{Politics rule!} 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral You're active on AIV and UFAA, but you don't have enough experience yet. Wait a few months, then come back here. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral - I don't think I wish to oppose simply because of the two months thing, but I also don't feel I can support because of it. Please try again later. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
3. Neutral per the above statement. I feel that it is too early for you to become an admin. Try again after a few months and you will have my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
4. NeutralI think that two months is a bit too early to become an admin. Next time around, you'll get my vote.TristanUchiha 07:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral - Good work at AIV and UFAA, but I think some more experience would be good. In a few months time, you should not have a problem. Tiddly-Tom 12:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral (changed from oppose) The answer to question 5 is okay - It really doesn't say how you would make the determination. Part of the reason I asked that is because you have very few substantial (non-template) user talk edits, I can't tell how you would deal with a totally unknown conflict between 2 users. Also, the answer to question 6, while good, just lists the obvious policy reasons and is missing a key element of WP:BLOCK - Blocks are preventative, if a user is actively disrupting in clear bad faith, the best way to remedy the situation may be to block first, then sort everything out. Mr.Z-man 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral Obviously takes Wikipedia seriously with that amount of edits in such a short space of time, but per all above and per some of the oppose, neutral for now. Maybe in the upcoming future. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

The-G-Unit-Boss

Final (54/2/3); Originally scheduled to end 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The-G-Unit-Boss (talk · contribs) - The-G-Unit-Boss edits in an area that doesn't get a lot of credit on Wikipedia, hip-hop related articles. In an area that has extreme problems with lack of sourcing, POV, and vandalism, he does an amazing job, an often thankless job, of cleaning up. His recent editor review was stellar. Hell, I almost don't need to write a nom statement, I can let the comments speak for themselves: See, e.g.,

"Well, I think you are a really great contributor. Keep on going this way, G-Unit-Boss, if I'm permitted to say so. -The Bold Guy- 11:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)"

"Doin a great job!--Brewcrewer 23:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)"

"Hey there. I think you're doing a great job - certainly the hip-hop articles need people who are willing to take part in the often thankless task of cleanup, sourcing and POV issues. You seem to be good at this, so no worries. Your image uploads seem fine and indicate a good understanding of NFCC - just make sure you always include the article the image needs to be included in......You're also polite and even-handed during discussions. Keep up the good work! :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)"

"Well, let me start by saying that you do a really good job with actual content additions, there's a lot of people here that have never added anything to articles, but you certainly don't fall under that catagory. I like the fact that when you revert vandalism, you always warn the user. I checked a couple of your contribs to WP:AIV and they look fine and resulted in blocks.....you do a great job :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)"

I see in this user a pleasant, open-minded, easy to work with editor, who does not get rattled, and doesn't lose his temper. This user is ready for adminship, and has a clear need for the tools. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: - I accept. Thank you. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 13:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: If my nomination is successful my areas of work will include:

• Closing WP:AFD debates
• Clearing the backlog at CAT:CSD
• Help out at WP:RPP
• Other WP:XFDs

However as I become more experienced I will venture off to help with other, more tedious admin tasks. I will however, continue to write and improve articles.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am particularly pleased with my work to Hip hop related articles which I believe consist of some of the poorer articles on Wikipedia. I helped found the G-Unit Records WikiProject to which I contribute many of my edits. I have created many templates, mainly for musical artists.

I am also pleased with how I have helped to decrease the number of articles which fail WP:N, in particular mixtapes which I take to WP:AFD where I have been very much successful.

I have recently begun working to bring articles up to WP:GA standard for example, "Maneater" and Straight Outta Compton which are both currently Good Article nominees.

I am also a keen fighter of vandalism and do often venture off into other areas of Wikipedia.

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

A: I have been in a few conflicts with users. One of my first conflicts was with a user about the structure of a page. We both disagreed with each other and eventually I went to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for an external opinion. We both, through conversation, resolved the issue and now work along side each other. I have also debated with another user about the formatting of certain parts of pages and what I saw as them trying to own an article. It escalated intoheated discussions but was settled by both of us. We also now edit together. (I have purposely not named the users).

I believe that if I get into a conflict with an editor in the future, I will settle it the same way as I have in the past.

Question by --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Can you explain why you feel that the 5 images, per your edits here have no rationale.

A: Sorry, that was my mistake. I wasn't meant to write "Missing Fair-Use Rationale" but "Incomplete Fair-Use Rationale". I have corrected my mistake. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So, you still feel that the images should be deleted? What do you feel is incomplete about the rationale. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at the images page it states at the top of the FU rationale table that the article name is needed. If I knew anything about the topic I would happily add/complete the rationale but as I do not and nobody seems to be adding it, I feel that they should be deleted. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that you want to stand by this? Please go back and look at the image pages. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the Non-free media rationale template on this page it currently says "Non-free / fair use media rationale - NEEDS ARTICLE NAME". This is why it was nominated for deletion. However upon closer inspection I have noticed that the article that the Fair-use rationale is meant for is mentioned elsewhere. If I can, I will fix the image page using the information provided. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the images and have added the missing information. For the images that I have tried to complete I have retracted my deletion "vote". --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Dreamy ^§ —Preceding comment was added at 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Is your name promotional?

A: No. I am just a fan of the rap group G-Unit. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

6. If confronted with multiple users, that are not sockpuppets, that all agree on something, even though you have already attempted to explain why what you believe to be correct, is correct, how would you then handle it? This is assuming that they stand united and will not just be pushovers.

A: Well, assuming that we were disscussing something that was purely factual, I would cite as many reliable sources as possible to back up my view. However if we were disscussing something opinion based such as what content should be included in an article, I would try to convey my point (which I genuinely believe to be correct) but failing that, I would agree with the consensus reached. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Tasco 0

7. Why did you removed your personal attack to myself in User talk:Dead Wrong the same day you was nominated for adminiship? You made that comment in October, 19 of this year. Diff--Tasc0 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I removed the comment (October 26, 2007) a day before I replied to my nomination (October 27, 2007). I removed it because I felt that it was unfair towards you. I am very sorry for that comment and hope that you can have good faith in my removal of it. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you was nominated on the 26, but you agreed on the 27.--Tasc0 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

8. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?

A: My initial reaction would be to contact the adminitrator who blocked the user and let them know how I feel about the block. I would try to establish a consensus as to leave the user blocked or unblock them. However, if it was an obvious unfair/incorrect block I would go ahead and unblock the user. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See The-G-Unit-Boss's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for The-G-Unit-Boss: The-G-Unit-Boss (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The-G-Unit-Boss before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. As nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support If you didn't babysit the hip-hop articles, my experience here would be much more difficult. My hat is off to you for your endless patience and hard work. east.718 at 14:49, 10/27/2007
3. Support Nice amount of experience, good work on Hip-Hop articles. Tiddly-Tom 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil (talk • contribs)
5. I've seen this working on the hip-hop articles: a great article-writer/improver, and in question 1, he plans to continue that work, as well as clear backlogs, which is excellent. Acalamari 15:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
6. PxMa 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support No reason not too! Pat^{Politics rule!} 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   User is now indef blocked for sockpuppet issues... does this vote "count"? --W.marsh 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Support - I've had some great interactions with this user and I can honestly say that he would make an absolutely wonderful admin. When I went through the G-Unit article cleaning out "gangster slang", my communications with him through the process showed that he is a dedicated and hardworking individual keen on supporting the Wikipedia Project as a whole. I whole heartedly support this candidate with fiery enthusiasm! Scarian^Talk 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Definitely. I've seen this guy around a lot on the rap articles, which as everyone knows are constant targets of vandalism. It's tough work cleaning up that junk, and we definitely could use more help. GlassCobra 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - It would be nice to see it happening :D --Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support great editor, deserves it--Yankees10 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - Great Editor, he always keeps the hip hop articles in good shape and he has helped me out since I joined, so in my opinion he is seems like a good editor who has proved he can be an admin. - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
13. support Dedicated editor, would not abuse the tools. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - He's calm and cool. He does a great job with keeping the hip hop articles in shape. I don't see how he'll abuse the tools. The Chronic 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - Per nom, and I also liked the usage of quotations from other users in the nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
16. Support A very good user who is calm and cool. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Yep. I've seen you around, and, from what I've seen, you appear to be calm, rational, and civil. S_QL^{Query me!} 05:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Boss is BOLD. Daniil Maslyuk 05:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Great work in admin areas of Wikipedia, has a solid understanding. Phgao 06:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Jmlk17 08:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Great work in admin areas of Wikipedia, also would not abuse the tools. Tristan Uchiha 08:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
22. 'Strong support for anyone who can work in that area of the encyclopedia without violating BLP, NFCC, NPOV, and other bits of alphabet soup... I might have preferred a month or so more of solid work in admin areas, but what the hell. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - Per nom.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support we do need more admins working on these sorts of articles. No serious objections presented below... although I don't like flashy sigs personally, that's not really a good reason to oppose adminship. --W.marsh 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support I have no problem with the UN or sig, despite (IMO) ridiculous objection below. I can see this nominee does good work in his area of expertise and generally seems clued up enough on policy to be worthy of the mop & bucket. Also, he is humble enough to admit areas for expansion of experience and I haven't seen anything which would make me think he'd abuse the position. We all make mistakes from time to time. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Certainly - I recently review you for your editor review and you looked to be doing an excellent job. You're a level headed guy and always keep your cool. More than anything though, you're extremely friendly and your a good guy to have around here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Jbeach ^sup 00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, per my questions, and above. Dreamy ^§ 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support per all of the above. NHRHS2010 talk 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Some of my reasons come from above comments. Also, seems to have good knowledge of the necessities. tosh²^(talk) 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support per the many reasons above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support though I hate the whole "gangsta" thing --Pumpmeup 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    I find that comment a bit harmful.--Tasc0 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    You find it harmful that some no-name sweaty guy in a computer chair on the other side of the world disapproves of someone else's username choice? --Pumpmeup 23:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

    No, because you're being uncivil.--Tasc0 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

33. Strong SupportBalloonman 03:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Doing excellent work in an area I often have difficulty finding good sources. Courteous, cooperative, seems very capable. Pig^man 05:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support, great article writer. RaNdOm26 15:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. A fine editor, should be good as an admin. LАМВDОІD ^{T C} 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support - plenty of edits in a very short time, consistent use of edit summaries, and civil at AfD. We could use another admin at AfD who is familiar with hop-hop music, which is often subject to WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations and votes. Bearian 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Obviously a valuable contributor who is to be trusted. VanTucky ^Talk 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support won't abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Smart, level-headed, and knows his way around Wikipedia. A no-brainer. --Brewcrewer 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
41. support cool name, looks like a GOOD editor. Stupid2 05:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support If you plan to work on AfDs and speedies, it'd be good to see more experience there. Also, I've looked at the last 500 contribs and I recommend using the preview button more frequently. It'll increase the overall quality of the edits. I often see very minor things take up a lot of edits. Spellcast 07:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support It's all good! - eo 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. I don't recall interacting with him personally, but I've noticed his contributions in the past, and been favorably impressed by them. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
45. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
46. I approve this. Prisonbreak12345 —Preceding comment was added at 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
47. Consider tuning down the sig a little bit (bit hypocritical given my past sigs)... but apart from that, everything's fine. Seem to have good knowledge of policy; will make a fine admin. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. Does a lot of work on GA pages, and is very friendly and amenable. --andreasegde 14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
49. I see no reasons why not to support:) Good luck!--SJP 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
50. Support As per Track.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
51. Support See nothing that makes me think will not make a good admin. Davewild 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
52. Switching to Support. Adminship is no big deal, and this is not a problem user. K. Scott Bailey 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
53. Support I am relieved I was not too late to give my support for an editor who is more than deserving of the mop. LessHeard vanU 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Does good work in an underapreciated area of Wikipedia.-- danntm ^T _C 00:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now, per IFD contribution and current answer to Q4. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Continued inattention to detail could cause inappropriate image deletions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   We're going ever closer to a system where anyone who hasn't passed the California and Federal Bar after completing a JD/PHD in Copyright Law/Philosophy of Copyleft Licensing is failing adminship. He made a minor mistake, it was brought to his attention, he politely and calmly fixed it. If anything, this is evidence he'd be a good sysop. --JayHenry 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree. This was a very simple deletion question regarding speedy deletion criteria of images, which took 3 attempts to get correct. As an admin, The-G-Unit-Boss would have very likely deleted these images on the word of the nominator. This candidate is clearly not ready for adminship. Rather, they should gain more experience with policy and try again in the future. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   If I am permitted to do so I would just like to comment. If I was the closing admin I would be sure to check the image page before going ahead with the deletion incase somebody made a mistake as I did with my wording of my "vote". --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   So, are you saying that you are the type of user who just comes along to XFDs and says "per nom" without checking the facts? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   No, I am saying that if I was the admin closing the disscussion I would be sure to check the fact incase somebody did make a mistake like I did in the case that you noted above. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   OK, so why didn't you check in this case, without me pushing you so hard to re-examine your initial contribution? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   I made a mistake and rushed my decision. The point I am trying to make though is that actually deleting the image is a bigger decision and so I would not rush my decision. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Inappropriate signature and username, only been here 4 months. I believe a few more months experience may be needed.--Professional Deletionist 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC) - Stricken out as user has been indefinitely blocked. Neil ☎ 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   I don't understand why does username or signature matter? Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   User is now editing under a different name (User:Snakese), so the oppose is valid. Neil ☎ 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Erm - your username isn't great either to be honest... WjBscribe 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Please explain exactly what part of his username and signature violate policy? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   I think that this user may be concerned that the name violates criteria #4 of the inappropriate username policy. Usernames that match the name of a company or group, especially if the user promotes it. I personally believe that the username is okay as it isn't trying to promote anybody or a group. It just happens that the name contains the name of a popular rap group. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   And "Usernames that imply the user is an administrator or official figure on Wikipedia", signature is inappropriate because it doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Signatures#Length, Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion_of_templates and Wikipedia:Signatures#Non-Latin_Usernames.--Professional Deletionist 11:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   None of which are prohibited. Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline, not a policy. Furthermore, nothing in his username implies he is an administrator or official figure on Wikipedia. I'd like to know where you're getting that from. Nothing in his user name transcludes templates, and nothing in his user name uses a non-latin character set. Have you even looked at his user name? Not to mention yours blatantly violates the "imply the user is an adminstrator or official figure on Wikipedia" guideline. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   "Boss", everything else you need to know I added to your talk page.--Professional Deletionist 11:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   The term boss has relationship to any Wikipedia position. You're grasping at straws here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Does his name make him less of a contributer? The Chronic 03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   If my username is an issue with anybody I will be more than willing to change it to something more suitable. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   What is the big deal about having the word "boss" in his username.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Please note this objector is currently blocked indef for breach of WP:UN. Oh, the irony! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Comment If the user is indef-blocked (which they are) then why are we allowing their comment to remain un-indented? Pedro :  Chat  20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   A good question, and one that is now answered. Neil ☎ 22:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   I am still continuing to oppose, the user is also moving comments around their rfa and replying to other users comments in a hostile manor.--Snakese 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   The users stablished himself in June of 2007. Like the user above said: a few more months of experience may be needed.--Tasc0 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   4 months is within the passing range for RFA's. The user's experience can be shown through his edits. I'd ask you to reconsider. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose, but could support at a later date. Simply not enough experience, IMO. K. Scott Bailey 06:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Same request as above. We have a great need for more admins at the moment, with the recent allowing of anonymous page creation. We need more admins to help counteract the inevitable vandalism that flows from that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   If there's a big request for admins, make me one, yay! Regarding your request of reconsidering the opinion, I think just a couple of months would be good, Swatjester--Tasc0 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral per above.K. Scott Bailey 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral I would support, if there the user has more experience outside elements related to the G-Unit probably needs more experience for WP:RFPP and more vandalism fighting.--JForget 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral: per User:Kscottbailey.--Tasc0 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs, but appears to believe that there are administrative tasks which are more tedious than deletion backlogs, on which point he is sadly mistaken – Gurch 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   That's because he's not an administrator yet.--Tasc0 06:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Chris G

Final (65/1/0); Ended Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:10:25 (UTC)

Chris G (talk · contribs) - I find Chris G to be a pleasant, civil, and sociable user. He's an WP:CHU clerk and a WP:CHU/U clerk, and does good work there. He fights vandalism, has accounts on meta and commons, runs a bot successfully, and is familiar around the RFA process. Chris G works well with others. He's even received two barnstars in the past week. That's two more barnstars than I've ever received. I find him to be a mature, well-spoken user. He has a clear need for the tools, given his RC and anti-vandalism work, and I trust that he will use them appropriately. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank You for the nom SWATjester and I accecpt. Now for thoses of you who don't know me that well here is my wiki CV:

• I run 3 bots Chris G Bot, Chris G Bot 2 and Chris G Bot 3
• I do RC work as can be seen in my contribs and I've done NP work as can be seen in my deleted contribs
• I also try to do article work but I don't get the time to do it any more(most days I'm on 1/2 an hour to an hour) if you look at the beggining of my contibs you can see my article work
• I'm a Clerk at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U (and just so you know the admin bit will help me there becouse I can check deleted contirbs)
• I used to comment a bit on the computer reference desk, but I sort of stopped for no reason
• I'm also a member of the WP:BAG(under the new "add your self if you want to" system)

and if I do become an admin I will add my self to Admins open to recall.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As an admin I will work at WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:SSP and clearing the WP:CSD backlogs I would also use the

tools to help out at WP:CHU/U and basicly for the good of Wikipedia.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contribs would have to be my bots(Chris G Bot 3 inparticlar) and my antivandal work, but personly I like my work on Fedora (Linux distribution) just becouse I like how the Article looks at the moment and would realy like to get it to GA and then FA(a while to go!) and yeh.

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

A: With my antivandal work I've had a few conflicts but I can't realy say that an editor has caused me stress and in real life (yes I do have one, I even have a job(and it's not in a fast food joint!) :) I found that a nice cool drink or some icecream and a nap can do wonders to releve a stressed mind. I the future if any Wikipdians do cause me stress I trust my self to take a short break to clear my mind and return once I'm thinking straight so I don't do anything stupid.

4. What's changed since I nommed you? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A:Well, I've done some more work on Fedora (Linux distribution) I now run Chris G Bot 3, I got Chris G Bot 2 to run, I've been doing a bit more NP work, I also had my birthday, and the community opinion of how many main space edits an admin should have appears to have dropped, no seriously I thought it was going to be pile on oppose; in fact if it wasn't for Pedro I wouldn't even be here or maby just the new bot out ways small mainspace.

5. I think compliance with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA is important. I think it is important for everyone, particularly for administrators, who I would like to see setting an example for other contributors. I think it is a mistake when those of us who are trying to get others to comply with policies and conventions don't fully comply with all our policies and conventions ourselves. Unfortunately, in my experience, the current ranks of administrators seems to include some individuals who act as being trusted with administrator authority has freed them from an obligation to be civil. If we trust you with administrator authority can we count on you committing yourself to do your best to fully comply with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Even when you consider yourself off-duty? Geo Swan 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In short Yes, but I can't realy see case were an admin would consider him/her self offduty unless your talking about irc or Wikipedia related email. --Chris  G  08:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

6. We are all fallible. It can be hard to consider the possibility we made mistakes, or to openly acknowledge we made a mistake, when we think doing so is going to expose ourselves to criticism or ridicule. We extend a lot of trust in our administrators, and I think we should get candidates for administratorship to go on record that they will make an effort to remember that they too are failible and consider the possibility they might have made a mistake, when other contributors have questions about their decisions. And I would like candidates for administratorship to go on record that they will be willing to risk criticism if they acknowledge they realized they had made a mistake. Personally I admire people who can admit error. So, are you capable of admitting error? Geo Swan 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am capable of adminiting error, and I know I have made a few mistakes and if i do make mistakes in the future I'm confident that I will admit them when I relise I have made a mistake.

7. About ten percent of our current administrators are members of a category indicating that they are willing to have their performance reviewed. I am not quite sure what that says about the other 90%. If you were to be trusted with administrator authority will you be volunteering to put yourself in that category? Cheers! Geo Swan 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which category you are talking about but from your discription I think I will add myself to it if I become an admin if you could tell what cat you're talking about I could give you a definate answer.

Category:Administrators open to recall, I think. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is the cat then yes I most definitely would add myself to it if I do become an admin. --Chris  G  08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Anonymous Dissident

8 What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and can also be used to enforce bans, bans however is the revoking of an editors privilege to edit part or all of Wikipedia, a user who is blocked is not necessarily banned and vice versa. --Chris  G  10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

8.1 How is consensus integral to Wikipedia, and how is it determined? What is the difference, or relationship, between voting and discussion aimed at finding consensus?

A: Consensus is integral to Wikipedia because we are a community project and all the big decisions are made based on what the community thinks, there is a relationship between votes and discussions but I find that the best decisions are made when you vote but have a bit of a dissusion as well sort of like WP:RFC this allows Users who are unfamiliar with what is going on to get a better understanding and also allows for consensus to be seen more clearly. --Chris  G  10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

8.2. As is attested to on your page, you are thirteen, and therefore a minor. When do you think it is appropriate to treat young Wikipedians "differently" from "other" users? What is your view on ageism in Wikipedia? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I think that in most cases Wikipedians should be given equal status reardless of ages but when young Wikipedians and indeed any Wikipdians start acting childish in important votes and discussions(like the chap who opposing self noms) their opinions should be giving less weight when gathering consensus. There may be some cases when acting to a younger user differently is appropriate but I'm against simply say no to younger user just because of their age. --Chris  G  10:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46 9. At the risk of being claimed as ageist, there are a few things I'd like to hear your comments on:

9.1 although wikipedia is not censored, do you think that you - as a minor - should steer clear of certain areas/topics within wikipedia?

A: No, I feel minors shoun't have to steer clear of any topics and areas. --Chris  G  07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

9.2 are there any admin activities that you think should not be left to minors; if so, which? if not, why not?

A This should be more age spicific, I don't realy think there are many editor younger than about 9,10 ish but if there are younger Wikipedians doing things like blocking and other actions that could cause personal attacks I don't think a five year old would realy be able to take that and controll them selves once you get to about 8,9,10 you gain more self controll and can understand the bigger picture a bit better. --Chris  G  07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

9.3 what is your opinion on whether minors can consent to the GFDL, or other contractual regimes imposed by wikipedia in adding content and uploading images? Carlossuarez46 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A. I think this is very much like the last question where a five year old my not be able to understand exzactly what they are agreeing to, I think that if for the younger minors perhaps having their parents read through the agreement is a good idea just so they can understand what they are agreeing to. --Chris  G  07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Chris G
• Requests for adminship/Chris G 2
• Requests for adminship/Chris G 3

• Links for Chris G: Chris G (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Chris G before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Nom Supporting as nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong SupportHe ran three bots, and I trust him when providing the user status. -Goodshoped 05:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support -- Has close to 1,000 mainspace edits (good enough for me) and runs 3 bots, this would seem to indicate trust by the community; no blocks; and seems to be an all-around good guy. Like his responses to the questions, probably would make a good administrator. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 06:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support (ec) Lack of encyclopedia building isn't indicative of possible poor admin work. Nothing else looks wrong to me. east.718 at 10:20, 10/27/2007
6. Support - Doubt would abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support, bearing in mind that my RFA passed despite my unusually-weighted contrib history. Admins don't need to be good encyclopedists. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support experienced, contributions in several areas, AIV reports generally blocked. I was a little concerned about this, but his tagging has improved since. And as Neil says we need every admin we can get now. Hut 8.5 11:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Has worked extensively at both CHU and other processes, and by my standards passes outstandingly. Rudget _{Contributions} 12:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Per my previous interaction and confirmation on the candidates talk page that I would offer my support. Pedro :  Chat  12:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I oppose "Pat's" oppose [Edit: Pat changed to support] Mainspace edits should not be indicative of how useful, trustworthy and able a future "mopper-upper" could be. I support Chris G because of his dedicated clerk work. Scarian^Talk 12:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Per Neil. You don't need article editing experience to nuke obvious crap. Won't abuse the tools, has already proven trust. Programming expertise is a hell of a lot more dangerous to the project than three additional buttons. MER-C 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I have decided to change to support after reviewing the work he has done on wikipedia. GOOD LUCK! Pat^{Politics rule!} 13:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I have personally interacted with Ghris G and have found him to be nothing but pleasant, helpful and with the project's best interests at heart. Good luck --Pumpmeup 14:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Very trustworthy and amiable user. Would make a great admin. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support A very great user. The added tools given to him would only improve this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Running those bots is dedication. Giving the user admin tools would help him continue to improve wikipedia. LordHarris 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
18. I agree entirely with Neil. Acalamari 15:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
19. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Helpful user - I've seen Chris doing a lot of good work around the Wiki. WjBscribe 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Seems like a pretty experienced user. Ilyushka88 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. See no reason why not. Similar edits to myself, except alot more anti-vandal work. All the best! — jacĸrм (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Strong support, impressed. ~ Sebi 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support --Jay(Talk) 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Hardworking and trustworthy. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support I am surprised that he is not already one. Three bots also helps quite a lot with maintenance. Marlith ^T/C 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support John254 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support A Vandal fighter and see the determination to contribute to Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - Per nom, and he deserves it for all the clerking work he's done. He's also even open to recall. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

    Support - Would only do better work with the admin tools. Good luck. — jacĸrм (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) double vote - indented by east.718 at 03:08, 10/28/2007

30. support Experienced and hard-working. Operates several bots. Can be trusted with the tools. --Hdt83 ^Chat 03:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Has progressed well. Recurring dreams 03:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
32. From what I've seen, you're smart and civil... I can't see any reason to oppose. S_QL^{Query me!} 05:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Excellent candidate. --Bduke 06:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Yeah, ok. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Clearly this user has learnt from previous RfAs. Phgao 06:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. Substantial and consistent levels of civility, owner of some useful bots, a general sense that Chris will make a good sysop. I also like the perk that the +sysop will assist his already-helpful contributions at WP:CHU(/U). Anthøny 07:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support I've seen you around, and fully support. Jmlk17 08:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Clearly you've learned from your previous RfAs. Outstanding editor. Tristan Uchiha 08:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
39.  Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Very solid candidate. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support Seems like a good choice. • Lawrence Cohen 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
42. I cannot oppose a great user, you've gained a valuable amount of experience here, and Chris G Bot 3 is just one example of your excellence on Wikipedia :) Qst 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. No reason to oppose this user. NHRHS2010 talk 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Pretty straightforward for me, fully trust the user's judgement. Good luck. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Good nom, SWAT. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. Good user, plenty of experience and no good reason not to. Will (aka Wimt) 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Support I now feel confident that this user will be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - Good editor. Lara❤Love 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support No reasons to oppose. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Looks good. θnce θn this island ^Speak 23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Support It is hard not to be sympathetic to an admin candidate who has gone to the trouble of setting up some useful bots and getting them approved. His experience as a clerk is also useful, and it helps make up for the fact that he has only 814 mainspace edits, and a majority of those are vandal reverts. His background doesn't seem to qualify him for dispute resolution. I think that I and the editors who voted above are taking the gamble that an apparently helpful and civil editor won't misuse the tools even though he has limited experience at this time. EdJohnston 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Support - Although my opinion doesnt carry much weight, i'd like to support this, based on his age. Diversity etc.. and a young brain is good for the wiki. Kennedygr 10:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Your opinion carries exactly the same amount of weight as every good faith editor/admin/'crat who volunteers their time here! Pedro :  Chat  11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

53. Support Level-headed editor, lots of great work. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. In light of your answer I have no hesitation to endorsing your candidacy. Cheers! Geo Swan 20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
55. Support little light on mainspace edits but 3 Bots approved shows that he can be trusted. I have no concerns about this user having the tools. Gnangarra 03:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
56. Support Appears responsible and no reason to suspect abuse of the tools. More mainspace edits would be nice, but not essential. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
57. Support My acid test applied: Do I feel as if I can trust this user as an admin? Yes. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
58. Support everything is in order here. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
59. Support. Nice bot work. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Excellent answers, good choice.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
61. Support, great candidate. The oppose down there is ludicrous. --Coredesat 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
62. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs – Gurch 06:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
63. Support Level-headed, friendly and helpful editor, has appropriate experience and has been a great help to Wikipedia with the bots. Would do a fantastic job with the mop in my estimation. Orderinchaos 15:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
64. Why not? Good luck:)--SJP 20:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
65. Whenever I see chris, I'm impressed with this thoughtful commenting, and I believe he'll be fine with a few extra buttons. Got to say, I hate the sig, what were you thinking man!? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose for now Seems like a good editor, but it's the lack of mainspace contributions that is concerning me. I want to think about this one closley. Pat^{Politics rule!} 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Insufficient level of non-automated contributions indicates a lack of relevant experience with the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Blah, that's petty. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Lack of experience at WP:RPP and deletion department.--Professional Deletionist 11:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) User indef-blocked ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair (not to defend PD's argument) the user name :Professional Deletionist was indef-blocked on the 28th [8] but the user -> Snakese in not blocked, I mention this because the name change wasn't done for identity reasons but because of a WP:U violation▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 20:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean, like his 49 australian AFD noticeboard edits and 25 australian deletion sorting edits? Riiiight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot aquire any experience by simply updating a noticeboard with current Austrialian AFDs and participating in only a few Austrialian AFDs. I only found one edit in Articles for Deletion.--Professional Deletionist 11:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Says the account created 5 days ago. How did you find your way here so quickly hmm? (09:09, 23 October 2007 Professional Deletionist (Talk | contribs | block) New user account) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned you are forgetting the purpose of an rfa, please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA as a reminder. My account creation date does not validate or invalidate my concerns.--Professional Deletionist 11:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly does. Bureaucrats are free to give more weight to the perspectives of established legitimate users than they are possible sockpuppets or SPAs. See "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets."⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My concerns would be not be less valid than if I created my account 5 years ago or 5 seconds ago. However, my vote may be but not my concerns.--Professional Deletionist 12:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You must have then missed the point where we do not vote in RFA. We discuss. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if you need to.--Professional Deletionist 12:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have expressed no interest in WP:AFD rather I would like to do CSD work which I do have experience in. --Chris  G  11:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see over 100 CSDs in deleted contribs. Which is more than I had when I became an admin. Orderinchaos 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that experience in AFDs gives users experience in other areas of deletion including CSD. I cannot see how many articles you have edited for speedy deletion as they get deleted, so I don't know if you are clueless in that area or well-experienced. But thank you for your response.--Professional Deletionist 11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that having an account for longer than 5 days is important when considering criticism offered. As I am not voting on this RfA, I don't have a "dog in the fight", but your criticisms are largely unfounded, and generally without merit--especially given the suspicious nature of account creation followed by commenting on RfAs within days. K. Scott Bailey 16:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment If the user is indef-blocked (which they are) then why are we allowing their comment to remain un-indented? Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the account is username-blocked? Daniel 04:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact they are an obvious sockpuppet of someone also should be considered. Majorly (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

east718

Final (56/1/1); Ended 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

east718 (talk · contribs) - This is a self-nomination. I've been here since late 2004, quietly gnoming away, but decided to register an account in mid-2006. Since then, I've racked up some 6,100 edits according to query.php.

I've had lots of free time on hand since suffering serious sports-related injuries this June, and have been active "for real" since. I often find myself out of things to do on Wikipedia when I have some time to spend here that wouldn't be sufficient for encyclopedia building, and figured I could help out with the tools. I don't claim to know everything thoroughly, but I'm familiar enough in all the areas of adminship to help out wherever needed.

Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice. east.718 at 00:52, 10/27/2007

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: This is a pretty long comment, so get ready.

What I've wanted to do but can't: I've run into several occasions where I wished I had more buttons.

• Blocking vandals and blatant sockpuppets myself, especially when vandalism or socking is happening rapidly. I would like to issue a block immediately, rather than wait for AIV.
• Quick deletion of attack pages under CSD G10, and deletion of edits containing personal information, without having waiting for CSD or AN/I.
• Review deleted edit histories while looking for similarities with other possible vandalizing sockpuppets, especially vandals whose entire contributions have been deleted and summarily blocked without any formal warnings.

How I plan to use the tools in the long run:

• Vandalism fighting: although I've cut back recently, I used to spend a majority of my time fighting vandalism old-school style. No .js tools, no IRC feed, and certainly nothing like VandalProof or VandalFighter. I would refresh the recent changes feed, check every diff manually, and upon seeing vandalism, revert it manually. I've got around 70 edits to AIV, and as far as I know, every single one has resulted in a block, which I hope says something about my judgment. With tools, I could combat vandalism much faster, especially since school is in session and AIV gets backlogged often.
• I wander around AN and AN/I, looking for places where I can help if an admin is not necessary. I'm usually on during late hours where urgent requests for assistance may go unseen for hours, and I would be able to help out there.
• PROD and CSD. I'd stay away from articles tagged A7, as I'm admittedly a poor judge of notability. However, I would be able to delete patent nonsense, vandalism, and attack pages without adding to the CSD workload. I would also be able to clean up the image backlog, tackling non-controversial deletions while deferring more difficult decisions to users more experienced with our ever-changing non-free content policy.
• Maintenance. I'm relatively familiar with and would be able to help out at requests for page protection, the 3RR noticeboard, requests for protected edits, usernames for administrator attention, complex sockpuppet cases, and relatively straightforward articles for deletion. You're not going to see me closing any Daniel Brandts, as I have little actual participation in AfD outside of areas where I regularly edit. Anywhere else where I lack experience, I can pick up knowledge of it on the job.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm not big on article writing. However, I've made major contributions (over 30% entirely mine) to The Wire, Illmatic (as an anon), List of current world boxing champions, and List of UFC champions, all featured articles. My current projects are Fedor Emelianenko, List of The Wire episodes, and Dedication 2, which recently survived an AfD. I also help maintain articles on mixed martial arts, which generally attract the worst violations of neutral point of view and crystal balling. Although I don't write much, I do understand core policies such as neutral point of view and verifiability. I have obtained permissions for many freely-licensed images to use on Wikipedia (list available here). Mediation-wise, I've helped bring peace to the nebulous American terrorism article, which as you'd imagine, brings out the strongest feelings in people. I believe I can help mediate and diffuse POV-pushing because I'm generally antipathic, and don't have a strong POV on any topic. In my opinion, long term POV-pushing and the disputes they breed are more dangerous than vandalism.

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

A: Nothing that hasn't been resolved amicably and with civility. Back in June, when I was still unfamiliar with dispute resolution, I engaged in an edit war over Fedor Emelianenko's nationality. Thinking it was simple vandalism, I broke 3RR and was blocked. I contacted the blocking admin, and he pointed me toward dispute resolution, and I've never been involved in a bitter dispute since. My main tactics if I do get in a dispute would be to discuss, disengage, and ask for wider review. I'm not a big fan of posting complaints on AN/I, as I honestly don't give a fuck if I'm insulted on Wikipedia—I prefer to think I wear a bulletproof vest and can laugh at myself. However, if the dispute seems irresolvable or a party is being unreasonable, I will request for wider review, either through AN/I or RFC.

General comments

• See east718's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for east718: East718 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/east718 before commenting.

• The aggressive archiving of their talk page would be a problem if they were an admin.Geni 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I generally archive my talk page only when a matter's been resolved and there's no point keeping it around. east.718 at 16:26, 10/28/2007
    • Doesn't work for admins since people don't what to have to go digging for a recently resolved issue.Geni 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • If it can be seen as a problem, I'll keep threads around for longer. east.718 at 18:29, 10/28/2007

Discussion

Support

1. Sure. Seems competent. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - Looking through your edits you seem to have a vast majority of areas where you edit, and they all look good in my eyes. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 00:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support This user spent about three years in Wikipedia, but hasn't had any RfA. I've seen this user around in many places like RfAs. I'll get mad if this RfA is unsuccessful. NHRHS2010 talk 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - Looks like east718 has the right attitude, and has gotten the necessary experience. CitiCat ^♫ 02:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support Wait... he's not already an admin? I could have sworn he was... Gscshoyru 02:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Another pile on!! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support His contributions to this project is a great asset. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Yeah, why not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support A competent enough editor. -Icewedge 05:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Without question...excellent vandal fighter and a lot more as well.--MONGO 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - Stronly doubt will abuse tools, and willing to learn more about the areas that he is not sure about before admining? Tiddly-Tom 10:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Excellent candidate. Has a broad and comprehensive understanding of WP policies. Well done. Rudget _{Contributions} 11:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I see you doing a lot of good edits related to MMA. You have my totally trust. Carlosguitar 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Support - East718's contributions to MMA-related articles are second to none. If anyone deserves adminship, this is the one. Tuckdogg 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong Support. Glad I came across this as I was hoping this user would seek adminship some day. Does excellent work, is extremely fair minded, and stays cool when the editing gets hot.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Contributions have shown that he is trustworthy and can use the tools. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Give 'em the mop - East718 deserves nothing short of adminship. Very competent and friendly user who knows policy well. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
20. PxMa 01:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support John254 01:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - Evident from the other comments above that he can use the tools, and is a good vandal fighter. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
23. Support - No reason not to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
24. I always look at self-noms even more closely, but this is an EASY strong support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscottbailey (talk • contribs) 06:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Good and helpful contributor. Good answer to question n° 3. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support No problems with this editor! Phgao 06:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
27.  Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Good editor. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support --DHeyward 07:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Jmlk17 08:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support At least a year experience and over 5000 edits...Don't even need to check rest of reqs. Tristan Uchiha 08:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Strong track record, but please read through WP:3RR and WP:SIGNATURE. Also please do not let editing wikipedia stop you from staying healthy.--Professional Deletionist 11:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

33. Support Why isn't this guy an admin?? He has the makings of a good admin... --Solumeiras ^talk 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Track is good no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support He's been here for a long time and has nothing but constructive edits. He's a great contributor to the MMA world and is a Fedor Emelianenko fan. :) The Anti-Vandalism King 18:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support A great set of answers to the questions. — BillC ^talk 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Strong Support Seems like a great editor, already should have been an admin. :) tosh²^(talk) 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support you had the answer to Q1 that I should have put in my RfA ;-) --Pumpmeup 03:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Strong Support What else is there to say that others haven't said above? ^ Thesaddestday 20:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Good user. Acalamari 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support. This editor has a good record, with honest answers to indicate lessons learned. We need more admins who can roll back vandal-prone articles such as Randy Couture, as this editor has done already. Bearian 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support good user and lots of recent work at CSD. Carlossuarez46 00:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Has done excellent work in writing articles and obtaining free images. Definitely experienced enough. Spellcast 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Weak Support. The candidate is qualified and has been a good member of the community. I would have preferred a more measured response to Q3. Majoreditor 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support Looks good! GlassCobra 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support I thought he was already an admin.RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Strong Support I've seen his editing on politically controversial articles where there was great polarization (that is the true test)-- and to his credit easst718, without question, displayed fine qualities necessary for being an outstanding administrator: even handedness, open minded, consideration, fairness, putting WP policies ahead of politics, and generally staying cool. Did I say very fair minded? That too. His effect has been to help WP by moderating collaboration and reducing partisan conflicts. Prime admin material!Giovanni33 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Solid candidate and per User:Neil's argument regarding the issues that will affect all admins after the first week of November Pedro :  Chat  11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Per the above recommendations. • Lawrence Cohen 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Miranda 20:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Jbeach ^sup 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. We need people doing the jobs that east is interested in. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
54. Strong Support. I know this user for quite a time now and am convinced that he would do very good work as an admin, judging his skills, neutrality, friendly behaviour and judgment skills as I've seen them myself. Claudevsq 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
55. My interaction, though limited, have been good. Good luck!--SJP 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - good level of experience and a nice chap, great admin material. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   Kurt, although I welcome your opinion (which, to an extent, I coincidentally share concerning real-world politics), I have to disagree. Wikipedia can only get better with more experienced and balanced administrators. Sometimes, good editors who are uncomfortable asking others to nominate them can fall through the cracks and never get the opportunity to help the encyclopedia; we've also had our share of terrible admins who were primarily here to socialize. I urge you to reconsider your stance on self-nominations: at the worst, hold them to a much higher standard than you would another nom. east.718 at 19:41, 10/31/2007

   The mere fact that you care whether you become an administrator or not--which you must or you obviously wouldn't bother responding to my oppose--raises a big red flag that you're an instance of the problem that has caused me to oppose ALL self-noms with extreme prejudice. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   =(

   I responded to your comment because I believed your vote to be in good faith and wanted to pick your brain why... if I were you, a bigger red flag would be me casting you aside because my RfA was at 50/0/0 and I didn't have to care about your opposition. east.718 at 20:20, 10/31/2007

   Well said East718. Well said indeed. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs, but asserts that they will not deal with articles requiring deletion under criterion A7; this is unfortunate, as this criterion is the one which most often applies, and the extent of the candidate's assistance will therefore be significantly limited – Gurch 06:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

The Haunted Angel

Final (36/22/5); Originally scheduled to end 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs) - The Haunted Angel has grown immensely since his ill-fated first attempt at adminship, so much so that I don't even recognize him as the same person. I think this quote from his editor review sums it up rather well: "Hey The Haunted Angel. I've known you around Wikipedia for a while now, and you're a very helpful user who does very good edits. You've helped with the Coheed and Cambria articles greatly, that article just one of many. You're a nice, calm editor, who has a good sense of humour, but while maintaining a humourous way, your edits are still up to scratch. As with any good editor, you revert vandalism well and warn/notify the user of it. I can't really think of any advice for you, you seem to do everything so well". I want to emphasize how completely different that is from his first RFA, which frankly sucked. However, I would not have nominated him if I didn't feel that he's not the same person anymore. I see a potential need for the tools, and I see a user who I can trust to handle them well.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination.'

My first RfA was, as the nominator stated, far too premature. I hope that this one shall improve vastly.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: My biggest concern on Wikipedia, as is the concern of many others, is the vandalism. Since I managed to get my hands on twinkle, my ability to revert vandalism has improved significantly - although I still realise at times there are those who revert the vandalism without warning the user. Although admin tools are not necessary, I believe that with adminship, I can drastically help the vandalism problem on the site.
I am beginning (a little late, I must admit) to participate in AfD's more, also. With adminship, I can help oversee the process of AfD.
Also along the same lines, one thing I am involved in almost as much as my main edits is newpage patrol. My user page even has the newpage list at the bottom for speed, and I am rather involved in speedy deletion. A huge benefit that I would find is using admin tools to significantly speed up the process of speedy deletion. A lot of nonsense articles are created on Wikipedia, and there's usually a good ten just been created at any one time - sometimes in my long "patrol-binges", I've noticed that some of these pages are still in existence for a good hour at any one time - including articles that are complete nonsense, there just doesn't appear to be any admins online ready to tackle the tagged articles. With adminship, I feel that I can put the tools to good use on my speedy patrols of new pages.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As I stated on my latest editor review:
I quite like the work I've done on the Cradle of Filth and Coheed and Cambria articles. I started the Coheed Wikiproject, and although it's going a bit slow, I feel it has drastically improved the quality of all articles that fall under its scope; not to mention I've met and befriended new Wikipedians thanks to it!
With the Cradle of Filth articles however, the main concern their is keeping their genre NPOV. Doing so isn't easy, especially as new editors come, wonder why they are not one particular genre, and start the same discussion that has been over many times in the past. However, an editor I work with on the Cradle page has put a great opening statement on the talk page, trying to stop these arguments before they start.
Another area I feel I've worked well on is the South Park episodes. I would regularly read episodes on here, only to find that they have the most ridiculous trivia. I went through each individual episode, and cut out trivia which could be considered irrelevant or unencyclopedic. That's a lot of episodes! I did not cut out all trivia, just the bits which I felt defied WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. After that, I realised that the "goofs" that the pages had were just as unencyclopedic, and had no place here, so after a slight discussion, I went through the episode list again and removed all the goofs. Now every episode is on my watchlist, and I keep careful eyes on them!

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

A: Again, from my latest editor review:
Back in my early editing days, I had a few tiffs with a Religious vandal, and I admit, I handled it poorly, as I was simply feeding the trolls. However, that is long in the past, and I feel I have learned greatly from it. Now I have the odd argument with someone (usually an IP) who feels that I am "ruining" articles by doing the things I explained above. Generally, cutting out the trivia and goofs that IP's add in the South Park episodes doesn't go down well. Should they contact me, I would inform them about Wikipedia's WP:OR rules, and that'd usually be the end of it.
I have had a bit of recent trouble with one particular user (I won't mention his/her user name, but it won't be hard to find) regarding the Cradle of Filth genre. I have tried to explain to him/her many times about why it'd be POV to define the band as a genre, including him pointing to the opening statement on the talk page I mentioned earlier, but the user generally wishes to ignore these rules. His/her abusive attitude has resulted in him/her banned once, and although it appears that the arguments have ended, I suspect that the same problems will explode once more in the future. However, I have done my best not to feed the trolls, nor cause trouble where there is none, and generally keep the peace when the discussion get a bit extreme.

• Optional question by User:Carlossuarez46
• 4. Your user page contains the userbox

User:Wwagner/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi (see prior revision)

• keeping in mind that admins must work with a wide range of editors, with various backgrounds, sensitivities, and opinions, have you considered what effect having a swastika and membership in an SS division message on your user page may be on editors interacting with you? Carlossuarez46 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Upon consideration of the wording of your question, I can see how such a user box may seem offensive or "pro-Nazi" (trust me, I'm not). However, leaving the "SS" bit out for a sec, I don't think I need to explain how the Swastika was used by the Nazi's, but is not a Nazi symbol - it is in fact a symbol used across many Religions. As such, would you want this user box not to be used by an admin? I'm sure that there are Hindu or Buddhist ones about to go with it, also. The part of the user box that goes along the lines of "4.SS-Division (mot.) Wikingpädie", one can see how there are Nazi references, but with the "Wikingpädie" bit on the end, it's somewhat hard to take it seriously. The term "Grammar Nazi" has been used on the net and in real life a lot (to the point where it has its own article) and isn't meant in an offensive manner - the entire userbox in fact, is more satire then serious. Would you also ask that I remove any pentagrams from my userboxes in the fear they may offend certain theistic religions? We know that Wikipedia is not censored, and as a Wikipedian against censorship, I believe that anyone who sees the userbox will not leap out of their chair at the sight of some German words, nor a symbol once used by the Nazis, but will instead read the bit in blue above it, which, although it doesn't really need much of an explanation, links to a page explaining the term. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is not inappropriate for me to respond here - if it is, please do revert this change - but I would just like to applaud The Haunted Angel for his above comment regarding the Grammar Nazi template, especially the reference to the Swastika as a religious symbol. And while the Grammar Nazi page needs work to meet Wikipedia's standings, it's a term some of us have known both online and off- for several years. Harukaze 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How this editor found his way here within his first few edits - none prior in this area just deepens the mystery. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Which editor? — jacĸrм (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Harukaze. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the above question, I would also like to make an add on -
I have recently found an alternate Grammar Nazi template (well, two actually) which is less "offensive", which can be found here. Should I receive enough complaints about the template to warrant it inappropriate, then I will be happy to change it - although it seems to me the problem you have here is not my use of the template, but rather the template itself. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and another, here. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you'd have such a user box, especially when offering yourself for adminship. If your judgement is this poor how can you possibly be a good candidate for adminship? Nick mallory 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's too late to do any good here, but I find it incredible that such a userbox would be an issue for adminship. I had this very same userbox in my userspace (THA has even said that that's where he got it from) since well before my RfA was started. I've been an admin for nearly a year, and never once has it been an issue. This whole brouhaha is, in my opinion, pathetically ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

HG. Follow-up questions. Greetings. While I don't know you, I hope you don't mind my commenting and asking you some questions. Thanks for hearing me out. While I happen to think the "Grammar Nazi" userbox is in poor taste, I don't think it's grounds per se to vote against you for adminship. After all, didn't Seinfeld do the "Soup Nazi" and other Nazi shticks? Plus, there's at least one other admin with this userbox, so you have a precedent in your favor. Furthermore, I think it's great that you're helping Wikipedia against vandals etc., and hope you continue to do so regardless of the outcome here. However, certain aspects of adminship may require you to exercise judgment and sensitivity, in ways that go beyond dealing with vandalism. There's a very diverse flock of editors here, often in touchy POV-related disputes. In light of the responsibility put on the shoulders of admins, then, it is your answer to the question above that I think deserves serious scrutiny. Here's are my questions, ok?

• (HG1) You say "I can see how such a user box may seem offensive" (emphasis added). It seems to me that somebody who uses this box should be better informed about whether some people will actually and not just seemingly take offense. Seinfeld knows this and it is his Jewishness that allows him to get away with it, though he still obviously (not seemingly) offends some people. Are you unwilling to concede that the userbox is straightforwardly offensive to some people? For those folks who are offended, what do you see as the severity of the offense, is it a mild offense, slightly uncivil, what would you compare it to? Equally important, how would you handle causing this kind of offense to some -- but admittedly not all - of the parties in an AfD or other dispute? How will you persuade the offended parties that it's just a harmless joke?
• (HG2) You say in your answer: "...the Swastika was used by the Nazi's, but is not a Nazi symbol." Hmmm. Doesn't your answer dodge the concern at hand? Who is offended by the Jainism symbol you've linked to? Your link to Jainism and your counter-argument, so to speak, isn't that rather a red herring? Anyway, are you saying that your userbox is not a Nazi symbol" but just a swastika shape? (Cf. you say: "symbol once used by the Nazis" as if it's not a Nazi symbol today?) Presumably, you know very well that the specific version you are using, colors shape etc., is indeed the Nazi symbol. So, is your answer a way to make light of the problem you're confronted with here? Or to try to dodge the issue? If so, really, I'm not sure I blame you. An RfA is touchy and maybe more difficult than much admin work. Nevertheless, what does this say about how you will handle conflicts as an admin? Will you be able to deal with concerns, offended parties, without making light or dodging the issue? If so, maybe you could talk about your skills at defusing or straightforwardly and gracefully dealing with conflicts, especially when you are a party to it.
• (HG3) You say: "will not leap out of their chair at the sight of some German words." Again, I'm curious about how much experience you've had or what you've learned about how people, esp but not exclusively Jews, might react to Nazism. Many Jews read "some German words" every day and for many different reasons. I suspect most don't give it a second thought that they are reading some German. However, are you suggesting that "S.S." is merely more German? Would you think any less of somebody -- whether a random reader or an experienced editor -- if they did "leap out of their chair" when coming across your userbox? How will your impression -- that they are over-reacting -- come into play in your responsiveness as an admin?

Thanks for listening and taking the time to answer these questions. Best regards, HG | Talk 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the points raised - Well, I did say that should the user box cause trouble, I would remove it - and as the trouble that began has increased dramatically, I have done just that, and so, in answer to your first question, I have conceded with how this will cause offence to people. The user box, obviously, was meant as a joke (Nazism isn't, one of my hobbies, I'm afraid) - however, with the removal of the template, hopefully any problems that you raised in question one, will not exist.
In question two, you raised a comparison I made to the two symbols - as it is the same symbol, only used in a different manner, the effect can tear people right down the middle, as it has done. As the symbol has now been removed, there shouldn't be any problems on that front, but if there were other conflicts similar to this one, there could be numerous ways to approach it, depending on the situation in question. Let's say, someone else had the symbol, and people were arguing over it. Should people keep arguing over what place the user box has on Wikipedia, the situation may never go away, and so I think the best thing I would recommend is that the user discreetly remove the user box. Of course, the choice is entirely his/hers, but in a case such as this, arguing over and over because of the box may solve nothing (especially considering how forward the box is). I realised that arguing for the said user box against many people who obviously have a problem with it, is a dead end - the arguing will persist. As there is little alternative (I could have replaced it with one without the Nazi Symbolism, but I felt that removing it altogether may have been better), the best option available was to simply drop the user box to end the conflict. This would be, as you said, "defusing or straightforwardly and gracefully dealing with conflicts" - the is little alternative except arguing the matter over and over again, and should end the problem straight off.
The German words, including the letters "SS", I thought were offset by the parody of "Wikingpädie", that would add a sense of humour comparable to every user here, as every user is a part of Wikipedia. It is a fact though, that many people find certain things more offensive than others, and so it is down to what people will find amusing, where others will draw the line. I didn't find the user box really that hysterical, I simply thought it was a bit of satire that got the point across, but as I've said above, I have since discreetly removed the box to avoid further unnecessary conflicts. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Haunted Angel. I'm not sure why you removed the box. Was it a mistake? Every admin makes mistakes sometimes, at least in tone of voice, esp if they take on dealing frequently w/suspected vandals and newbies. I'm trying to understand how you recognize and handle mistakes. Do you apologize, internalize the key pt, and change? (Or is it common for you to defend yourself, as you've done here? I can imagine the RfA is an unusual setting.) Also, I'm not asking only about this situation, where many users argue over a box, but (#3) how would you respond if an individual (e.g., newbie) "leaps out" and takes offense at your box or similar actions/edits etc? Thanks again. If these q's aren't helpful here, feel free to reply to my Talk or simply let it go. HG | Talk 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the box because it is aparrent that it has caused trouble, trouble on quite a large scale, and so I felt that it wasn't worth being stubborn and keeping it, when it is aparrent that it is doing nothing but asking for more trouble. I would indeed try to defend myself, as I did here, but I can see when one thing gets to far - to be honest, I didn't think one little user box would get such a huge backlash, but as it has, it was the smarter idea, I think, to remove it, and apologize for the attitude I may have portrayed. If someone were to "leap out" at one of my actions, my response would depend entirely upon what action I took. If it was something I did wrong, then by all means, I would readily apologize (no matter how new they were compared to me being an admin - I wouldn't think myself to "high and mighty" to apologize to someone new to the site). If it was an edit or action that may disagree with, but was in fact correct (such as removing some original research they added, for example) I would explain to them why I removed their edit, and show them the correct page to do with it. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your responding yet again. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

5. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?

A:IAR is something that am rather fond of, although I've never had to use it - as quite simply, most of Wikipedia's rules are perfect as they are, and it's only in odd circumstances you may have to ignore the rules "legally", if you'll excuse the pun. The page really explains it all - but I agree with the idea that it's putting forth that benefiting Wikipedia is what's important. Taking part of the line; "prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia..." - this shows that benefiting Wikipedia is what's important. If a rule prevents that, ignore it. Obviously, there are few chances to do this, as the current rules are already built to work in favour of Wikipedia advancing, and the only rules that you feel you could ignore may result in Wikipeda not growing better. For example, someone may feel that uploading an image that isn't free, that they don't own, may benefit Wikipedia, because at least the said image is being added, but as long as Wikipedia has content that isn't free, it will never have truly grown better.
Of course, some people take this rule too far... they may use it as a trump card to try to wreak havoc on Wikipedia - but if they are so flamboyantly breaking rules, there's only one thing to do, that is, if they are doing it purposefully.
One point I feel I should raise however, is that despite this rule, some people may not truly understand its purpose, and decide to throw IAR about in order to try and make a point. I have recently found this page, which is an important stepping stone for anyone who would try to do such a thing. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel
• Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2

• Links for The Haunted Angel: The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/The Haunted Angel before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support, as nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Been looking forward to the second RfA. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, gotta be. Great user who would not abuse admin rights whatsoever, and I wish you the best of luck! — jacĸrм (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, seems like a noble user. And most likely getting the job done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per above. NHRHS2010 talk 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Appears to be minimally qualified. --Sharkface217 03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support So far, pile on!! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Politics rule has been indefinitelty blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   Although, on other RfAs such as here, his opinions are being allowed to stand where his sockpuppets have not participated, so long as his opinion was expressed before his block. Therefore, I am putting the vote back. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

8. Support Glad to give my support. A great asset to this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. It's about time. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Inactive and purely symbolic support because I had run ins with you in the past †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - Nice amount of experience, doubt will abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits would normally indicate a probable lack of policy knowledge which would lead me to oppose, but in this case it is outweighed by excellent contributions, vandalism-fighting, and so on. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose.

13. Support - good and thoughtful response to answers, meets my standards. Rudget _{Contributions} 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong support Courteous and helpful editor - much improved from last RFA. Shame American Brit isn't around any more! :) Majorly (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    Bwuhaha... THA, if you want me to unblock the socks for you to test your new block abilities on, just give me a shout. If anyone gets dibs on them, it's us. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    XD! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

15. Support – Per experience and Neil. We need more nuke operators for November. —Animum (etc.) 14:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
16. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support Qualified candidate that's needed for Endless November. east.718 at 20:00, 10/27/2007

    Struck my support. east.718 at 15:14, 11/1/2007

17. Support, not because we need more admins, but because we need more of these types of admins. ~ Sebi 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Dfrg.msc 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong Support As per nom and Great track in particular the statement that you accepted the advice of the oppose votes in the 1st RFA and waited 1 year before the next RFA and took the points raised positively shows your desire to contribute to wikipedia .Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support John254 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support As with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The-G-Unit-Boss, I enjoyed the use of quotes to illustrate this user's qualities, in the nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
22. Support Contribs are in order on a cursory glance. Phgao 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Looked at the contributions. Seems like a hard working Wikipedian. Would make a great admin. King Lopez ^Contribs 07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Jawohl. Jmlk17 07:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Easy choice. Tristan Uchiha 08:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support --Pumpmeup 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - good pedia builder m'kay...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Will make a good administrator. Acalamari 20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - This editor is much improved in recent months: (a) consistent use of edit summaries, (b) lots of edits across lots of fields, and (c) gone through editor review. It will be extremely helpful at WP:AFD to have an editor who is "fluent" in heavy metal/punk/goth, genres often outside the mainstream and subject to many nominations because "I've never heard of them, they only get 789 Ghits, so they can't be notable". Bearian 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support User's religion is of no concern to me. We could clearly debate the origins and adaptations of the swastika to no end, however, coupled with 'grammar' I find it innocuous, while still retaining a derogatory meaning, IE unrelenting and controlling. I'd much rather see it now than an hour after this passes. the_undertow ^talk 06:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Unless y'all want to desysop me because I have a Battle Flag of Northern Virginia on my door... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Desysop, no... but, this information does put my past disagreements with you in different light. At least you've implicitly morally equated the Swastika with the Confederacy, which is appreciated. Xoloz 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Question what is the point of this tasteless comment? - Battle Flag of Northern Virginia on my door... are you saying that nazi insignia like racist symbols don't mean anything? Modernist 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    My original point was that peeople vary widely in what they consider offensive, and unless they bring any offensive attitudes with them onto Wikipedia, it is pointless to judge them on it on Wikipedia. A secondary point is that it is possible to decouple a symbol and some of the (admittedly very) offensive connotations it might have. If you really must know, my family's not-so-distant ancestors fought on the losing side of World War II and even though I'm ashamed of what they did I'm not going to oppose someone for adminship because they evaluate the offensiveness of a symbol differently than I do. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    My ancestors fought on both sides of the American Civil War: Ancestry is irrelevant. While it is true that anything may be found offensive by someone, it is also true that there are some select symbols found offensive by many, for reasons that should be obvious to all. A person interested in dispassionate discourse would be well-advised to refrain from using them at Wikipedia, whatever his private beliefs. To do otherwise, to make oneself a firebrand, calls one's judgment into question. Xoloz 22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Well just as a reminder to you, some people see the Swastika as a sick, ignorant, hateful racist symbol of intolerance and genocide. Modernist 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    And that is a very reasonable thing to believe. When I make controversial statements on RfAs, it's generally to encourage dialogue on the efficacy of a particular line of reasoning (usually for opposing). As I generally consider opposing an RfA to be quite serious, I am often deeply interested not just in peoples' rationales, but the reasoning behind those as well, even if it means I have to try and provoke things a bit with outlandish statements. I also feel that a candidate reviewing their RfA after the fact would benefit more from this deeper dialogue, which in this case for the candidate has evolved from "I opposed due to a userbox" to "I opposed because considering the candidate's choices of userboxes in relation to the accepted norms of the community, I concluded there was too large of a discrepancy between these two to place my trust in the candidate's judgment in future matters," which is much more in depth and helpful. I don't really have a Confederate Flag on my dormitory door, I was born in Milwaukee and lived there until I was 14. I don't even have a southern accent. I just feel that playing the Devil's Advocate can sometimes be very enlightening. Thank you for your explanded response. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Hmmm... I had already expanded on my reasoning quite amply, so your exercise in devil's adocacy has succeeded only in wasting both your time and mine. I, too, enjoy playing devil's advocate, but there is a way to do that without lying, even as a temporary measure. Key phrases to remember: "Let's assume that...", "Hypothetically, suppose..." This allows one to discuss the rights of Nazis without feigning a goose-step. Xoloz 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Well then as a learning experience for the candidate, this discussion is about leadership and integrity and so far I've seen very little. Modernist 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
34. Support, good vandal-fighter, gives excellent reasons why should be admin. Has grown and seems to be growing, I get the impression this is a big-caliber human. He has noted people don't get the humour now, so I am convinced (okay, I know, this is just a feeling) this won't be a problem. And another comment - from this Norwegian user: my personal impression is to cut an Englishman more slack in jokes about Nazism and Nazi symbols than most other, as someone has said here: the Jews may make jokes about Nazism- and I think, some of the same apply to the British. As this box has been removed now, it should be seen as solved. Greswik 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Support The opposes for the grammar nazi userbox and being a satanist are completely looney. There's no reason to oppose to me Kwsn (Ni!) 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    Support I see no problems with the userbox. The victors write the story, and in this case the Nazis weren't the victors. If they were [the victors], I'm sure we'd hail them as heroes. And who cares if he has a Nazi symbol on his userpage. Should we oppose users who have a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, feminist, humanistic, etc user box because of their political views? CO 00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    Changed to oppose, per the pentagram on your userpage. It is simply anti-religious. The Nazi symbol is subjective, the pentagram is not. CO 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

36. While I'm not thrilled with the method of response to the userbox issue, which I still don't find to have been suitably addressed, it's not enough to convince me that THA, who otherwise appears to be an excellent editor, is not qualified for the position of admin. I have no doubt that he/she will have learned from this experience and will have gained understanding as to how to how seemingly minor issues can become controversial when extra responsibility is attached. Not a strong support, but a support nonetheless. Daniel^C/_T+ 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose per the Nazi box on your userpage. One has a right to free speech (which on Wikipedia is respected as a loosely regulated privilege, actually; Wikipedia is not a government, etc.) How one chooses to employ that right is a reflection of his/her judgment. This is a poor reflection on the candidate's judgment, as it is needlessly inflammatory. Yes, the Swastika was and is used as a religious symbol. The reverse Swastika (which is the Nazi symbol) in black on a white and red field is exclusively a symbol of Nazism, neo-Nazism, and the like. Reconsider your judgment, candidate, and I'll reconsider mine. Xoloz 13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   An addition to question 4 has been added above. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to strong oppose per SheffieldSteel. I echo the concerns below: although you have found an agreeable inoffensive substitute, you have not made the change yourself, but dallied, waiting to see how much opposition you'd receive. This smacks of an editor who is better at creating conflicts than resolving them, and suggests a certain insensitivity above and beyond that displayed by the box itself. Xoloz 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   Should I question your sysop flag because you support feminism ? Maybe I think your sexist against males. CO 00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   You're welcome to question it, but I think you'll find that there is a substantial consensus that feminism is -- at a minimum -- a wee bit less radical and disturbing than Nazism. Also, note that I merely state my support for feminism -- I do not employ a controversial political position as a joke. Too huge distinctions that you've somehow missed. Xoloz 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   Wee bit less radical? Like everything, it's subjective. CO 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is governed by consensus. This process is subjective, but it goes beyond individual subjective perspectives to seek communal norms, and I'm fairly sure you find that your view is on this subject is very far outside of consensus. Radical feminism != Nazism, as radical feminists have never committed genocide, etc. You're free to disagree with this proposition, but I do hope you'll have the sense to realize that you'll be virtually alone in so doing. If you cannot recognize that, it is likely that Wikipedia (and, perhaps, life) will be a very confusing experience for you. (By the way, I never said I was a radical feminist in any case.) Xoloz 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Your userbox is the Nazi flag with reference to the word "Nazi" and a reference to the SS to boot. Some people regard that as divisive and offensive. The history of the swastika is a strawman; you are using it in its Nazi sense. No one is attacking your pentagrams; that's another straw man. The box's inclusion on your user page calls into question whether you will be perceived by the community as open and impartial. Your answer to my question leaves me uncomfortable: particularly your reliance on WP is not censored. I suppose you'll never see incivility or a personal attack because those too are free speech. I too am against censorship, keep your symbol. But I cannot support you as an admin. Carlossuarez46 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   I asked the user who created the userbox, if he would possibly consider changing the userbox, as there was some controversy raised over it. Here is his reply:

   The box itself is meant as a joke. The term grammar nazi is basically a joke; the cultural loading of nazi is such that nobody would go out of their way to declare themselves any kind of nazi, and yet we grammar nazis do. I copied this box from another user's example, because I thought it was funny. In fact, there are several other users who have similar boxes of their own, and those don't include the four other users who use my userbox. One user has taken the nazi userbox, including swastika, in another direction, and it's meant to be funny as well. I'd hazard that the subject of this user's userbox, The Soup Nazi, is probably a strong part of the etymology of grammar nazi.

   It's not my fault if someone doesn't get the joke. It's also not my fault that somebody else, who obviously does get the joke, is using the userbox. I welcome people to use my userboxes, and a few people do use them, which is just fine with me. If the swastika was a problem for any of them, then surely they would not have used it. So, the short answer to your question: thank you for your concern, but no, I will not consider changing the userbox.

   Note I edited some usernames out of this quote, to keep it simpler and them out of it. I posted it on hope that something can be explained about the userbox! I'm sure if it was a bad idea for an admin to have this userbox on his page, it would be removed; since it's not, anyone is free to have it, and in no way should a userbox affect one's contributions towards Wikipedia. If you look through The Haunted Angel's contributions, you will see that nowhere does this userbox affect anything. — jacĸrм (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks Jackrm - also, I've made an addition to question 4, above ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose per Xoloz. The symbol is not just a swastika, but a black right-angled swastika turned clockwise in a white circle within in a red field. That is identical with the symbol and flag used by Nazi Germany, and since the references to the SS-division are obvious, the contention "[The] Swastika was used by the Nazi's, but is not a Nazi symbol" winds up being a red herring. It is in poor taste, and there is a (admittedly small since its intent is humorous) possibility of bringing Wikipedia into disrepute if administrators flag Nazi symbolism on their userpages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)(Neutral)

   Again, please see my latest replies on question 4, above. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Insensitivity, there is nothing amusing about the swastika on your user page, and making a joke about something like that is really not cool. And also per Xoloz, & Carlossuarez46 Modernist 12:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the actual answers to question 4 which make some irrelevant distinctions (such as the one pointed out by Sjakkalle or that between the use of the template and the template itself) and comparisons (such as to the Jain symbol), but miss the main point, namely that an administrator can be expected to try to avoid misunderstandings where possible and may interact with people who may have a completely different understanding of satire (or none at all). I appreciate the commitment against censorship, but why then increase the risk that editors jump to or feel reinforced in the conclusion that their contributions have been deleted or even "censored" by some "Nazi-admin".--Tikiwont 12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   To be perfectly fair, one does not need the swastika image on their userpage to be called a nazi just for performing one's administrative duties (I've been called plenty worse things, without providing a userbox to prompt them). The fact that it gets thrown around like that only further reinforces, in my opinion, the fact that "nazi" has become a more generalized term ("Soup Nazi" anyone?). Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing, but it's a valid enough concern. I'm just presenting a counter-argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, they are valid arguments, as some users may be offended by the swastika being used on his page, as he has said, he'll remove it if there is concern, which I'm sure he will do now, and in no way will it affect his work as an admin. — jacĸrм (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   Something I just realized: I've had the userbox in my userspace at User:EVula/grammar since well before my RfA was submitted and passed, and nobody once mentioned it. Perhaps only because it is front and center? I just suggested to THA that it be moved to his userbox subpage, but other than that, I think it's silly to insist that they remove the userbox, especially since he could easily agree to do so and then just put it back after the fact. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Ah well, I'm afraid the worst for me is yet to come ...but I wasn't concerned about anyway abusive editors. Now, I am not familiar with the mentioned sitcom, but I assume it doesn't feature a swastika on the soup kitchens' door. What makes all this more than "nothing" for me is actually the shown resistance and arguing around. Or to refer to another of the featured boxes, this is the wrong topic and place to not give a fuck. --Tikiwont 19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose The Haunted Angel is perfectly within his rights to have a swastika on his user page and I'm perfectly within mine to think him a total tool because of it. Nick mallory 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Inexcusable user page content.--Snakese 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose The swastika existed as a symbol before it was co-opted by the Nazi party. "Afterwards", however, is not the same as "before". A black swastika on a white circle with a red background, furthermore, is absolutely unambiguous. Answers to questions on this subject, while civil, don't imply much respect or concern for others' feelings, instead amounting to "Do I really have to get rid of it?" No, you don't have to, and no, my vote wouldn't change if you did. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note: that's rather ironic coming from an editor who recently made an extremely distasteful holocaust joke on AN/I.[9] ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   The difference is that I removed my attempted joke as soon as anyone said they found it offensive, quietly and with as little fuss as possible. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   If a Sheffielder says it, then I suggest you should move it now, Haunted. :) — jacĸrм (talk) is joking when he says that, but yes, sheffield owns. 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose The Nazi box is very poor taste and so is the "Wikingpädi" nonsense. Being a citizen of a Nordic country I've way too often heard the American smear accusing Nordic people (=descendents of the Vikings) to be Nazis. You might be interested to know that the Nazis had very little following in our countries, which was clearly demonstrated during the Nazi occupation of Norway and Denmark. I have nothing against you personally, I don't know you, but "jokes" like these are not befitting for an admin. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose - lack of ability to diffuse a wikidrama. Addhoc 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Even if you recognise your error now, it doesn't reflect well on your judgement that you had a Nazi symbol on your userpage for an extended period of time. The way you tried to defend it citing it being a religious symbol when it would obviously cause offense as something else did nothing to improve my opinion. Endorse the comment "I find it incredible that you'd have such a user box, especially when offering yourself for adminship. If your judgement is this poor how can you possibly be a good candidate for adminship? by Nick mallory. Daniel 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Eep, the swastika symbol knocks this one out. See Nick Mallory's comment. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose to me, the content on your userpage shows a lack judgment (or understanding) on your part. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 04:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Didn't handle the above situation well. Ral315 » 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Addhoc and Daniel. Citing the religious aspects of the symbol and comparing it to an infobox for Jainism was an error, considering that the association with Nazism clearly went much further than just the incidence of a manji. Here's what might have happened if you had just removed the infobox (see the discussion near the top of the oppose section). Even if you disagree with the reasoning here, it's clear that the box offended somebody, and it's definitely not a necessity. Dekimasuよ! 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Moving to oppose per Xoloz and Daniel, and per my comments in the Neutral section below. Walton^One 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose for poor understanding and lack of judgment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
17. I'm going to oppose because of terrible judgement exercised with the Nazi userbox, and becuase of what Addhoc said. east.718 at 15:16, 11/1/2007
18. Oppose per the Nazi and Satanist userboxes. Userpages aren't personal websites, they are to facilitate your contribution to Wikipedia. Patently offensive userboxes, whether intended as such or not, do not facilitate the work you are here to do. Removing the Nazi userbox because of opposition during an RfA does not change the judgement that went into placing them on your userpage in the first place; in fact, it raises new questions about your motives for removing it despite your contention that its a joke. Avruch^Talk 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    Strange, most people would see making an edit that several people have requested as being a good thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    When nothing else is at stake, sure. The fact that it is made to ameliorate the argument of opposers during his RfA suggests that motives other than reponsiveness and concern for the effect of his actions are at work. Not proof positive, but suggestive. Avruch^Talk 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    Well what would be the alternative? Leave it in place and further incense people? A concern has been raised, and THA has addressed that concern as best he can. Let's assume some good faith here, please... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    Avruch, I would have no problem with your evaluating the nominee's response(s). But I don't see what you driving at by questioning motives and I'm not sure we need to know -- ought we not assume good faith here? HG | Talk 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    HG and EVula, I'm happy to see the userbox removed. You may be right that I am not assuming good faith to the fullest extent. Instead, I am inferring poor judgement, based both on the presence of the userbox and the removal of them under criticism during an RfA. If it were me, I'd leave it until the RfA is finished in order to avoid the appearance of trying to appease !voters. I'm not at all convinced that his actual reasoning contradicts his statements, in fact I'd say its unlikely. As I said, its just suggestive timing. Avruch^Talk 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose per rationale above. CO 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
20. One thing that an admin has to be able to do is to make concessions on minor points, so as to be able to stand their ground on major issues. To be standing his ground on this particular issue shows poor judgment. I regretfully oppose. DS 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose - in regards to the Nazi symbol, if you had just said, "It was meant to be a joke, I didn't mean to offend anyone, I'll remove it.", this would be a lot different for me. However, you defended it and continued to do so. You finally removed it after much back and forth. Too late in my opinion. Jauerback 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose The box was a joke, and it is not a big deal. I'm concerned that the candidate chose to argue once it was clear that people were bothered by the box, and that they employed such an obvious red herring in the process. Even though they finally removed it, their defense leaves me with doubts about their judgement and respect for other users. I also share DS's concern. ×Meegs 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I support free speech, and if you were using a Swastika to make some political point that'd be one thing, but having it as some pointless userbox joke? It's an obviously offensive symbol to some people, so I'm questioning the judgment and sensitivity here. I'm neutral because the Angel hasn't had a chance to respond yet. -JayHenry 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   An reply to your comment can be found above, question number 4. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   I don't entirely know what to make of your answer. I'm aware of the history of the Swastika, but you're using it as the Nazi symbol. I believe you when you say you're not a nazi and I won't oppose for this userbox, I myself am not offended by it, but if you find that some editors are, I'd advise being very sensitive to that. --JayHenry 14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning oppose for a variety of reasons. Firstly, slightly BITEy edit summaries like these towards anonymous users: [10] [11]. He wasn't wrong in either of those cases, but it's better to be civil towards inexperienced users. Secondly, I share JayHenry's concerns about his userboxes. Using a swastika as a joke is in very poor taste, and I also think his open endorsement of Satanism is likely to cause serious offence to many users - he's entitled to his views, but Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, and one should avoid provoking others unnecessarily. May change depending on his answer to JayHenry's question. Walton^One 11:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Under the comment about Satanism - it is indeed a controversial Religion, yet I can hardly see how it would change how valid an admin I'd be - I won't get into a discussion on Satanism, but if you oppose me because of that, I would either assume the Satanism you're thinking about isn't the Satanism I apply myself to, or it is some form of prejudice arising. The edit summaries, I admit, may seem a little "snappy" (the Ten Speed one certainly wasn't meant to - if you look on the user's talk page I apologized for reverting his edit which I misunderstood). However, edit summaries towards newcomers could, and will in the future, be worded slightly more "softer", if you like. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not being prejudiced - you are entitled to your own views. I just think that, coupled with everything else I raised above, it has the potential to make you a controversial admin - and we don't need more controversial admins. I won't oppose, however, because nothing I've brought up is particularly terrible in itself. Walton^One 08:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Very poor answers to question 4, all strawmen and red herrings. Yes, the swastika was an innocuous religious symbol for thousands of years; in the context of the userbox, however, it is clearly intended as the symbol of the Nazi party and hence can be expected to have problematic sensitivity issues. For example, it's very likely that an admin with a Nazi symbol on their userpage, regardless of intention, would not be welcomed in admin capacity within the very large and active Judaism project or the numerous similar projects. New users could easily be put off by a high-profile editor projecting that image. On closer examination THA appears to be a very good editor, but I'm withholding support for now until a better response is offered to the valid concerns raised here. This doesn't mean that I necessarily expect the box to be removed, rather that I would prefer a better example of how this user would react in similar pressured situations as an admin. Daniel^C/_T+ 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)(changed to support)
3. Neutral. I can't support you with the satanic references, but it would be wrong of me to actually oppose you. I believe that it is wrong to make judgments on RFA's about editor's beliefs, but I have doubts (because of this) that you would have a neutral point of view toward users editing against your own personal beliefs. Very sorry I can't support. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
4. I can understand opposition relating to the swastika thing; personally I don't find "Grammar Nazi" offensive, but have trouble with the swastika. But I have a big problem with people objecting because of his work on the Religion wikiproject. Anyone who is opposing on that basis, please consider how you would feel if people opposed your RFA because of your presumed religious beliefs or Wikiproject affiliation. Please, let's keep that out of it and look only at comments and actions. Matchups 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.57 (talk)
5. Thanks for removing the swastika. I think that you were too hesitant and stubborn about it for me to be comfortable supporting, but I withdraw the "oppose". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Lradrama

Final (56/0/3); Ended16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lradrama (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I am able to nominate Lradrama to become an administrator. He has had one previous RfA which was not successful. The major concerns in that were his lack of edits to wikipedia space. I now feel confident that Lradrama has sufficient edits to project space and he is a very active contributor to AfD discussions. Whenever he comments there, he always gives thoughtful responses which show a clear understanding of the notability criteria. His edits here show that he would be good at closing these discussions. He's also a very compentant recent change patroller, and has a good number of edits to AIV and I believe these edits show that he would use the block button in the correct way. What I like about Lradrama are his contributions at the help desk showing his commitment to helping other users. He also does some good article work, especially to Formula 1 related articles. All in all, I really do trust this user with the tools, and I hope you can help me support him in his request for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

It is with immense gratitude that I accept the nomination. Lradrama 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to start off with working in the areas I currently specialise in, which are patrolling the recent changes and reverting vandalism, working on AIV and AfD. I would welcome the use of proper tools in these areas to speed up the way I operate and so I can accomplish more work. Then, I would like to branch out, and explore other areas of Wikipedia and try my hand in those areas. Another aim of mine throughout all of this is to continue to provide help and assistance to other users who are struggling or need to ask questions. I will remain active on the help desk and the Wikipedian's looking for help category. Lradrama 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am particularly proud of my contributions to the Toyota F1 article. I have written a significant amount of its content, added a large amount of references and held discussions with many Wikipedians in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Formula One on how to keep up a cycle of continuous improvement. I have also greatly improved the Lancashire United article, getting it from a small stub into a bigger article, which is backed up with references. There's a lot of work that still needs to be done yet though. I have also written three of my own articles, which I hope to continually improve. I take pride in reverting the constant stream of vandalism on Wikipedia and also my assistance to newer users who ask for help, either on the help desk, via their own talkpage or on my talkpage. There's nothing like the feeling you get after making someone's day easier and happier, so I will always gladly offer my help to anyone on Wikipedia.

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

A: Conflicts with other users are inevitable if you are an active Wikipedian. I have been involved in a number of conflicts, whether it be with persistant vandals or just other editors. I prefer to have civilised discussions with the Wikipedians in question, which, unfortunately don't always end up as one would wish with the former. It usually all turns out right in the end with other users who regularly edit Wikipedia, as a conflict often starts out as a heated outburst from a user, who, after discussion, calms down and everything is resolved.

So, with conflicts involving vandals, I am usually faced with an abusive comment on my talkpage. I try my best to cool the whole thing down through being nice and supportive, and offering rewards for their understanding and reform through things like Wiki-love smiles or barnstars. Most of the time this works. Sometimes it doesn't and a typical result is my userpage getting vandalised, and I usually go to the AIV way of sorting things out. But this is rare, because vandals are human like ourselves after all, not just some rageous animal hell-bent on destroying our work.

I have thus found that, in most cases of conflict, the chances of everything all turning out right in the end, and earning a new friend as a result, are made so much easier with patience and kindness, which I do my best to employ at all times. Lradrama 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Lradrama
• Requests for adminship/Lradrama 2

• Links for Lradrama: Lradrama (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lradrama before commenting.

Discussion

• Checking out the edits, great work with mainspace. If I had an account, I would vote support per an obvious understand of the spirit of Wikipedia. 70.250.215.30 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with IP editor. Furthermore, Lradrama has, in my experience, been a very civil editor who is open to discussion. Good qualities we need in an admin. I am very much in favour of sysopping him/her.  ;) Cheers, Iamunknown 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. Helpful editor who's doing some good work. Nice contributions to Toyota F1 and Lancashire United. Majoreditor 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support dang it, didn't beat nom. No concerns whatsoever. Rudget _{Contributions} 14:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support I opposed last time to allow for a little more experience, believing you were well on the way at the time... and I like what I have seen since. Good luck! Hiberniantears 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Nothing to indicate that the candidate is unsuitable. One little nit pick though: Lradrama states on all his userpages "This page is owned by Lradrama". I'm assuming that he doesn't really mean it. Just gives the wrong impression. But meh. - TwoOars (Rev) 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong support. This is an easy one. He has made extensive contributions to en.WP, including but not limited to: lots of edits big and small, new articles, vandal-fighting (with over 20 "scars" to prove it), much constructive talk both on user's pages and at AfD (although he seems to be more of a deletionist than I am), and has made an effort to create fair but flexible standards for RfA. I've encountered Lardrama frequently in the past few months here at WP, and he has proven his trustworthiness. Bearian 15:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Per nomination statement. Simple. Should have been sysoped on sight! Best. Pedro :  Chat  15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Come across you at the help desk. Always helpful and knowledgable. Good traits for an admin. Woodym555 15:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Good answers to questions and fine contributions. Unlikely to delete the main page. A Train^talk 16:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - helpful and friendly editor. Concur that he probably won't delete the main page. Addhoc 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
11. I see Ryan beat me to someone on my potential nom list. Support. Wizardman 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - 'nuff said. Ronnotel 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Certainly, after all, we know that all Ryan Postlethwaite noms are always right. Good candidate. ¹ GDonato (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - Trust nom and doubt user will abuse tools. Tiddly-Tom 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I think that this user will make a fine admin. Captain panda 20:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support my recent interactions with him have been stellar. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - Nothing wrong here. Great job.   jj137 (Talk) 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
18. As far as I am concerned, Lradrama's response to my oppose is more than satisfactory. With a good attitude and response like that, Lradrama will make a good administrator, and I am happy to support this nomination. Acalamari 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Is ready. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - Excellent anti-vandal work. Gscshoyru 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Wikipedia always needs more vandal fighters. --Sharkface217 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support Per nom. Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

22. Support It is time to give this user the mop. An excellent vandal fighter as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support trustworthy user. I see no big problems. Good luck. Carlosguitar 07:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support The problems mentioned below do not seem serious to me. A careful editor who makes useful comments. DGG (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Solid user. Recurring dreams 08:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support While I have not had the pleasure of actually "Wiki-meeting" Lradrama, I have seen him around many times, and he's been quicker on the draw than I on the Help Desk quite often, or chiming in to add information that I may have forgotten to add, that a new editor may find helpful. As I do with every RfA I comment on, I've taken a good deal of time going through his contributions, and I'm quite impressed. His most active mainspace area seems to be, as he's said, the Toyota F1 article, and for anyone who may not have dug into it, Lradrama first began editing this article in January of this year, and has contributed over 30% of the article's edits. This is what the article looked like when he began, and of course, this is how it appears today. While I personally prefer NASCAR, I decided not to hold this against him. :o) I'm impressed with the work he's put into it, the article is well sourced, and well written. Moving onto Lradrama's ability to communicate and work with others: Aside from his work at the Help Desk, his ability to explain issues in a heated environment can be seen at Talk:Daniel Radcliffe, where there are rather lengthy threads that he's participated in, bringing a measure of calm rationality to the conversations, interspersed with a bit of humor for good measure. He's also been a regular participant at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One, which further illustrates his ability to work with others, a trait definitely required by an administrator. I particularly found his answer to Question 3 refreshing, and if no specific incident jumps out at him worth mentioning, it seems that he's able to handle conflict with aplomb. Within administrative areas, Lradrama does some vandalism work, with 38 reports to AIV. I will note that I'd like to see him take a bit more care with warning levels, as I noticed that he used a level 2 warning here, when the last warning prior to today's notice was on the 10th. I realize, however, it is easy to see "October 2007" headers, and proceed with the warning levels following what was previously given, especially with editors such as this IP who seem to have a pattern of warnings on the talk page. Again I noticed a level 2 warning given for an offense after several days of inactivity to an IP, here, and again dealing with an IP with a history, but in the case of shared IPs, I'd prefer to see a level 1 given if several days have gone by, as the chances are quite high that it is not the same person doing the editing. I'd encourage Lradrama to take a little more time to review the date of last warning, look through contributions, and be sure that a level 2+ warning is needed, but I also tend to be a bit of a stickler for progression of templates, starting at level 1, so this could simply be a stylistic difference, and Lradrama does use level 1 notices for new offenders, as evidenced here and here, for example. Finally, I will simply say that I very much trust Ryan's judgment, and I know that he does not nominate those he hasn't looked into carefully. I have no doubt that Lradrama will make a fine addition to the administrative team, and take his time with areas he may not be familiar with. The preceding lengthy comment brought to you by ArielVerbosity™. Ariel♥Gold 10:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support with some reservations. The Goodshoped35110 comment could have been phrased in a less bitey manner, he should make more use of minor edits, and there are some other causes for concern mentioned already, but I am satisfied with Lradrama overall and the good outweighs the bad for me. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Seen good things from this editor, and is obviously here for the good of the encyclopedia. Unlikely to abuse the buttons. LessHeard vanU 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Strongest possible support Excellent, trustworthy, civil user with a good knowledge of policy--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 14:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - Has made a lot of wonderful contributions and is a superb vandal fighter. AngelOfSadness talk 23:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Yays! Good luck! Dfrg.msc 00:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Good work since last time. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support This user is terrific, I agree with Pedro! Phgao 06:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Indeed. Jmlk17 07:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Another easy support vote. We need good editors who are willing to take hold of the tools and use them well. From all accounts, it appears that Lradrama will do just that. K. Scott Bailey 14:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Checked user contributions and everything seems in order. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Strong experience, obviously to be trusted. VanTucky ^Talk 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support No reason to oppose. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Balloonman 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support looks great --Pumpmeup 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support per nom. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 05:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support as first time 'round. Evidence of 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support seen him/her in afd's & in speedy land, knows policy and no reason to oppose. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. I've had positive experiences with Lradrama; should make a solid admin. -- Satori Son 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Very Weak Support - Concerns raised by Acalamari and Dorftrottel are worrying; Lradrama needs to make more of an effort to be civil in commenting on RfAs. However, given the candidate's good contributions, it isn't per se sufficient reason to oppose. Walton^One 11:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Support - I've crossed paths with this editor many times and have never been left with a negative impression. Strong editor. Lara❤Love 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
48. the_undertow ^talk 06:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support After reviewing track and concerns in previous RFA are no longer valid .Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support - I personally feel that wikipedians should be brutally honest or very "frank" during AFD discussion to flush out any quirks the potential admin may have. With that said, I do not find the civil (AFD) issues a problem here. I see a need for the user to have the mop, keys, and detonator.--I already forgot 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
52. Support Good work + concerns raised during last RfA taken on board. Húsönd 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. I have heard of you around here, and think you'll make a great admin. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support east.718 at 05:59, 11/1/2007
55. Support I don't see abuse from the tools forthcoming from Lradrama. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - all looks fine to me. WjBscribe 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

For starters, Lradrama recently strongly opposed a user who had been here for less than three months, but had submitted an RfA in good-faith, and a "strong oppose" seems bitey to me. In part of that oppose, Lradrama said "No-way! I suggest you withdraw, seriously.", which was entirely unhelpful. I am, however, glad that Lradrama removed the exclamation mark, but the rest of the oppose was still quite harsh. Secondly, during Earle Martin's RfA, he opposed the candidate for possibly "not needing the tools", and for a low edit count. He also had a complaint when other users had gone and responded to his oppose. Finally, this AfD edit is also highly worrying. Changed to support Acalamari 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Earle Martin AfD. He didn't go running to a noticeboard, he simply commented in the discussion section - there doesn't seem to be anything to be concerned about with that one. What's wrong with the AfD comment? A lot of people were sick and tired of the Harry Potter articles being nominater for deletion, in fact, it got a little silly - there doesn't seem to be anything incivil about the comment. Maybe one line of the newbie RfA was a little bitey, but at least it gave some advice to the candidate, unlike many comments at newbie RfA's. Sorry Acalamari, I don't really understand this oppose. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To be quite fair, Acalamari, you've mischaracterized Lradrama's oppose in the Earle Martin RfA. Reading the link that you called a "not needing the tools" oppose, it's clear that the major point is that Lradrama is concerned that Earle wasn't very active on Wikipedia. And although that Harry Potter keep rationale is admittedly weak, the result of the AfD was ultimately keep, so Lradrama's opinion was poorly phrased but ultimately well-founded. A Train^talk 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to be really fair, I don't think Acalamari mischaracterized Lradrama's oppose. All three points of Lradrama's oppose at the Earle Martin RfA struck me as singularly silly, especially the bit "over 2,083 edits should really have been achieved by now". About the complaint saying I and user:Rspeer made an "uproar"; I guess I was a bit curt in my response and my edit summary, so I don't blame him entirely. I was just irked a bit by the oblique references. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I was wrong with the Harry Potter debates: I was not aware of the multiple AfD'ing of them, and the affect on community patience at the time, so I've struck that part of my oppose out and I do apologize for that. My other concerns remain though: with the Goodshoped3511s RfA, it was the "strong oppose" (which I believe was unnecessary; new/ish users need advice, not the impression that they've done something wrong) combined with some of wording of the oppose (such as what I quoted above, plus the "a big no" said in the oppose), that came across to me as bitey, and overall, not very helpful (though the part about getting an admin coach was a good suggestion, I will agree). With the Earle Martin RfA, Twooars has said what I wanted to say with Lradrama's oppose there, and I have little more to add to that. Acalamari 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One bad comment with over 7000 other contributions doesn't strike me as a very good reason to oppose. He has shown on numerous occasions his ability to stay calm and help newbies. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, with newbies, I am always pleased to offer help and advice, something I have done with vandals who have seemed intent on messing me around, so I would like to stress I had nothing against the candidate. It was just that the RfA wasn't going to pass, and the best option would be to withdraw. Maybe I worded it slightly harshly and I regret that, as I regret the moment with TwoOars, which, if I remember correctly, I accepted that my standards can vary from others, apologised for seeming harsh and the situation was resolved. I have spent a real lot of my time on Wikipedia dishing out help and offers for advice on many a new users talkpage, and seeming harsh on my part is wholly unintentional. Lradrama 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looking at that Strong Oppose, it does seem harsh. It looks awful actually. A big regret, sorry about that. Lradrama 19:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Geez, there but for the grace of God, etc. . . If that's all it takes to get bounced I suspect very few of us would measure up. ;) Ronnotel 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Fly-by AfD commenting[12], bursts of fly-by RfA participation with sometimes only 2 minutes between comments (remarkably even on some oppose comments) [13], [14], [15], [16]. RfA comments like: "if this passes I going to have to seriously gather my thoughts, for obvious reasons. :-S". Removing doubtful comment rather than striking it: "To me, this RfA should have just as much chance of passing as that of Samulili, but looking at the votes on each, things seem to have taken an unfair turn of events :-(". Borderline personal attack in oppose comment (Captmondo RfA): "I don't mean or want to be harsh, but considering the large amount of time you've been active on Wikipedia, not so much has been achieved in that time." Plain weird oppose (EarleMartin RfA): "Are you really active enough to become an admin? The above comment and sifting through your contribs and your edit count makes me wonder if you actually do need the tools? You've bee active for a vast amount of time, and over 3,000 edits should really have been achieved by now." A little too hot-headed (Earle Martin RfA)[17]. Unfriendly and unhelpful pile-on oppose: "Strong #Oppose - No-way! I suggest you withdraw, seriously. There is very, very little experience gathered here and you'[ve only been active for less than 3 months. A big no. Go out there and get some real experience, get an admin coach, withdraw this and try again in a few months." One of his RfA criteria is :"The user should have over at least 400 edits in Wikipedia / Wikiproject space, or near enough." - when Lradrama him/herself has just above that. At the same time, s/he opposed several users for too low WP space participation, even some who went on to succeed. Also, although I know that the "drama" part of your username is related to some thespian activity or interest, I still think that the username is not ideal for an admin, one of whose jobs is to minimize "drama". But that's not the reason I oppose. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and valid concerns raised. I believe that after the above discussion, Lradrama will be much more careful in how he words comments at RfAs, particularly those of oppose opinion. As for the "drive-by" opinions of AfDs, I have to say that I've often gone to the AfD page, and gone down the list, and in the space of mere minutes, I can find several to give a definitive opinion on without much research needed. There are a significant number of AfDs that are really non-controversial, don't take much time to look into, and can be done quite quickly, so I'm not sure (without actually going through each of those AfDs, which I did not do) if this is something that's any indication of improper activity. Also, while it isn't my own style, there are some editors who go through all RfAs every week in the TangoBot table, research all of them, and then offer their opinions on each one all at once. Again I'm not sure this is an unreasonable thing to do. I cannot speak for how Lradrama did it, of course, but I am just mentioning that I do know other editors who do things this way. As for the name, that's really interesting, as I never even saw the word "Drama" in his name. Might be just that I don't know what it is supposed to mean, and my brain is quite crowded with acronyms, but I read it as "L-RAD"ama, lol. Anyway, I commend you for the obvious time and effort that went in to your comment, and you do raise some valid points, that only can be explained by Lradrama, of course, but I am confident that Lradrama would be quite careful, if he had the tools, and would use caution and care when dealing with AfDs. Ariel♥Gold 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that the comments like ...taking an unfair turn of events... and something about gathering my thoughts were due to me misreading a person's RfA and mistaking it for a shocking contrast. I thought two RfAs in a similar state were both going in completely different directions, but I was wrong because I misread a few things. I felt a bit daft and discussed the matter with Anonymous Dissident after I realised my mistake. But thankyou for bringing things like this to my attention again because, one can learn from one's mistakes and concentrate on ironing them out in the future. Also, this is the second time my username has raised issues with another user when considering me for a suitable admin - it is merely a name that represents the real-life me. It is the initials of my real name with the addition of my favourite real-life hobby, college subject and carreer aspiration. I think people pick up on the negative connotations that the term 'drama' has in Wikipedia, maybe because it creates images of editor conflict and such. If it is necessary, I'll change it. Lradrama 17:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning towards support. This user is a good user, but this strong oppose comment left by Lradrama doesn't seem nice to me. If I were User:Goodshoped35110s, then I would feel bad, especially with the comment No-way. I suggest you withdraw, seriously. and A big no. Go out there, which would really dishearten me. NHRHS2010 talk 19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Cutting off Lradrama's sentence part way through serves to put a negative spin on what he said (I'll of course assume this was unintentional.) Compare "Go out there", which might imply he was telling someone to leave, with "Go out there and get some real experience, get an admin coach, withdraw this and try again in a few months." Picaroon (t) 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   If I had an RfA, my feelings will be really hurt if someone strongly opposed me with the reason "A big no" or "No-way, I suggest you withdraw, seriously". NHRHS2010 talk 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   You miss the point. I'm not defending his comment, which does seem overly harsh. I'm saying that your decision to cut him off mid-sentence distorted the meaning. Picaroon (t) 22:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's just that I saw that strong oppose that Lradrama once made, and I was shocked about it. Anyways, he said that he was sorry, so I changed the neutral. NHRHS2010 talk 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral - For similar reasons as NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs). I don't think this is necessarily an oppose reason, and the user might certainly do well with the tools, but I don't wish to support in light of above comments. My apologies, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
3. Changed from oppose. I take it you are aware of the concerns and will do your best to avoid such situations in the future. Good luck. — Dorftrottel⁠ 10:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Lincalinca

Final (28/18/3); Originally scheduled to end 12:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lincalinca (talk · contribs) - I've been a Wikipedia editor since March 2006 and have enjoyed adding to the encyclopedia resource that it is. I'm interested in expanding my capacity as an editor. This is my first RfA and I'm interested in being an Admin, but if I'm knocked back here (hopefully not) I think I'd wait about six months and see what the time serves. I have no interest in moving on to become a Checkuser or Beaurocrat, but would like to contribute to WP:CSD and to a lesser extent WP:AFD and also assist editors in reinstating deleted articles where applicable, to allow us to build the web. As a "delisionist", I believe the term is, I believe in giving most things a fair go. My main interest is in being able to edit protected pages upon requests from the {{editprotected}} function and the like, in order to be able to serve the various wikiprojects and other users, with diligence and giving due thought to the changes being requested. I feel that I assume good faith, most of the time. For the times I don't, I apologise that my humanity gets in the way of me editing like a saint. I have a keen interest in the coding aspects (I'm not fantastic, but I'm getting better at that stuff) and not trying to reinvent the wheel, but occasionally build a better bridge. In summary, I feel I'd be able to contribute to a greater capacity and would look to guide newer editors. lincalinca 12:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Mostly Protected edit requests, WP:CSD and WP:AFD.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My graphic design skills and ability to create esoteric and complicated functions where necessary, and to "hide" these functions where able and applicable into templates, allowing a balance of the complicated programming skills required for some functions, while still allowing for anybody to edit. I also feel that I have been able to connect into the various communities to develop the articles, assist in gaining consensus where difficult and improve my own skills.

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

A: Generally, my conflicts have been related to a matter of opinion relating to design. I usually try to avoid using policy to argue my defence as I would like (and always hope) that common sense can prevail, though differing opinions apply with common sense and even differing interpretations of the policies do occur at times, where the policies are ambiguous or unclear. In these cases, I usually approach my peers, other editors I do know (though I avoid canvassing to bully my opinion across, as I consider that to be disrespectful to the person I have a difference of opinion with) and I try to get a third point of view. Often when I've done this, I've approached 2 people: one whom I generally agree with, and one with whom I've had a disagreement in the past, as I feel it's more productive having a full view of the argument to gain consensus. To the point of "conflict" however, I don't believe anything has ever reached that point, but simply disagreements that I've felt passionately for.

Question from User:Pedro

4. HI Lincalinca and thank you for your request. You say that you would like to work within WP:AFD and WP:CSD. After reviewing your last 2,000 contributions I couldn't see any evidence of speedy deletion tagging and your only AFD contribution I could see was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist polemics. How do you feel your lack of experience so far in these areas may impact on your ability to use the tools wisely as an admin? Pedro :  Chat  13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A. I don't feel that these are to be my primary areas of dealing. I intend to familiarise myself with deletion before doing the work. I guess you could say I want to make sure I'm ready before I go and start deleting articles. But what experience I have in deletion I feel has been very helpful in my learning in the area. I don't want to just jump in and delete straight away. I'd rather work more on the Protection requests, and reinstating articles and images as appropriate and necessary, should there be an adequate rationale given by the user as to why this should be done, such as was done with the Twilightning article, when it was originally deleted, Chubbles requested it be reinstated, and it was and he and I worked on improving the article to mainspace quality. Does this adress your concern? --lincalinca 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Carlossuarez46

5. Hi. Looking at this diff on October 9 last, it appears that you removed an afd notice from an article that was undergoing an afd - that article has since been deleted. Your edit comment was "Songs don't have a notability guideline. removed nom for deletion". Is that your opinion? How is the community to decide whether a song is notable? How are people viewing the article to be informed that it is being considered for deletion? Do you think your action was appropriate? Carlossuarez46 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As I was aware at the time (and have since been advised otherwise) there was no notability guideline for songs. This has been the case since I've been on Wikipedia, however I've since been advised that a new guideline was implemented where songs are now assessed for notability. I admit my change in this case was in error, however this was due to my then-outdated policy knowledge. Upon this being brought to my attention, very promptly following my removal of the AfD, I've since been more prudent with assessing or judging anything that has been submitted for deletion, particularly verifying the appropriate policies in place. --lincalinca 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Lincalinca: Lincalinca (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lincalinca before commenting.

Discussion

• I did an editor review for Lincalinca about a month or two ago: Wikipedia:Editor review/lincalinca. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - A decent candidate. Yes I often say I like a Wikipedia-space participation count around 400, but 370+ is almost there! Excellent article work, and an altogether good RfA. Best wishes, Lradrama 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - great user, complies with all my criteria. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I'm just a little nervous that although you have plenty of article and Wikiproject edits you really have very little experience in C:CSD, WP:AFD, RC Patrol etc. etc. However it takes all sorts here, and looking at your user page you certainly seem to be civil, and an excellent article writer. So whilst your experience in admin areas is limited you certainly have the WP:ENC bit - thus I'm happy to support this request. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support The lack of experience in C:CSD and WP:AFD is a minor concern here because you are a great editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose support per above NHRHS2010 talk 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support A decent amount of experience, appears to be very civil and it's good to hear you are willing to learn in the areas you are unsure about before you jump in and start deleting. Tiddly-Tom 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - Looks good.   jj137 (Talk) 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support A few concerns, but overall, I think this user is mop-material! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Clearly has the capacity to make a good Admin... Johnfos 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • To be honest, that's one of the reasons I placed CSD as one of my activities, since I can foresee a lot of pages requiring removal due to that. It's also something that prompted me to want to nominate myself. --lincalinca 10:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Seen this user around: should be fine. Acalamari 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support as a very likely positive asset as an admin. CitiCat ^♫ 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Nothing serious enough to oppose. I believe that Lincalinca will be more careful with image tagging from now on, like he stated below. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. I've incorrectly tagged images I've uploaded after I became an admin. It's easy to do. No reason to oppose. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. Wide edit range, making this user a probable knowledgeable Wikipedian. Also, per all above. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support I checked the editor review (linked in the "Discussion" section). That was more than two month ago; by now, I'm pretty confident Lincalinca has the experience he needs. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, I trust Linca with the buttons. ~ Sebi 01:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support John254 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
19. I must say, I'm a bit disappointed with you Linc. You said you didn't want adminship - and now you self nom! And you tell me about it when I'm on wikibreak!! If you didn't kick so much ass, I'd be opposing, mate. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Hmmm, in general I don't think this user will abuse the tools, but a tad more experience in Admin areas would be nice. Phgao 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Good user--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support The only issue was to do with images, and the user seems to have learned his lesson in that arena. Certainly to be trusted. VanTucky ^Talk 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Why not. — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. Dedicated editor who needs to follow the image-use rules but appears to be willing to do so. Cla68 03:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Seems trustworthy and competent. A little more experience in admin stuff would be good but nothing that worries me. Pig^man 06:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support good involvement at FA shows dedication and was civil there I recall. Can brush up on Free/Fair-Use image issues. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support a good editor, definitely one of the good guys. Agree with Casliber and others, a need to brush up on fair use is evident, but none of us are perfect. The Rambling Man 14:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support All contributions are valid, I'll say. So go ahead Lincalinca :)--NAHID 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Support I hate self nominations on principle, but the only real knock I can find with this editor is a perhaps less-than-ideal understanding of image policy. I doubt there are many editors out there who has a perfect understanding of every policy and guideline. Lincalinca appears to be an enthusiastic, well-meaning editor with a great attitude who is willing to admit mistakes and learn from experience. I trust this editor, and would simply suggest he become more familiar with image policy right away; that would clear up most concerns, I think. faithless (^speak) 23:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I'm concerned that you do not know very well of the image policy for free images, as a few of the images you uploaded have an invalid copyright: [18] [19] [20]. This could be a problem. RaNdOm26 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   This user uploaded the copyrighted images months ago, just to let you know. NHRHS2010 talk 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm aware of this being a few months but he hasn't made a response about those images regarding appropriate licenses, and I sense that he may still upload images that are unsuitable in Wikipedia as he may not understand the policy. I've found out he has also uploaded a slightly more recent Image (about two months) which is an nc-nd image and should ideally be deleted, and he has tagged with the wrong license. If he does now the license is wrong, he should have taken the initiative to correct it, but he hasn't done it.

   In addition, he has uploaded several non-free images one, two which are unacceptable because they are images of living people, per image policy of replaceability. I am aware that he knows about it per this and this, yet he has still chosen to uploaded them. I don't have the faith for him to have the tools as he is inconsistent with his editing by adding images when he knows they are inappropriate for use, therefore lack of sense of judgement. RaNdOm26 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   I am aware that my tagging may have been inaccurate in some of these cases, and for that all I can say is that I'm sorry. This argument applies to all similarly guided discussion (and, by this I mean opposition). I've been a lazy image tagger in this respect. I have no argument other than to say that I intend to familiarise myself to a greater degree with these policies if I am to be something of an example to others. In my defence, we're all entitled to make mistakes, and because I haven't (I don't think) uploaded a great volume of images, I simply haven't prioritised learning about these issues, but this will end immediately. Until I can completely and objectively state that the correct tagging for copyright, common use or public domain, I will withhold any images I intend to upload, and will follow protocols to the letter when doing so. --lincalinca 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose per this and this; as recently as 4 and 5 October this user was prepared to argue in favour of having nonfree images on the Powderfinger article, and that it was ok to use nonfree images as long as they were "tastefully used". Everybody makes mistakes of course, but such a recent statement which so fundamentally contradicts Wikipedia:Non-free content, one of our guidelines, from someone who states that images are a main focus of their work here, taken with a (seeming) lack of evidence of participation in admin-like work (WP:AIV, WP:RFA, etc) makes me unable to support at this time. Sorry. --John 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not certain that Lincalinca is making the argument that "tasteful" has anything to do with the acceptability. Since the comment was in quotation marks, possibly it was just a referral to someone else's statement? Perhaps the candidate could offer some clarification on this. CitiCat ^♫ 02:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   As citicat suggested, I wasn't supporting the use of non-free where class or taste was an issue: I was stating that when used appropriately, an album cover could be used in an article that it not for the album itself, if appropriately tagged and the article provided sufficient discussion relating to the cover itself. The definition of "sufficient" is obviously where you and I didn't see eye-to-eye, and unfortunately there's no specific guideline as to what is deemed "appropriate" (my use of "tastefully" was referring to appropriateness), and the subjectivity was obviously the difference between your stance and my own. Having cleared my head with this mater, I do now consider that it's probably not appropriate based on the lack of volume of discussion of the images in the article itself (especially in the case of Powderfinger, as you mentioned). I do have a very clear understanding as to the legal protocols of copyright, commons usage and public domain, but have found myself having teething problems coming to grips with the vast difference between these laws and the policies here on Wikipedia. I did think it was simply a matter of treating copyright articles the way they can be treated in any other resource, but now concede that the policies are in place to remove any doubt or to mvoe as far out of the grey areas prevalent in the laws as possible. I have very recently shifted my stance on this matter, having "got it". --lincalinca 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for clarifying your stance. None of us is perfect when it comes to image policy, and I agree the implementation of policy is not always easy to square with the goal of building a high-quality product. I want to clarify that my oppose is not because you disagreed with me a couple of weeks ago, that would be awfully petty on my part if it were true. It's just that the only two ways I know of to evaluate the quality of a candidate are to go on one's personal interactions with them, or to examine their contributions. That incident in early October was (as far as I recall) my only personal interaction with you so it is all I can go on. Your contributions are good, but there are not enough in administrative-like areas for me to properly judge what you would be like as an admin. I do respect your hard work and integrity, and if you were to be unsuccessful this time I would probably support a few months down the line. Changed to weak oppose. --John 19:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Not regarding the 2nd comment by John, I'd like to point out that you said that my comments in that debate had, to some extent, changed your thinking. Yet my comments went as far against the fair use policy as Linc's, if we're going to look at it that way. Did they change your thinking, or are you just ignoring that now? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   I've replied here, as I didn't want to clutter up this discussion with the argument about the detail of the discussion the three of us had a few weeks ago and what I took from it. My Weak Oppose still stands, without any disrespect to the candidate, who is a fine contributor, just not quite ready for the tools yet, in my opinion. --John 06:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Replied on your talk page, cheers. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Look at Image:Matt Bronleewe.png or Image:David LaBruyere.jpg, which are nonfree images used to show what living people look like. Or, even worse, at Image:Normie Rowe.jpg or Image:Liam Finn.jpg, which don't even have the right licenses, as the Flickr pages explicitly state that the images can't be used commercially. And these are all uploads from the past two or three months! These examples lead me to believe that the user both really, really pushes it when it comes to inappropriate instances of fair use and that he or she can't tell which images are free and which images aren't. As a side note: Given that I've found these egregious errors with very little searching, someone should really go through his or her upload log, as there's likely to be more problems. -- RG² 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   My two responses to similar statements above should adequately address your concern (I hope it appeases your concern). As to the Liam Finn and Normie Rowe images, I'm not sure about the Normie Rowe image, but the Liam Finn one was changed to non-commercial use after I uploaded it (I've only just become aware of this since it was tagged for deletion). In my defence, I would likely now delete the file were I an admin, considering the change of stance by the Flickr user (though I wasn't aware someone could change the copyright status, but my knowledge of commons is not as strong as reserving all rights or completely releasing to public domain, notably due to the concept of commons or gfdl is newer than these other two methods). --lincalinca 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Weak oppose. Not very high on the Wikipedia-namespace contributions which tends to indicate a probable lack of policy knowledge, and also the above concerns about image licensing make me reluctant to go any other way. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
   • I intend no offence with this statement, but should my experience in the policy, deletion and project articles (and the like) have an effect on my efficiency or performance as an editor or administrator? Obviously not necessarily as an editor. I don't see it as an issue as an administrator either, though I guess this is a matter of personal preference. There's no hard and fast rule about these kinds of things but one user in the support column indicates very specifically that, though I have approximately 370 edits in the Wikispace and his preference is approximately 400, the quality of the edits themselves granst it more weight (these are my words of interpretation). If you wish, I can dedicate some more time to that side of things, though, as I believe I articulated in my reasoning for nominating myself (and if I didn't, I'm sorry and I'll amend it to reflect as such) I'm an editor with the purpose of building the web. I intend to advise and promote sharing the volume of all human knowledge on one resource. For this reason, I edit the mainspace mroe than anything. It's also why I have no care for becoming a Beaurocrat. I'd rather put my head down and work on articles as well as assist other editors in doing so, and in some cases this will require tools I presently don't have access to. I simply wish to expand the tools available to me in order to expand the impact I can have and the ability to achieve the common goal. I don't expect (even though I hope) that this will change your mind, but I wish to simply make that clear. --lincalinca 14:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

     Yes, it should. The level of 400 Wikipedia namespace edits I require is an absolute minimum - I'd prefer to see closer to 1000 raw edits but over 400 I would at least consider the quality and relevance. I'm not sure what you would like adminship for either. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose, per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose Per John and RG. Jmlk17 07:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above. Epbr123 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Fair use concerns. Daniel 00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Fair use concerns me as well. Ral315 » 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
10. ^{(Not to be counted if it comes down to this vote)} Weak Oppose per above though I trust you've learned from your mistakes --Pumpmeup 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    I personally think a comment in the neutral section would be more appropriate if you don't want your vote to be given that much weight... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose– A little more work on fair use rationales on images and you would be good to go. But for now, I'm gonna have to oppose. Ksy92003(talk) 05:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose insufficient real text contribution experience. `'Míkka 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    Comment Could you elaborate on what you mean by "real text" contributions? Policy text? Wikiprojects? Or are you talking about the Mainspace? Because I have over 7,500 articlespace edits, and generally I don't just flippantly approve all edits; I give almost all of them thought. I'm not immune to mistakes, but I do generally give a lot of thought to edits and preview every edit, even in the talkspace. --lincalinca 05:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    He's opposing your mainspace contributions. Which is laughable. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more food admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    However in this particular case it seems I have made a mistake: I probably clicked wrong user to look thru contributions. After a review I am withdrawing my vote. `'Míkka 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

12. Oppose based on concerns in answer to question number 5 and the incident in question; regardless of whether one concurs in a policy or whether one believes that a policy does/doesn't exist - in confronting an afd one thinks is unsupported the norm is to chime in at the afd discussion rather than remove the tags and expect it will go away. I cannot predict whether the tools will be misused but the event and what has/hasn't been learned from it gives no comfort. Carlossuarez46 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose Per above. ♫ Cricket02 04:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
14. An important aspect of adminship is to understand, or at the very least, acknowledge NFCC. Uploading fair use images of living people makes me doubt such knowledge. All admins, whether they wish to work with images or not, will need to understand the basic essence of fair use, and what constitutes copyright infringement. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Your comment suggests I be familiar with NFCC, but as I've articulated, the guidelines set out here are not the legal requirements, they're designed within a buffer to remove ALL doubt, rather than just scrape it. I'm used to working in copyright, having worked in the music industry, proofing, typesetting and graphic design. Not only has it been a hobby, it's also been a job of mine to understand legal particulars to do with copyright and the like. As I explained above, I do admit to having had some teething problems when it comes to the more restrictive versions of these laws in the Wikipolicies. At first I found them cumbersome, but I now understand their necessity, but to state that I don't understand or even ackowledge NFCC is a statement I could easily construe as an insult. I'm going to assume that you were assuming good faith and ask for you to explain what you meant by this to explain your opposition. Otherwise, your opposition isn't clear, as I'm certain that I not only ackowledge NFCC, but I actually advocate and understand its importance. --lincalinca 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps I wasn't clear with my opposition, to which I apologize. What I mean with it was that you did not understand, from the examples given above, about the replaceability factor of the NFCC criteria. Unless in exemplary circumstances, fair use images should not be uploaded of lliving people. (An example of a case in which it could be made is in Osama Bin Laden) I'm sorry if you were insulted by the opposition, it wasn't meant that way; but I am not confident from the examples shown, of your ability to deal with copyright and fair use images. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

15. Oppose I appreciate the honesty with which this user approaches the questions in this RfA. They are not defensive but very open. However your response to #5 is troubling as are the comments about improper image uploads. I would encourage you to take that six months or maybe even a little less and come back later with a stronger vita. Thanks for applying and please do not be discouraged. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 11:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Carlossuarez46. We can always be wrong about some guideline or its latest version, but the rather recent incident mentioned in question 5 and the answer here somehow convey that you think that our policies and guidelines precede any actual consensus building. This points at the need at indeed spending more time in the areas such as AfD where you would want to work an administrator. --Tikiwont 08:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    I doubt I'd be able to persuade you of otherwise, but cool as that description sounds, my intention is in order to help out. I suppose there's nothing I can do to prove altruism or the positivity of my plight. I guess I would just want the assumption of good faith to prevail. I have noticed you voted in this same way for DarkFalls on his second nomination (the one that passed) and according to the notes left on his, that was not the first either. I'm sure there are those who have used the admin powers to (and I'll try to be delicate about this) rule the roost, but I hope you can recognise that that's not my intention. I do understand if you still advocate your position. --lincalinca 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    He's an infamous RfA troll; ignore him. — H₂O —  07:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose due to fair use rationale. Just because pics are on flickr, doesn't mean that they are necessarily free pictures to used on wikipedia. Miranda 10:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This comment has me somewhat confused. I'm not simply randomly browsing Flickr in order to acquire images, I search Flickr specifically for images that are under creative commons for non commercial use and assess each individual image for its appropriateness according to the guidelines. I do admit that some time ago I was of the (mis)understanding that anything there was applicable, but have been well aware that that isn't the case for months now. The reason I believed that was acceptable when I did was that when introduced to Flickr, it was introduced to me as a completely creativecommons and public domain resource and that images on there could not reserve all rights. I'm not sure if this was ever the case, but I do know that that's how it was introduced to me, and I'm now aware that the gretaer proportion of the iages kept on flickr are unacceptable for wp. --lincalinca 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    So which CC licenses are acceptable then? Miranda 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    In short, anything with an appropriate tag on this page, but descriptively speaking, items that allow commercial use, basic attribution is acceptable, images that don't allow to be build upon as long as the image is not modified (i.e. don't build upon means don't build upon). Off the top of my head, that's all I can think of. That said, now that I'm more aware of the policy in place (and as articulated earlier, becoming more familiar daily) I'm still assessing each image I upload according to what I can find as acceptable in the instance. I know now (and didn't only months ago) that images that are not for commercial use are not acceptable. --lincalinca 10:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Neutral due to lack of some policy experience, though in light of Siva1979 (talk · contribs)'s comments I do not wish to oppose. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
2. Neutral (changed from support) Perhaps I was too quick to lend my support, but all of the faith I had in this editor was dashed with in one fell swoop. It just rubs me the wrong way when an editor is opposed (or neutral-ed) at RfA for one little nit-picky reason. I hated when I saw it here, but I hated it even more at Hit bull, win steak's RfA. You would withhold support over the fact that an editor doesn't have a Featured Article under their belt, but have no problem nominating yourself, when it's been shown that you have trouble understanding image policy? This doesn't sit right with me; I'd say that an understanding of policy is more important in a potential admin than something as trivial as not yet having an FA. In the interest of full disclosure, I did support Hit bull, win steak, but don't know the editor personally and have never interacted with him. But it seems that you're holding other potential admins to a much higher standard than you hold yourself. Simply put, I no longer trust this editor's judgment and initial concerns over his understanding of the image policy have been intensified. Regarding these concerns, he noted above that "I intend to familiarise myself to a greater degree with these policies if I am to be something of an example to others." Perhaps he will do this and in a few months my misgivings will be assuaged. I certainly hope so, for the reasons I initially mentioned when I supported. LincaLinca has the makings of an admin, but I believe that he is not yet ready. faithless (^speak) 07:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

   I don't believe my judgement of another person's RfA should have an affect on my own. This is my opinion, but the whole reason we go through a manner of reaching consensus in RfA rather than having a bot make the decisions is that subjectivity is at play. Should a person have a full and complete understanding of NFCC before becoming an admin? Possibly. I believe I have a great understanding of it and am delving more deeply daily to familiarise myself with the matter. Should a person have contributions that expand wikipedia towards the goal, of providing Wikipedia's "best work"? There's no criteria for RfA, but this to me is an expectation. Please note I didn't oppose hbws, I simply believe despite the volume of work done, for a fuller perspective, I believe s/he needs to have either a handful of GAs to credit or at the VERY least an FA. As I said, I wouldn't be against him/her becoming an admin, but reserve giving my support as I see this as a crutial part of administrating. In summary, you see NFCC as important, as do I, but I see contributions towards the spectrum of Wikiwork as being important, and achieving Featured status to me is very important in fulfilling a contribution to the greater scope. I don't expect to change your mind on this, but I do find it a shame that my judgement, which is based on my opinion which I believe I delivered in a civil manner (if not, PLEASE let me know), has caused you to lose faith in me. For the record, chances are that hbws will achieve Adminship. I'm hoping the gravity of my statements, either way, encourage the user to contribute in this way. --lincalinca 08:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral - because I so don't get the answer to question 5, from Carlossuarez46 (ie why not say it was a blunder to remove the notice, but instead start talking about the notability policy in question?) but it seems to be a bit harsh to oppose because of this. Greswik 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
   • To clarify, it was a blunder, but doubly so: I mistook the afd for a prod and was unaware of the newly written notability guideline for songs. --lincalinca 02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Athaenara

Final (50/8/0); Originally scheduled to end 09:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara (talk · contribs) - Athaenara has been with us since October last year, making over 11,000 quality edits. By providing third opinions, resolving BLP and COI disputes at WP:BLPN and WP:COIN respectively and other quality mainspace contributions, Athaenara has demonstrated dedication towards the project. She has proven that she can deal with the stress of imparting clue with respect to WP:BLP and WP:COI. Has clue and will not abuse the tools. MER-C 09:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: When I was first asked to consider it (see User talk:Athaenara/Archive 000#Adminship) six months ago, I thought the prod backlog needed some attention; it still does. I'm not eager to protect articles or block users, but the need for people with the tools to fulfill such duties is obvious. I don't use bots or scripts, and I don't intend to.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I participate here in the vocation of amateur scholarship. I simply try to do my best and let what I create become part of the community editorial process. I've written some articles (which I try to remember to log in Athaenara/Entries—I think this, this, this, and this aren't half bad). A year ago, I thought inline citation format was too much trouble—not only to add but to read!—but I do a lot of that now. I've been part of the third opinion project since January. I helped out a lot on COI/N and BLP/N until some computer issues slowed me down enough to notice that I'd been overdosing on the characteristic antagonism of some users with conflicts of interest.

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

A: I don't find it stressful to disagree with other editors who do as I do: read, understand and comply with this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, and observe wikiquette. I do find disruptive editing and violations of civility, no personal attacks and ownership of articles policies very stressful, however. Helpful venues include BLP/N, COI/N, RS/N, AN/I, AIV, RFC and RFC/USER.

A half-dozen examples of conflict/stress/deal:

• Aliweb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (talk archive) came to my attention via EdJohnston. The article, plagued by a few rather nasty socks, was eventually posted on COI/N; the socks have popped in only once or twice since January. (Note: I was new and more long-winded then.)
• Jim Bob Duggar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(talk archives 2 & 3) came to my attention via BLP/N . I was an outsider when it went to mediation. I still watch over it.
• Subtlety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — one editor was rather possessive; I was one of the other editors who simply backed away from it.
• Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) came to my attention via WP:3O. I don't consider it resolved, unless full article protection to stop one editor from padding the article with stuff from the organisation's webpages is resolution, and maybe it is: the currently protected version is at least neutral.
• Requests for comment/Badmonkey — another which appeared on the WP:3O radar; in stasis.
• Requests for comment/Geoeg — WP:3O again; current; needs additional outside input.

Optional question from User:Justanother

4. Athaenara, I would like to draw your attention to a rather interesting, IMO, example of your behavior under conflict. I refer to your accusing me of being mentally ill for nominating an article for deletion, a nomination that garnered quite a bit of support, I might add, although it did close as "Keep". I found that quite an insulting and totally unwarranted personal attack. I invite the community to look at your post and my reply on this thread as they evaluate your response to my query: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)#Munchausen syndrome. Athaenara, I would like you to explain your behavior in that instance and, if you defend it still, how such behavior is consistent with the qualities we look for in an admin on this project. --Justanother 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I drew an analogy [in logic, “a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects”(New Oxford American Dictionary)] about activities which I viewed as wp:point-ish.

It was not a personal accusation. — Athaenara ✉ 06:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Avruch

5. Would you add yourself to WP:Administrators open to recall?

6. Can you evaluate the utility of quoting behavior policies to editors during a content dispute? Does it contribute to dispute resolution, harden opposing positions, etc.?

7. In the context of your answer to No. 6, can you evaluate your involvement in the subtlety/entrement dispute you provided as an example of your conflict experience?

General comments

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

• Links for Athaenara: Athaenara (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

These diffs demonstrate the candidate's suitability for adminship:

• Politely helping an editor who wants to add links to articles: [21]
• Willing to mop up big messes: [22]
• Cleans up COI article and requests page protection: [23]
• Helping a newcomer: [24]
• Dealing firmly with a COI editor: [25]

I hope this helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Athaenara before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - Sure. --Tikiwont 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Per your excellent answers to the questions. I particularly like the fact that you don't use bots and intend to work "old-school style". A review of contribs looks all good to me. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  10:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - flicking through the contributions, I can find absolutely nothing to oppose. Good answers to questions, and although it would be wrong of me to base my support on edit count, 11,000 edits has undoubtedly changed this user's interpretation of Wikipedia and the effect they've had on the community, which has been excellent. Well done. Rudget _{Contributions} 11:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Why the hell not? Good luck, have fun. Moreschi ^Talk 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - of course. Addhoc 11:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - looks like a very good candidate, --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - I have had only positive experiences in all my interactions with Athaenara, I know of no one else so clearly deserving of the mop. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, yep. Neil ☎ 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Smile, I've waited a long time for Athaenara to accept. Her dilligency, fairness, and thoroughness are legendary. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, I think I'm ready to be, and you're a great deal more ready than I am. All the best! --lincalinca 13:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I know Athaenara's work at the WIkipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. She has helped clean up many unbalanced problem articles by simply rewriting them so they are shorter and more neutral. She's also a regular at Wikipedia:Third opinion where she has helped to moderate disputes. Take a look at the article she created on the American architect Martin Stern, Jr. as evidence of her abilities as an article-writer. I have no concerns at all about her becoming an admin and believe it is a well-deserved step. EdJohnston 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support An excellent candidate. It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Clearly a decent candidate. Acalamari 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support trustworthy, experienced, good answers. No doubts you need the tools. Carlosguitar 18:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
15. This vote is NOT an oppose Good user. NHRHS2010 talk 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support a fine candidate. Good luck. IrishGuy ^talk 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support - A large amount of experience, doubt will abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support why not?? Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Better late than never. MER-C 03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support I had actually thought you already had the mop. No worries here: Athaenara's got strong contributions, knows policy, and I've only had positive encounters with this editor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
22. 'Support, fine with me. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support with enthusiasm. Superb contributor, especially on WP:BLP-related articles. Having the mop can only make her an even better contributor, to the great advantage of the project. CWC 11:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support One of the best editors I've encountered. I'm sure she will make a great admin. Avb 12:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support My first encounter with this user was troubling, but it was the result of manipulation by a now permabanned sockpuppeteer, and she was a noob, so I set that aside and watched/waited for some other misbehavior upon which to pounce. None ever occurred. She has proven herself to be hard working, dedicated, and willing to do the tedious and time-consuming chores on BLPN and COIN. No reservations here. I do disagree with her about the Barbara Schwarz article, but a lot of people disagree with me on that one. (In fact, now that I am reminded, I may nom that one yet again.) - Crockspot 12:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing support until Bishonen's concerns are more adequately addressed. - Crockspot 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Switch to oppose, see below. - Crockspot 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support east.718 at 20:03, 10/27/2007
27. Support In my dealings with Athaenara she has been level headed, fair, detail oriented and well versed on WP policies and guidelines. She has no problem taking on the often very tricky situations of COI and BLP issues that others avoid. She most certainly deserves the tools and would use them well to better WP. Russeasby 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support John254 02:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support As per Crockspot and this :* Comment: Justanother has a right to oppose this or any Rfa. I don't think it helps the encyclopedia to put his opposition under a microscope or spotlight. Clearly shows that the user even with tools will not misuse them.Track is good .Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support - Per the nom. There is a dirth of Administrators on the project that have a good grasp of WP:COI and WP:COIN, and the danger this can pose to neutrality on the project. I don't mean to say a dirth out of the current Admins, just that we need even more Admins who have shown to be specifically cognizant of conflict of interest issues. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
31. Support - Good work at BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Need more users who are willing to spend time with BLPs. Phgao 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Jmlk17 07:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support - excellent work in undermanned areas. Give the lady a broom mop (the slip must be because it's October). Durova^Charge! 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
35. It's about time, get her the tools already! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support I see no compelling reason that the candidate couldn't be trusted. Good work so far! VanTucky ^Talk 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support, because of all the work I have seen at WP:3O. User:Krator (t c) 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support thanks for all the great work you're doing, and I'm sure you'll do more as an admin --Pumpmeup 04:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support, helping the 'pedia grow..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support - especially regarding her response to justanother's oppose. More level headedness, and politeness, not less. --Rocksanddirt 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - careful, respectful, polite, smart, organized; cool under pressure; with a history of effective volunteering at project-stress-points like COI, BLP, and 3O. And most importantly, proven to be worthy of community trust. --Parsifal _Hello 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - Looks like this user could be trusted with admin tools, but I would feel more at ease if she were subject to recall, as I think all admins should be as a matter of policy.--Fahrenheit451 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support won't abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 23:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support. No significant concerns for me. All my interactions with this editor have been positive. -- Satori Son 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. A. is a strong contributor who will no doubt find creative applications of the mop and pail. Sunray 08:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support - Although I agree with George that the exchange he posted in his neutral vote is disturbing, it happened five months ago. I hope this isn't the kind of behavior we'll see if adminship is granted; I expect not. Lara❤Love 15:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. I took some time to consider this candidate and the opposition. After reading over the links and surrounding context, I can accept that explanation that the mental illness analogy was just that ... an analogy. There are broad generic behaviors associated with the illness that in Anthaenara's view matched up with behavioral/editing patterns. At worst, I might say she's a little quick to pull out the spade when sitting at the table. I do not believe the sysop bit would be abused, nor that the net effect of giving her the sysop bit would be negative. Quite the contrary, I think Anthaenara groks policy and our goals perfectly well, including what admins should and shouldn't do. All in all, she fits my standards. Vassyana 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
48. yes.--Snakese 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support I am reinstating a previously striken support. I think the Bishonen issue was a combination of a bit of misunderstanding, coupled with the clashing of strong personalities. The candidate has a tendency to get her hackles up when rubbed the wrong way, which I cannot really fault too badly, as I tend to react similarly. I do not think that she will abuse the tools, but I will caution her to try to be more patient and humble with editors, especially in situations where she will be using the admin tools. - Crockspot 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. She won't abuse the tools, and has a very high edit count. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I had hoped that Athaenara would have had the grace to apologize for her graceless "analogy" but she apparently does not. By her own admission, she finds dealing with what strikes her as problematic "very stressful, however." In my case I found that she attacked me without having, as far as I could see, any previous interaction with me, any familiarity with my editing, and no great experience with the article or the subject area, a complex one (Scientology) fraught with POV and other problems. I had hoped that she had the ability to make peace when it would cost little to make peace. Instead she acted the pedant . . . again. To put it colloquially, she is wound too tight and too quick on the trigger to be trusted with the admin powers. Based on my experience and her response here, I must oppose. I had actually hoped to do otherwise. --Justanother 12:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Justanother, you certainly have been involved in many controversies due to your desire to protect Wikipedia from anti-Scientology POV pushing. Athaenara is extremely reasonable and doesn't get excited. Even though she criticized you, perhaps deservedly, you should realize that she would also protect you from the unfair abuse you have experienced from time to time. She represents what Wikipedia is supposed to be.- Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Justanother, do you have an example of a page or talk page (a specific edit would be even better) to substantiate this? I'm not denying you, but I want to know the gravity of your claims before I continue my support, and whether I believe there's enough weight in your argument. --lincalinca 14:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Please see my optional question (or here is the link). She floated this mental illness analogy on WP:BLPN and I tried to defuse it there by making light in a friendly fashion as I had very little, if any, contact with her previously and did not suppose that she was going to start insulting me but then she repeated it in the midst of a very contentious AfD, effectively drawing attention away from the subject at hand and putting it on me personally. That sort of activity has a chilling effect and is something I would expect from a POV-pusher, not an experienced and supposedly "reasonable and intelligent" editor and admin-hopeful. It is of note that her "Munchausen syndrome" insult was picked up and continued (here) by a POV-pushing WP:SPA, User:Orsini, in what I can only liken to schoolyard bullying where one bully comes up with a "really good put-down" and the other bullies take up the chant, complete with calling me and others that supported the AfD "the Munchies" in true schoolyard fashion (here). Athaenara was involved in that Orsini talk page thread and so was aware of what use her words were being put to yet she made no effort to moderate. I gave her the opportunity here to make peace with me here as I was obviously insulted and concerned but she chose to be obstinate. I do not think we need more obstinate self-righteous admins around here. --Justanother 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Did you go directly to her and make her aware of how her words had been taken up to bully you? I think that if you had, she would have told the other editor to knock it off. Consider that as an editor with 10,000 edits, she does a lot of editing and may not remember each and every word she uses, so she might not have recognized things as well as you did. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Jehochman, my displeasure with that mental illness remark was evident on the AfD talk page and, as far as I could tell, she had joined the bullies. That self-same AfD talk thread, further on, illustrates how I deal with mistakes on my part. I feel very strongly that if you make a mistake then you admit it and if you come on too strong then you apologize and back down. Rigidity, an inability to admit an error, an inability to reconsider and perhaps back away from a position taken are, IMO, disqualifying qualities for an admin candidate. No matter how intelligent the editor. --Justanother 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, I forgot about this: I actually extended an olive branch to her after the AfD was over (here) but she refused my peace offering here. Speaks very succinctly to my concerns about her. Self-righteous. Obstinate. --Justanother 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'd take this offline, but I believe it needs to be addressed here in defence of Athaenara: I don't think that either of you treated the matter "ideally", however accepting an apology isn't a requirement of civility. She didn't abrupty turn and violate anything like that, she didn't bite your head off. She politely removed your addition of your apology, and I understand why she did: you didn't actually apologise. You refered for her to look at a disclaimer as a substitute for giving her an adequate (i.e. human) apology. Please don't take offence to this, but I'd be much inclined to respond in kind (maybe not delete the post, but I would ignore it). Her comments on the Conflict of Interest boards don't strike me as being salacious. Your response could, however, be seen as being either arrogant, flippant or simply rude. I know your intent (based on what you've said before) was to try to lighten the mood. I do that too, but I would suggest approaching diong this with caution and all sense of tact intact, as I'm certain it wasn't seen by others as lighthearted. In short, though not "ideal" I don't see her actions as not being civil or fair. Your actions I do see as being easily able to be construed as rude, irrespective of your intent. I do wish you the best with your editing, but based on what I've seen here today, I do hope our paths don't cross too frequently, personally. --lincalinca 15:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   My peace offering was just that, an offering. A clear invitation to "bury the hatchet". That she refused to open a dialogue with me speaks to her personality and, barring some visible change, as far as I am concerned, earns her an oppose vote. As far as my attitude in general and whether you would want to cross paths with me, well let me simply point out that I edit generally in what I call the Master's Series of Tendentious Editing and it takes a thick skin. Much much more in the past like during that AfD than now, for which I credit my persistence and the interest of neutral editors and admins. Back then I had endured bullying and harassment from my initial appearance here and at the time of the AfD was being hit hard by at least 6-7 bullies as I was AfD'ing the insulting article on their alt.religion.scientology nemesis. My temper was short and I was generally intolerant of insults directed at me. Following the AfD I changed my behavior as regarded rising to bait and apologized to the non-bullies. My offering to Athaenara was an acknowledgement that she was probably not a bully but might have been put off by my response to what I still see as a totally inappropriate personal attack "analogy". Cheers. --Justanother 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: Justanother has a right to oppose this or any Rfa. I don't think it helps the encyclopedia to put his opposition under a microscope or spotlight. — Athaenara ✉ 17:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   (Not that the sideshow is really helping, either  ;-) — Athaenara ✉ 14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   I have no intention to defame Justanother, I just thought I'd point out how I construe the situation. I don't believe he (or she) is a poor editor. On the contrary, I'm quite impressed by JA's edits, but I don't want to be trying to cross the street when he's driving by. And JA, you're exactly right in that WP:TE is a very touchy area and it requires something of a juxtaposition to be able to write the article carefully and also to be able to accept that many will be dissatisfied with what you do because they have their own views and opinions, but you state that you require thick skin, and I'm just say you might want to work on your calluses in some areas. Otherwise, I think your contributions are magnificent. --lincalinca 04:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Lincalinca confuse Justanother with JustaHulk. Justanother total pussycat. JustaHulk NOT BAD. JustaHulk too busy to edit much now. --JustaHulk 13:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I've checked out the Justanother issue—see Justanother's Oppose just above, and the Optional Question 4—and Athaenara's post on Justanother actually looks like a personal, un-adminlike, and nasty attack to me, despite her statement that it was a mere analogy. I hope you'll all look for yourselves at Athaenara's comment in the thread Justanother links to—this one—and form your own opinions. Note also User:Orsini's comment in the same brief thread, in support of "Athaenara's assessment and comments". Orsini clearly takes Athenara's assessment to be that Justanother suffers from the Munchausen syndrome ("I also hope the Munchausen syndrome passes away quickly"). Athaenara, if you had had any problem with Orsini endorsing you in such a way, I assume you would have protested against his post, somehow, wouldn't you? But you didn't comment further.

   Also, I've checked out most of the diffs you posted in response to Standard Question 3—the more recent examples, starting with the the Geoeg RFC at the bottom and working upwards, running out of steam around the Subtlety issue. Thanks for posting such an ample collection, it made it easier to make a good check of your claims to personal wikiquette and dispute resolution skills. I have to report, though, that I don't really see any very admin-like "dealing" in those examples, any more than I do in the Justanother conflict. Here's my list, reversing the order of yours, so as to get the most recent stuff first:

   1. Requests for comment/Geoeg The evidence from you of conflict resolution at the Geoeg RFC consists overwhelmingly of a) policy citations, and b) very hostile posts. Now b), your hostility, may be very well deserved by Geoeg, as that editor seems highly unconstructive, but does either a) or b) ever actually work towards dispute resolution, in your experience? It was bona fide dispute resolution that you were supposed to give examples of at that RFC, and it's DR I'm interested in at this RFA. I clicked on all your diffs at the Geoeg RFC, and can see no bona fide attempt at reaching out. Instead, this is a typical post.

   2. Requests for comment/Badmonkey. Either I'm missing something, or else there isn't really any input by you worth mentioning here.

   3. Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As you point out yourself, there is also very little to this.

   4. Subtlety. I'm sorry, here's that reliance on policy citations again. I can only agree with your opponent Peter Isotalo— the editor you call "rather possessive"— that You're supposed to make an attempt to argue your case before you start bonking people over the head with policy citations.. I'm a little surprised to see you post this talkpage discussion as an example of how well you deal with disagreement.

   Many of the examples above give me pause, especially your over-reliance on telling people they're breaching some policy—you obviously know a lot of policies—but do you ever actually find it helpful to simply refer your opponent to WP:OWN, WP:CIV, and other perennial favorites? Especially with experienced editors, who have probably already heard of them? Plus, the one thing that really tips the scales for me is this rejection of Justanother's apology. Coming from a would-be admin, that is one terrible diff. Strong oppose at this time. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC). PS. Dammit, could somebody please fix the formatting of the above discussion so the automatic count works?

   Formatting fixed! You need to start every paragraph with a "#". Neil ☎ 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Comment in the interest of full disclosure: my only previous encounter with Bishonen is archived here. — Athaenara ✉ 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Ah, I was looking for that—I knew we'd met! There's so little context to the exchange you link to, though, that even I, who was involved in it, can't make a lot of sense of it any more. If you want people to understand what we were talking about, you'd probably better explain it to them. Is that the whole of your comment on my oppose, though? I did ask you some questions above. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

3. Oppose. It seems I once made this edit concerning the candidiate "Your rhetoric (if that is what you wanted it to be) was misplaced and misguided. Your speculation as to whether I was working alone or in collusion was offensive and totally missed the point which is to improve wikipedia's standards. That is my goal - I sincerely hope that is also your aim. In short do not make clever snide little comments unless you want them addressed and are sure of your facts. Giano 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)" Since that date I have yet to see anything to alter my opinion that the candidate is far too naive and inexperienced to be an admin. Her inexperience and naivity would cause mayhem. Giano 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose - It brings me no pleasure to switch to oppose, but the inadequate and/or nonexistent response to legitimate concerns is troubling. I do appreciate the hard work she has done, but as we all know, hard work is not an entitlement to adminship. Attitude, humility, the ability to deal effectively with opposition, and the ability to weather and address criticism are all just as important. There are a few days left, and I can still be swayed back. - Crockspot 15:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose Civility concerns; comparing Wikipedia processes with mental illness, and referring to policy instead of engaging in real debate, are not automatically show-stoppers for me but they do give me pause. Per Crockspot above I can probably still potentially be swayed, but on the evidence presented I have to oppose. Sorry. --John 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Opppose I have a really hard time with this edit, blowing off an apology like this is bad form for an editor and unacceptable in an admin.[26] (No - RV'd)?? RxS 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per [[27]]. The habit of throwing acronyms in lieu of discussion is the very definition of a power trip. Cooperative editing is cooperative, not petulant, and the matter at talk:Subtlety, which the candidate still has not seen the error of, betrays a really fundamental misunderstanding. I fear that, without changing her mind about how to cooperate with authors, we will end up with some trouble. No one needs abasement from the candidate, but no one needs another administrator attempting to rule, either. Geogre 11:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Athaenara barged into the subtlety/entremet conflict and for the most part played only a ruleslawyering game. The only thing resembling a factual argument from Athaenara was this along with a citation of an online article on medieval cuisine written by an amateur scholar belonging to an American Richard III Society. Though somewhat useful, it was still full of errors and hardly an appropriate piece of literature to pit against the multiple print sources cited at the time. Simply making oneself heard in a discussion doesn't grant you the right to revert and obstruct at will. And after seeing this I seriously doubt Athaenera's ability and willingness to compromise. With only one day to go it appears that Athaenera has enough support votes to make an admin anyway, and this behavior smacks of politicking rather than any honest attempts to smooth things over. Peter ^Isotalo 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose based on the subtlety/entremet affair and concerns per Bishonen. Athaenara seems to be a very good editor, but she clearly has dispute resolution difficulties and trouble dealing with direct and civil opposition. I don't think it is appropriate to accuse someone of WP:OWN for reverting their own text in favor of a newer version that reflects a more accurate understanding of the subject. I'm especially disturbed by the fact that she made no substantive contributions on the topic itself, only quoting supposed policy violations. That isn't the attitude Wikipedia needs in admins, even with the coming November flood. Avruch^Talk 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Hey, people, please look at this, [[28]]. I didn't do it as a hidden thingie. I find her behavior pretty reprehensible, here. One person says, "You're taking an insupportable position," and the other says, "WP:OWN." The first person patiently comes back with, "Can you please talk about your position?" The other comes back with, "Ha ha OWN." The first again says, "Why do you want to make this change?" The other again comes back with.... It's positively weird. One person is researching like mad, and the other is hurling a pot of alphabet soup. What's more, there is, so far from an explanation or apology or promise to do better, an offering of this as proof of how good she is? Eeek. I've already experienced this stuff, myself -- hand full of research notes, screens of material, carefully writing, and then someone with a wild hair starts telling me that it must be that person's way (i.e. that person should get to own it) or I'm trying to own it. Bah. Geogre 10:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Accounting4Taste

Final (47/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC). Nominion successful. --Deskana (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs) - Fellow editors, I am proud to offer up for adminship Accounting4Taste hereafter known as A4T. Originally joining us back in April, A4T has amassed well over 5,000 edits (for those who like to count 'em!) that are nicely spread across the project. A review of his contributions should show the following;

Article Work

• Substantial additions to his field of interest - Ellery Queen and Perry Mason and related articles.
• Associated article talk page comments evidencing his desire to collaborate.

Speedy Deletion Work

• Admins will be able to verify, but A4T has amassed nearly 1,500 deleted edits since the end of August through his accurate tagging of articles as candidates for speedy deletion.
• A4T also makes efforts to revisit to check on his tagging and possibly change his mind.[29]
• A4T advises the creating editor accordingly.

WP:AFD Work

• A look through his contributions shows substantial commitment at AFD. Pleasingly A4T brings real value to the table - citing firm policy reasons for his comments.

Housekeeping Items

• Clean block log
• Contributions to WP:AIV showing understanding of the process leading to a preventative block
• WP:HELPDESK contributions
• A civil manner evidenced by talk page and his use of welcome templates along with Speedy Deletion warnings
• Edit summary usage was generally okay, and has been spot on for the last couple of months.
• Un-offensive user page
• Sensible Signature
• E-mail enabled

All, I firmly believe A4T is a polite, modest and dedicated editor. His generous commitment here can only be furthered by allowing him access to administrative tools, and I hope that the community will find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro :  Chat  07:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination with pleasure. Accounting4Taste 04:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I started by doing random page patrol, then new page patrol, which led me to articles for deletion, and those areas have been where most of my “backstage” work has been done. I think those would be good areas to start working from the other side of the coin, to see how decisions by editors are carried out by administrators. So I would get started by doing speedy deletions and closing out AfD discussions, I expect. I’m not sure exactly where I will contribute in the future... I wouldn’t have known at the outset that I would enjoy contributing to AfD, but I do. I have experimented with the help desk and deletion review, and those areas also interest me. I think that gaining a well-rounded view of all of Wikipedia’s functions would be the most sensible thing, and then I could lend a hand where needed; I suspect that a year from now I will be doing something of which I’m only vaguely aware at the moment.

I can definitely say that I intend to be a very cautious administrator while I learn the ropes. I will not be handing out blocks or deleting new pages willy-nilly; having the privileges of the mop will make me more determined to make sure that whatever I do reflects well on Wikipedia.

I haven’t learned enough about other areas to contribute yet, but I’m interested in improving some Wikipedia policies that I don’t think are sufficiently detailed, such as WP:MOVIE and WP:PORNBIO. I’m also interested in helping new users create articles using article templates -- I think, for instance, new users need a template to help them create articles about fictional characters that span multiple media platforms. I’m also interested in Wikipedia:Third opinion and similar functions because I found that one helpful as a newbie.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In terms of editorial contributions, I think Ellery Queen has been my best and most thorough work, although my user page lists a number of articles connected with detective fiction that I think I have improved; Erle Stanley Gardner/Perry Mason, Phoebe Atwood Taylor, Clayton Rawson, and some general mystery-oriented articles. I’m a member of the crime fiction task force.

As I’ve done backstage tasks around Wikipedia, I have gleaned a couple of basic principles that seem worthwhile tenets: they are (1) the bottom line is improving Wikipedia, and (2) work to retain every editor who cares to contribute. So in one sense, I do my best work when I keep those principles at the front of my mind. When I first encountered AfD, for instance, I thought the best way to contribute was to ruthlessly delete almost everything. Since then, I’ve taken pleasure in saving some articles from deletion by researching them and contributing citations, etc., to them... perhaps I started as a stern deletionist, but over time I have become more and more inclusionist. Principle (1) tells me to get rid of crap quickly, but also to improve articles that are worth saving. Principle (2) tells me to get rid of incorrigible vandals quickly, but also welcome people who might start out by introducing some nonsense words to an article, just to see how it works, because they may stay and contribute. I was very impressed by the statistic that most of the basic work of creating new pages is done by new editors, and I want to facilitate that. So some of the best work I’ve done for Wikipedia is in connection with explaining Wikipedia policy to newbies; some stay, some don’t.

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

A: In my early days with Wikipedia, I ran up against another editor in connection with a page that I’d hit with the “Random page” button and tried to improve -- Mark Kirk (convict). I found an article that I felt was quite overboard with POV and cut it back to a neutral stub -- the other editor put it all back and tried to convince me that the POV material was NPOV. I let it stand, but put a (disputed) tag on it, which he removed. That surprised me, and made me a little angry, but I decided to take advantage of a Wikipedia mechanism for dealing with such situations and asked for a third opinion. The assistance I got in that context led me to really research an article in which I had little natural interest and try to make it both well-researched and neutral; whatever emotions had been aroused, I tried to channel into making the article better, and that led me to principle (1) above; the bottom line is improving Wikipedia. I learned that it wasn’t about my ego or my emotions, it was about making the article better.

Just recently I had a conflict with a fairly new editor who has had an intermittent and contentious history with Wikipedia. I had made quite a few contributions to Philo Vance and when it showed up on my watchlist as having been blanked without an edit summary, I restored it and, noticing that the editor had started on Wikipedia about the same time as I had, gave him the benefit of the doubt and left him a message that assumed that it had been an accident. When he blanked it twice more in the next five minutes, I actually thought his account had been hijacked, and when he replaced the entire article with his own creation (in need of serious wikification, with all the exterior references removed and the links broken, no edit summary and quite a bit of original research by synthesis, IMHO) I freaked out for a few minutes and left him a note that was, in retrospect, angrier than it should have been. Then I took a few deep breaths and realized that this editor wanted to contribute, thought he WAS contributing, and decided to do two things -- back away, and indicate that I wanted to cooperate to make the article better. I also had to let go of any lingering feeling that it was somehow “my” article, because there’s no such thing. I may not be able to help that particular editor contribute, but now I know how to deal with that situation.

I figure if I get stressed about what I’m doing here in the future, I just have to reorient myself to those two principles and the right path will sort itself out, which will relieve my stress. If it doesn’t, I’ve learned that there are a few friendly editors here who can lend a hand if I find myself confused. And if nothing else works, I can always take a wiki-break.

General comments

• See Accounting4Taste's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Accounting4Taste: Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Accounting4Taste before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support per my nomination. Pedro :  Chat  07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support for the favorable impression I already had back then when the 3PO issue mentioned in Q3 took place as well as the nomination. --Tikiwont 08:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Heh, Pedro sees no problems, I certainly trust his judgment, and the user seems to be competent in all facets of the 'pedia! Phgao 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support excellent user. I seem to recall, very long ago, alerting A4T to some small point of policy he had slipped up about (very small - don't bother go looking for it in order to oppose :p) and he reacted extremely quickly, politely and pleasantly. Wonderful thing to see in a user. Bonus points for great answers. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 10:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - Has been recognised by the community, so yes! Rudget _{Contributions} 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - I trust Pedro, and A4T appears to be a very experienced user who is unlikely to abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 12:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support with pleasure. My encounters with this editor's work (primarily at the help desk and CSDs) gives me strong confidence that he will make good use of the tools. Every time I've encountered him and in what I see in his contribution logs, he is extremely polite and helpful, and he seems meticulous about user notifications, which in terms of CSDs I think has an important function in keeping new contributors active in the face of a first, disappointing experience. I believe under the circumstances his confusion about the behavior of the other editor involved at Philo Vance is understandable; in the absence of an edit summary or response to notes, repeated blanking of the page is hard to interpret in a positive light. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Strong Support A very excellent editor who has remained civil and respectful to other users. It is my pleasure to support this great contributor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support east.718 at 14:59, 10/26/2007
11. Support. Deb 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Good candidate. Acalamari 17:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. The candidate is a good, helpful member of the community and has made solid editorial contributions. Majoreditor 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support nothing is wrong with this user. NHRHS2010 talk 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support per all. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Impressive. Jauerback 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support I see A4T on AFD quite frequently, always making positive contributions. A scan of the last couple pages of his contribs yields quite satisfactory results, and as some others have mentioned, answers to questions are impressive as well. Good luck, man! GlassCobra 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Why not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - Great job, you definitely deserve to be a sysop.   jj137 (Talk) 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Will be fine admin. - Darwinek 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Qualified, to say the least. --Sharkface217 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Speechless! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Strong Support Solid contributor, amazingly insightful, and possessed of a great deal of civility and respect for others. I have no doubt at all that A4T will make a fine admin. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support experienced user which needs of the tools. Carlosguitar 06:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support He's doing very well--sensible and willing to learn.DGG (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support, I recognise the name from AFDs and his contributions there already outweigh any reasons I might oppose for. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong Support Answers are good and I've observed excellent judgment in AfDs. Pig^man 17:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
28. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support As per Riana ,Moonriddengirl and Track is good .In particular your detective editing is very good.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support John254 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support As per the impressive amount of work shown in the nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
32. Support A respected editor who certainly will not abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    Strong Support per Pedro. Plus my dream girl just rejected me and flew away on a jet plane. Okay, that's irrelevant. Would be nice for someone to get what they want though, and Accounting4Taste is a worthy one. 203.220.12.229 04:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    Anon vote struck out. Jmlk17 07:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

33. Support. Per everyone's reasoning. • Lawrence Cohen 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Jmlk17 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Looks solid. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Quickie Support on the integrity of everyone else's supports --Pumpmeup 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support evidence of coordinated 'pedia building a definite plus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. This guy looks good to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. I have seen this editor around a few times and i think he has all the requisite qualities to be an admin. Woodym555 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
40. the_undertow ^talk 06:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support this editor has been super active in new page patrolling. Carlossuarez46 23:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - The data Pedro posted of A4T's contribs (in response to Mikka's oppose), has left me with the impression that this editor's contributions are constructive and improve the encyclopedia. I trust he'll make a good admin. Lara❤Love 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Strong Support per contribs, record, and association with a good admin, as well as another really solid admin candidate, whose record I researched a bit deeper. K. Scott Bailey 01:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
44. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. No evidence against them. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
46. Support, seems to be a good candidate. --Coredesat 05:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
47. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with deletion backlogs – Gurch 06:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Brief scroll thru last 1000 edits shows that like 90% of his work is greeting of newcommers and other non-encyclopedic work. To be an admin a person mut have a real feeling what it means to write an article and to take part in a dozen of edit disagreements. `'Míkka 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   I intend no offense with this at all, but I just wanted to point out that I think A4T has twice as many mainspace edits as talk edits. (And the bulk of those welcomes seem to result from new page patrolling. I.e., leaving combo speedy/welcome notes). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Míkka You are certainly kind to comment here but I think you have not reviewed his contributions in full light. Extracting the data into Excel reveals from the last 1,000 contributions 346 to WP:AFD and 101 actual article building contributions (i.e. not vandalism reversion.) Yes there are a lot of welcome notes - but these are only associated with the speedy deletion tag that has been applied to the editors article. To assert that 90% of the last 1,000 contributions are "welcoming editors" is clearly inaccurate - actually 0% is the figure if you ignored the welcomes that the candidate made whilst warning the user in a civil fashion about the proposed speedy deletion of their article. Re-consider? Pedro :  Chat  08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   I find this flurrly of accusations wildly disgusting. I am entitled to my opinion and I explained why. You wrote: "from the last 1,000 ... 101 actual article building" - do the math - only 10% is actual editing, the rest (i.e., 90%) is "greetings and other non-encyclopedic work". And I didn't even use the excel - the extremely low level of content building is glaring. With such lax attitude to adding new admins, no wonder we have more and more administritis instead of actual article writing. And yes, I opposed several FRAs for the same reason: this influx of underqualified "police academy" is quite worrisome to me. And this is what I am exactly trying to achieve: higher standards for admins. And I am doing this in the only way possible: opposing to those I see unfit. `'Míkka 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   You're welcome to your opinion, just as others are welcome to disagree with you. Tossing around AGF links while simultaneously reverting good-faithed messages as "wikilawyering" [30] isn't the most constructive attitude to have, though I'm more than willing to let it go, as you've at least fully explained your opposition (which was my only purpose in leaving you a note). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   "You're welcome to your opinion" - very thank you, and my opinion is that supplying each and every my vote with a recommendation to ignore it is thoroughly disgusting. I gave my reasons, and this circus with my voting only reaffirms them. What is more, I will consider opposing to each and every self-nom: I don't think people with administritis itch improve wikipedia. `'Míkka 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   The candidates excellent all round abilities would be clearly demonstrated by reviewing his contributions fully, rather than your "Brief scroll thru". If you can't be bothered to do that then it's up to you. I'm sure the closing 'crat will give due balance to this thread and your concerns. Let's move on. Pedro :  Chat  15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   OK I scanned thru 3,000 cotribs. the impression didn't change: not enough content-building experience. `'Míkka 16:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough. If that's your oppose rationale then that's all good with me. Pedro :  Chat  16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Wenli

Final (19/15/4); Scheduled to end 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wenli (talk · contribs) - This user has made 2500 contribs to Wikipedia, armed and ready for combat, and has no edit war history. Its personal interests are wikifying articles, fixing typos and reverting vandalism. -Goodshoped 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to assist mainly with deletion nominations, particularly the Articles for deletion, speedy deletions, and proposed deletions. I have been a regular AfD participant, and have tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion, which have all since been deleted. In addition, I will also help out with clearing other administrative backlogs, such as WP:AIV, WP:AN3 and WP:UAA. As I become more experienced as an administrator, I will expand in the admin work that I partake in.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I feel that my best contributions are with Wikipedia maintenance, mainly with the typo team and WikiProject Wikify. I have regularly cleaned up and rewrote neglected pages, especially those on the dead-end pages list. I have used tools such as AutoWikiBrowser effectively (to help the community, of course), and I plan on using the administrative tools in the same manner. I've also contributed a significant amount to Microsoft Windows stubs.

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

A: I have been involved in several minor conflicts with users over my vandalism reverts or my edits in general. However, I have always stayed WP:COOL and responded to these conflicts in a reasonable and understanding manner. As an administrator, I will always keep in mind that I can make mistakes, and I will assume good faith and keep an open mind when dealing with conflicts.

Optional Questions

4. What subjects/articles do you/have you actively contributed to? Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I believe that I have covered this in question 2, but to clarify, I have contributed most actively to the Wikipedia maintenance WikiProjects. If you're looking for a specific subject, I feel that I have contributed the most to WikiProject Microsoft Windows, where I have greatly improved many of the stubs (example).

5. What do you want Wikipedia to be in the future? Marlith ^T/C 22:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I think that the most feasible and important goal for Wikipedia at this time is to improve the quality (specifically, the style, tone, and grammar) of its articles. There are approximately 2,300 articles in need of copyediting, and 7,100 uncategorized articles as of now. Wikipedia's factual accuracy is questioned by many. These (and many other quality-related problems) clearly need to be addressed in order for Wikipedia to become the world's most reliable free knowledge repository.

6. What are your opinions about Wikipedia's recent move to allow anons to create pages? FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Well, I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I do believe that the current system (which isn't the original system) has been working fine for almost three years. Roughly half of the ~4,000 articles created every day are deleted, and it's only going to increase with Wikipedia's rapid growth. More new articles will contribute to the already heavy maintenance backlogs ({{wikify}}, {{uncategorized}}, etc.) as well as increase the AfD backlog, which currently sits at around 219 articles. I don't think that we need any more new pages at this time.

I think he was referring to this. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I misunderstood the question. I have rewritten my answer. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Wenli: Wenli (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wenli before commenting.

Discussion

• "I have regularly cleaned up and rewrote neglected pages". I question this user's copyediting skills. :) *Cremepuff222* 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you give examples?Balloonman 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Examples are embedded... Its rewritten. Avruch^Talk 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I support, because she/he has been in Wikipedia for a time, and has contributed 2500+ edits, and fights vandalism. -Goodshoped 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. I would trust this user with the mop, I am sure he will be dedicated enough to contribute well. Marlith ^T/C 02:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. We need more admins. I trust this user. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Good, solid editor. Nice example of a qualified editor with a lower count. I really hope this passes. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Looks good. T Rex | talk 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak Support - You say you fight vandalism and revert typos, but you've had little experience at AIV and no edits at ANI (See:talk page). These are two key areas for admins to work in. Rudget _{Contributions} 11:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Weak Support - Not a great amount of experience, but doubt he would abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 11:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support, nothing suggests an inability to cope with the buttons. This made me chuckle, for some reason. Neil ☎ 12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support I would trust this user with the tools. Very unlikely that this user will abuse the tools given to him. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support east.718 at 14:59, 10/26/2007
11. A fine user; should be a good administrator. Acalamari 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Good user who deserves the mop. NHRHS2010 talk 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support Fine user! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 18:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

14. Support I think will be a good admin and I find the oppose arguments weak. Sumoeagle179 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Weak support, cancelling out ca. one quarter of one of the less well-founded opposes (take your pick). — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong Support. for ^(expletive)'s sake, you'd think we're all beyond the whole I-trust-him-but-I-don't-want-him-to-have-the-mop-for-the-pettiest-reason thing aren't we? This user obviously has Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and I'm sure will do a fine job with the mop. Good on you for trying to make a difference and putting your hand up to help. Good luck! --Pumpmeup 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support -- Wenli has enough edits to satisfy my tastes, and seems to be trusted by the community. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support The opposers bring up nothing concerning, and as far as I can tell, this is an otherwise good candidate. Majorly (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
20.  — H₂O —  08:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose For starters, let me just say that I am not one to oppose. But quite simply I feel I must make a point here. My predominant concern is that of a lack of general experience, not only in mainspace, but also among the clockwork and policies of Wikipedia. I fail to see much, indeed any discussion as do I see little concrete editing. Most mainspace edits are AWB sweeps, inasmuch as the contributions are concerned. A fairly low edit count coupled with a lack of general experience is a no-no IMHO. Don’t take it bluntly but I do, quite frankly, feel that you would profit from a little more understanding. Furthermore, I note you have had little experience at AIV and no edits at ANI (as Rudget already mentioned). Consider some article writing too. One of the cornerstones of adminship is an all-embracing, all-inclusive and wide-ranging acquaintance with the “clockwork” of Wikipedia, something which I can’t seem to find in your contributions at the moment. -- Chris B • talk 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm curious to what you mean by "article writing". Would you like to see me creating more articles, editing articles... — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. The candidate needs more experience, per Chris. Some article-writing would be helpful as well. Majoreditor 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   WP:Editcountitis Marlith ^T/C 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Majoreditor's oppose has nothing to do with the number of edits that Wenli has made. It is not editcountitis. NHRHS2010 talk 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   As with Chris, I'm wondering what you mean by "article-writing". — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   In the Wikipedia context, "article-writing" is defined as taking an article that does not currently exist, or one that is very poorly written, and creating it or making it better. --Agüeybaná 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Well, using that definition, I believe that I have done plenty of article writing. Please take a look at the example that I gave below DGG's comment. Here's another example. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose — I agree, to some degree, with Chris. I don't see any signs of discussion, collaborative work, dispute resolution, or contribution to the mainspace. I don't think you're ready at the moment. --Agüeybaná 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Though I do not have any arbitrary standards here, i do not see any substantial work with articles in mainspace. That's the basic part of the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Regarding my mainspace contributions, I feel that I have done many substantial edits on articles, but as Mr.Z-man said, they may be hard to see because they're inserted between many AWB edits. Here's an example. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   That doesn't look like much of a rewrite. The article only consisted of one paragraph before your edit, and to me the only changes you made were re-wording the already-existing paragraph. It did improve the article, yes, but it didn't look like a "substantial" re-write to me. That's not why I opposed; see my post below to see why I opposed you. I just thought I'd throw my two cents into this argument. Ksy92003(talk) 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for your honest opinion; I'll be sure to work on it. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   as someone else mentioned below, the examples you have given are good examples of small-scale minor editing, but not of substantial article writing. I don't think I'm being unreasonable-- this is one of the very few times i have opposed over quantity of mainspace edits, but writing articles is after all the basis of the project.DGG (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

5. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   As I have described in question 1, I believe that my significant contributions to AfD show my understanding of policy in that area (which I will be taking part in as an admin). I also feel that the other work that I have done (such as tagging pages for speedy deletion and maintenance) also reflect my understanding of policy. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   With just 252 edits in Wikipedia namespace I honestly find it hard to believe that you have significant contributions to AFD. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose Just not quite there on experience yet, but that will be remedied with time. Jmlk17 07:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Could I trust this user with the tools? No, as they have not the knowledge and experience for me to do so. The only way to gain the necessary policy knowledge is to go out and get your hands dirty with contributing, and I just don't see enough of that. VanTucky ^Talk 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Inexperience generally, and arguments about "specialisation" aren't really appropriate given we don't hand out only one of the three in the set. Daniel 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose. When somebody makes a comment about lack of experience and quality mainspace edits, you should provideyour more substanitive works. Examples that show that the allegation was unfounded. Examples that show that you have made quality edits in the mainspace. When you provide examples, I expect to see something profound. Instead you provided these example and example. That combined with the other opposes, lead me to oppose based on lack of experience.Balloonman 01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose– User needs a bit more experience in handling AfD and similar areas before I can trust them with the ability to close them. Ksy92003(talk) 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose. sorry - the example cited under the neutral vote below does nothing for my confidence that this person is helping the 'pedia grow. Even then I could be swayed by some DYKs or GA but none are forthcoming -contributions in Q2 above are somewhat vague and perfunctory sounding. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose lack of experience at the coalface. Pete.Hurd 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose largely per the contribs highlighted below. Blind deletionism combined with little interest demonstrated in article work is not a combination that I can support. --JayHenry 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose - not quite there in edit count, especially in substantive mainspace edits, and per above concerns re: AfD. Please request again in a couple of months, when I have more evidence. Bearian 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose - lack of real contribution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note that Mikka has reverted criticism of her !votes from her talkpage as 'wikilawyering.' I'm not sure how wikilawyering applies, since policy wasn't the basis of the critical comments... But some people have a low tolerance for constructive criticism. Avruch^Talk 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Users are free to remove any and all comments they like from their talk page as they see fit - see WP:DRRC. Daniel 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    That's an essay and as such is non-binding. Stifle (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - leaning toward oppose. Your significant mainspace edits (inserted occasionally between a few dozen AWB edits) are good. You have signficant AFD experience, but I am a bit concerned, especially with things like this:

   01:07, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Spiegel‎ (→Jeffrey Spiegel - Delete)

   01:07, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOOOH - Get Out of Our House‎ (→GOOOH - Get Out of Our House - Delete)

   01:06, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The revolution theory‎ (→The revolution theory - Delete)

   01:05, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anima Banner‎ (→Anima Banner - Delete)

   01:04, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainers related to academics (2nd nomination)‎ (→List of entertainers related to academics - Delete)

   01:04, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Rhodes‎ (→Damien Rhodes - Delete)

   01:02, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Blates‎ (→DJ Blates - Delete)

   01:02, September 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jude Stringfellow‎ (→Jude Stringfellow - Delete)

   (There are more, this is just a sample) In the space of 6 minutes, you reviewed 8 articles? 3 of your comments were just "delete per above" type comments. All but 1 of those AFDs seemed to be notability related, which means you should at least do a cursory Google search after reading the article. Your recent AFD contribs have been a little more spaced apart, but things like I pointed out above, combined with a general lack of substantial (non template) user talk edits is too much for me to support. Mr.Z-man 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for your honest opinion. I concede that most of what you say is true, and I'll make sure that I work on it. However, I would like to make it clear that I have always done some research (including a Google search) before commenting on an AfD. If you take a look at the AfDs that I have nominated (example), you will notice that I have included Google searches in each and every one of them. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral Teetor-tottering between Support and Oppose. I understand that he will not abuse the tools, and I trust him on that. I just don't feel I get enough of an administrator vibe from it. I can't explain it...but that's my reasoning, my horrible, horrible, God-Awful reasoning.Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral Per some of the above oppose comments, try back again after further experience on the project. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
4. I'm relatively lax on experience, but it seems that much of your experience isn't substantive. Ral315 » 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Can't support with the comments by the opposers, but can't full out oppose either. My suggestion (for what it's worth =]): Come back after you get a bit more experience with Wikipedia policies. Many people will oppose you because of your 252 (at the moment) Projectspace edits. Just do a bit more work. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 00:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Dppowell

(37/7/2); Scheduled to end 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dppowell (talk · contribs) - The vital stats: Editor since mid-2005, 3000+ edits. My relatively modest edit count may turn off some folks, and if it's ultimately a barrier to adminship, I'll certainly understand. Notwithstanding occasional bouts of Wikiholism, it's a number that's not likely to rise quickly. I generally spend fewer than 30 minutes per day patrolling and editing the encyclopedia. All that said, if one subscribes to the idea that any conscientious admin is a net positive for the project, regardless of the raw amount of work they do, then I think I merit consideration. I take Wikipedia very seriously. I think the work we're doing here will endure--in some form or another--for centuries to come. We're the monastic transcriptionists of our age, and I'm honored to be a part of that. My request for the mop springs from a desire to help steward and protect what we're building, even if I'm only doing it in a few small corners of the project. Dppowell 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: AIV and other anti-vandal work, most obviously. Because I've contributed a number of articles to DYK, I know how quickly that queue gets backlogged. You could expect to see me over there, as well. As I became more involved in the admin community, I imagine I'd learn of other areas where project needs and my interests overlap.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm pleased by my DYK articles, and I think I've made many good tweaks and additions to various articles related to Irish history. I think my best snippet of encyclopedia-style writing is probably the "Economic reforms" section of the Diocletian article. I completely rewrote that section a year ago, and only one or two editors have made minor changes since then. Given the stature of the subject and the number of editors who prowl that turf, I regard that as an achievement. I wish I had time to do more of that kind of research/writing work. I was also satisfied with my efforts to resolve the ongoing battle over the use of the term "British Isles" in the Ireland article, futile as they turned out to be.

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

A: Heck, yeah. Okay, a brief story...but you have to promise to read to the end! The first time I got into a serious conflict with another editor, it really threw me and I took it personally. He turned out to be a serial sock puppeteer and was eventually banned (with very little/no input from me, I should add). He continued to edit (and edit war) via socks, and I became so annoyed that I actually created a project page and enlisted volunteers to help enforce his ban. I checked with Jayjg to ensure that I wasn't doing anything inappropriate, and he signed off on it. Thus I became the Captain Ahab to the puppeteer's Moby Dick. Ironically, when he indicated that he was tired of having all his edits reverted and might finally go away, I felt something akin to remorse and engaged him in a brief dialogue. The fact that I'd played a key role in hounding an editor who, despite his behavior, had made so many contributions to the encyclopedia made me feel like I'd gone down the wrong road. I'm sure this person is still editing somewhere, under a sock. But I'm no longer spending my limited time chasing him when I could be using that time to improve the encyclopedia. If he gets in another edit war, his banned status will facilitate him being smoked out. Until then, his uncontested edits are probably improving the encyclopedia. I regard the situation as a manifestation of IAR. The main thing I learned was that black & white, legalistic interpretations of WP policy don't serve the project any better than black & white interpretations of article subjects.

Optional question from Seraphimblade

4. Given that you seem to be lacking experience in some areas, do you plan to refrain from performing administrative tasks in such areas until and unless you both review policies and observe actual practice in that area?

A: Well, I'm certainly not going to suddenly start bulldozing through, say, WP:SFD or some other administrator-assisted area that I don't fully understand. I'm gun-shy about editing in areas with which I'm not familiar...never mind using admin tools. On the other hand, if I got a broadcast message requesting the urgent help of additional admins on some part of the project, I might wade in up to my ankles before I'd read all of the background material (especially if it appeared that few other people were answering the call). I hope that answers your question; please respond if you'd like me to elaborate further. Dppowell 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Dppowell: Dppowell (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dppowell before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support I've seen this editor around a fair amount and I've never seen anything that would stand in the way of adminship. Good luck! IrishGuy ^talk 00:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as having a broad variety of edits, and from his answers, a solid understanding of the rules and when to bend them. Seems trusty. Bearian 01:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support on excellent question answers --Pumpmeup 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Excellent answers to questions and a solid understanding of policies. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Well all rounded user, can be trusted with the tools. Phgao 08:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak support. ~400 edits in 6 months time is somewhat lowish, but you appear to be at it and have worked extensively on several articles as well as e.g. reported to AIV. I also like the tone and depth of your answers, so I'm going to give my recommendation for you. I trust you would —in the beginning, at least— rather consult an experienced admin or forum of admins before taking potentially controversial actions. — Dorftrottel⁠ 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - but could do with a few more edits. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   Change to full support per outstanding AGF edits this user has made.- Rudget _{Contributions} 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

8. Why the hell not? Edit count doesn't matter one bit; user appears trustworthy. Ral315 » 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - good editor, who has some experience of the deletion process and vandal reporting. Addhoc 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support per above, despite the highest regard for Stifle. Meets User:Dlohcierekim/standards. A none prolific editor won't have to give up edting time to do admin tasks and will benefit the project w/ extra buttons Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support, no reason to assume he wouldn't be able to cope. Neil ☎ 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support - confirmed evidence of 'pedia building and diplomatic by the looks of things. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - Doubt this user will abuse the tools. Sceems very willing to learn on the job. Tiddly-Tom 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support per above. Absolutely no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - good editor, great reputation and is civil to all-comers. No problems here - Alison ^❤ 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - No problems here, good luck.   jj137 (Talk) 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Weak Support I still have concerns about the low level of edits and it's resultant effect on possible lack of knowledge of current policy. However on reflection the spirit of WP:AGF has made me re-consider my position. I apologise to the candidate and community for my lack of good faith by my previous neutral in this RfA. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

    Pedro, no apology is necessary. I'd be concerned if you'd selected Support without giving my qualifications any thought. Dppowell 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

18. Demonstrates the right approach, conscientious enough to be trusted. --Michael Snow 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support I strongley believe he will be a good editor, but his low edit count concerns me. Support however. Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    This account has been indef-blocked for abusive socking. I'm hesitant to modify any votes on my own RfA but wanted to make sure someone noted this... Dppowell 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    As the confirmed sockpuppets have not been used within your RfA to make multiple !votes I see no reason why one liegitimate comment should be struck through/indented/discounted. The closing 'crat will no doubt take it into consideration. I certainly respect that you have made sure to bring it to the communities attention, even when it is a support for your own RfA. Certainly that is the quality I would expect to see in an admin. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  08:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

20. Support More than qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 03:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support east.718 at 12:45, 10/27/2007
22. Support. An editor of sound judgement, always sensible and civil based on my experience and observation. Nothing I see in Dppowell's edit history contradicts the entirely positive impression I have formed in the last year and more. Or I could have just said "per Alison and Irishguy". Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support as nothing serious would make me oppose. Low number of edits were a concern, but a few thousand is enough to demonstrate wikipedia dedication imo. LordHarris 15:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, editcountitis is bad, and I'm entirely comfortable with the answer to the question I asked. Good luck! :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support John254 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per nom. Sensible and sound judgment. Pig^man 04:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Why not? Acalamari 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - Yes, s/he hasn't contributed much in the wiki-space. S/He seems civil and positive, and I feel that I can trust that this user will ask when confused and will not misuse the tools. Neranei (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support per Ral's "why the hell not" essay and rationale. I like your wiki-thinking! K. Scott Bailey 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Have seen good work from Dppowell, and feel s/he can be trusted. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Solid contributor with good understanding. -- Chris B • talk 10:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. Everything I see in contribution history looks solid. Long term dedication evidenced to the project, even if not the most prolific. I believe the candidate when he says he will not wade into areas with which he's unfamiliar. No reason to suspect abuse, and 10 minutes of good tool use a day is better than none. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support As per Moonriddengirl,Angus McLellan and Alison ,Track is good and user is very civil.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support Impressed with answers, above. No issues about trust, given the body of the candidate's work to date. See also WTHN?. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely low level of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry, that's rubbish. And even if it were so, you're making the additional assumption that Dppowell couldn't or wouldn't read and/or ask when in doubt. — Dorftrottel⁠ 10:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   Dorftrottel, if you're not willing to discuss things nicely, you yourself are breaking policies. Please consider whether or not your messages are constructive and civil before saving them --Deskana (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   I think my comment was potentially constructive (though it somewhat depends on the discussion that follows) and sufficiently civil for my personal taste. Are you talking about the word "rubbish"? Would "nonsense" have been nicer? Or "non sequitur"? But leaving aside the wording of my comment for just a moment: Do you agree more with Stifle's oppose rationale or with my (attempted) argument that it isn't actually a rationale in the first place? — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   Besides: I consider opposing on flimsy reasons as uncivil, and also replying exclusively to the tone of a comment, disregarding its content. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   I disagree with Dorftrottel. We aren't exactly short of administrators so it seems to me that we can afford to be choosy. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   I won't argue with your reson for opposing, but to say we are not short of administrators is not correct, particular when anonymous page creation is about to be allowed again. Neil ☎ 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   For the record: I didn't say anything about you being "choosy", or that we shouldn't be too choosy or the like. I effectively said that in my opinion, your oppose rationale is invalid - as a matter of course you do disagree with that. Further, I said you're making the additional assumption that Dppowell couldn't or wouldn't read and/or ask when in doubt. Simply "disagreeing" with that would be yet another non sequitur on your part. But since you're "esteemed", held in "highest regard" and whatnot (for good reasons, I'm sure), everything I say with regard to the quality of your comment will be construed as unconstructive incivility anyway. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what you're getting at by the non sequitur remark, but I assure you that I consider your comments civil and not unconstructive. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks and sorry anyway to anyone who feels that I hit the wrong tone before. With "non sequitur", I was alluding to my initial point that there's an imo considerable logical gap between low wikispace edits and likely misuse of the tools. Knowledge is gathered through reading rather than editing and therefore wouldn't show up in the contribs. But even if someone is not the most knowledgeable with P&G: in absence of indications to the contrary, I'd normally assume they'd be careful and just ask when in doubt. — Dorftrottel⁠ 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   That's a valid concern. I imagine my policy knowledge is, in fact, relatively low for someone has been around for 2+ years. What sorts of missteps might you be concerned about me making, in theory? Dppowell 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   Deletion and blocking would be my main concerns. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   I.e., you're concerned that I might block people who shouldn't be blocked or delete articles I shouldn't delete? Though I've spent some time in AfD, I've spent much more patrolling recent changes and on AIV...so I have more confidence in my command of blocking policy than deletion policy. However, if you think my answers might change your opinion to Support, I invite you to pose some hypothetical situations to me and I'll tell you how I might handle them. Dppowell 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Not for the time being, I'm afraid. I think that if you spent a couple of hours a week for a month contributing at AFDs and/or helping out at the various noticeboards, you would quickly pick up the missing experience. You're close, but not close enough. Good luck. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose per the esteemed Stifle. In answer to Dppowell's question, I cannot be assured either of the candidate's policy knowledge, or of the candidate's demeanor under pressure, until I have a solid record of evidence on which to base my conclusions. Wiki-space, with its "policy-laden" intense discussions, forms a valuable component of a well-rounded Wikipedian. In the absence of a certain minimal number of edit, I have little record to evaluate, and I assume inexperience (based of evidence of having seen many similar well-intentioned candidates, with similar low wiki-space participation, exhibiting worrying gaps in policy knowledge.) Xoloz 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's certainly true that I "don't know what I don't know" about policy. I can only respond that when a grey area requires attention, I'll do my homework. If immediate action is required, I'll use common sense. In cases when I later discover that my version of "common sense" clashed with policy, I won't be too proud to correct myself (and chalk it up to experience). Dppowell 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's always the "unknown unknowns" that trip you up :) Good answer, BTW - Alison ^❤ 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, man. Certainly didn't mean to channel Donald Rumsfeld in my RfA. Thanks for supporting me in spite of that.  :) Dppowell 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Per Xoloz and Stifle. Little experience in Wikipedia namespace. Please keep up the hard work, though. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Anonymous D. Jmlk17 07:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Low amount of real text contribution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate? I recognize that people will naturally hold different opinions on the value of my contributions to the project, but the "professional police" comment sailed right over my head. Dppowell 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   I wouldn't worry about it. He has voted "oppose" at 9 or 10 different RfAs with the same or nearly the same pejorative "professional police" rationale. It's not you, it's him. K. Scott Bailey 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Mediocre answers and lack of wiki-space editing, may lack experience.--Professional Deletionist 12:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Leaning to Support There's nothing wrong in your contributions, so I can't oppose, it's just there have been so little of them recently. When I review for RfA the first thing I do is open up the last 500 contributions. Then the next 500. And suddenly I was back six months!! My concern is that Wikipedia is so dynamic and changing that you may not be aware of changes to policies / consensus etc etc. I know this is a pretty poor rtaionale, that I should have more faith, and that this is all voluntary, but I really would prefer to have seen a consistent 150/200 contributions a month over the three - four months before applying. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  10:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Pedro. Thanks! Dppowell 13:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to support.Pedro :  Chat  12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral Per Xoloz (talk · contribs) in the oppose section. Please try again later after more experience. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
2. Neutral leaning towards support I really liked his answers and intro... but i feel as if he needs more experience. That being said, I don't feel that he needs so much more experience that he warrants an oppose.Balloonman 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Ev

Final: (38/2/0); ended 2:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ev (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, let me present Ev (previously Evv). He's been actively editing since June 2006, and (for some reason) his interests are chiefly focused on areas of conflict, especially the ever-contentious Kosovo and Shatt al-Arab. I have always been impressed with his politeness and level-headedness, and I'm sure he has an excellent grasp of the policies. Visitors at WP:ANI may recall him for edit-warring reports and thoughtful comments. Ev is probably not a FA writer, but whenever there's a fire, I think he's a water rather than fuel (well, he occassionally gets carried away, see [31], bbut he's at least honest enough to admit his mistakes; at least he's trying to reason the pov-pushers). If adminship is just an issue of trust and experience, I fully trust Ev. I hope you will also. Duja► 10:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. - Ev 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate statement
Let me start by thanking Duja for his trust and for making me realize that with just a few occasional "administrative" contributions I would also be helping the project.

I'm Argentine, currently living in Buenos Aires. (My delay in accepting this nomination was due to an unplanned last-minute trip to visit my parents for Mother's Day, which was last sunday).

As Duja mentions, I've been mainly interested in areas of conflict. At the beginning of my involvement in the Spanish Wikipedia, before knowing much about policies :-), I had a long discussion on a naming issue with an editor that relied on raw Google hits to back his position. After being astounded at how difficult it could be to reach agreement on such a simple case, I wondered how Wikipedia would handle editing on really controversial topics. As I once commented in my talk page (diff.), what made me pay attention to the Kosovo articles was mere curiosity in how Wikipedia handles editing on such highly emotional topics. It's interest in Wikipedia's editing processes more than interest in Kosovo itself.

I feel a certain attachment to what I write, and although I welcome reasonable, well-informed editors improving, correcting and even deleting my contributions, I soon came to realize that I don't want to see those contributions edited mercilessly by just about any person with access to a computer. So, I mostly gave up on content, and focused my contributions on minor details, mainly article naming and reflecting common English usage.

Often, while reading a book, I find myself opening a related Wikipedia article to expand something. But, after previewing the changes, so far I have managed to resist the temptation to click on the "save page" button.

I do commit mistakes, quite often, and I'm willing to recognize them, and correct them. I'm deeply aware that I could always be wrong: I'm always open to be persuaded by reasonable arguments.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As my limited number of edits per day attest, I intend to do very little admin work, mainly by occasionally lending a hand in two areas: page moves and encouraging talk page discussions instead of continual reverts.

This minor involvement in admin tasks would imply that in every case I would be able to devote the time required to do a thorough job, discussing the issues at lenght when necessary and explaining our policies in detail.

Allow me to expand on the manner and guiding principles by which I would approach these interventions.

Page moves & article naming (requested moves):

As my active involvement in Wikipedia is basically restricted to a few naming issues, this is the area in which I have more experience and the natural field for my potential role as an administrator.

Besides reverting some improper page moves myself instead of requesting those actions as uncontroversial move proposals (diff. diff. diff.), and keeping an eye on that section, I intend to close some move request discussions. (I'm already recusing myself from many of those related to Kosovo and a certain waterway on the Iran-Iraq border :-)

I'm confident in having a clear understanding of our current general naming conventions policy and the associated guidelines related to the specific cases in which I have been involved so far -including the often-controversial one on using English (diff.)-, understanding both the conventions themselves and the manner in which they relate with our core policies of neutral point of view (diff. diff.), verifiability and no original research (see the N. von Renys RM including sections 4, 5 & 7 of the talk page).

I'm well aware of the specific context for which these policies and guidelines are intended, and in whose light should be interpreted: the creation of objective, unbiased encyclopedic articles written in the English language.

I see consensus-building as a process that takes place within the framework of our current policies & guidelines, to reach a certain degree of agreement on how those policies & guidelines apply to a specific case; and not as a vote on whether to follow policy or blatantly ignore it's core principles, it's very spirit.

Thus, in cases similar to the long Shatt al-Arab ordeal (1st RM & 2nd RM), in which literally all policy- & guidelines-based arguments clearly indicated one option, I would not have hesitated to close the discussion in accordance to policy, even if the "vote tally" were to show a 100 to 1 majority of WP:ILIKEIT policy-contradicting arguments in favour of the other option.

Upon gauging the existance of consensus on how our policies & guidelines apply to a specific article, I intend to always give a clear explanation of my closing of the discussion (and a detailed one in acrimonious cases). — Of course, I would always welcome a review of my actions, and would never overturn the closing of another admin without having discussed the issue with him first (I expect that other admins would extend the same courtesy to me :-).

Encouraging talk page discussions instead of continual reverts (dispute resolution):

Having being involved in Balkans-related articles, in the long Shatt al-Arab ordeal (30 March - 23 June 2007) and in my fair share of revert-warring, as well as having passively watched other disputes unfold, I know first hand the detrimental effects disruptive behaviour has on the editing environment and ultimately to the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Much of my own revert-warring had nothing to do with a "need to correct the article right now", but with frustration at the lack of constructive, rational, reasonable dialogue (or, just as often, the total absence of any dialogue at all)... in short, the frustration of feeling like talking to a wall. I often felt that revert-warring was the simplest, less time-consuming way to eventually force the other party to engage in a constructive talk page discussion.

Well, in very much the same manner in which it's often said that former poachers make the best park rangers (and I happen to have an acquaintance that fills this description literally :-), I hope to put my experience in this area to good use by playing the role of the neutral third party, explaining to both sides the need to dialogue and, when required, how our policies apply to the case. And doing so with the enormous help of having the possibility of making polite but very credible references to our protection & blocking policies.

My main focus would be to help editors that engage in constructive dialogue & attempt to reason with the other party deal with disruptive & tendentious editors who simply revert without discussing the issue (diff.) or that just won't listen to reasons (link).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As a quick glimpse at my contributions shows, most of my edits are marked as minor, and for good reason: I have added almost no content to the encyclopedia (see the reasons in my opening statement). My involvement with Wikipedia is basically restricted to some naming issues (requested moves), trying to make articles comply with our current naming conventions and simply collaborating in generating consensus. Examples:

Kilián Ignác Dientzenhofer → Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer (link)

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab (1st RM 2nd RM 3rd time lucky)

Kosova Handball Federation → Kosovo Handball Federation (link)

Green Party of Kosova → Green Party of Kosovo (link)

Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica Genocide (link) -opposed-

Prager Groschen → Prague groschen (link link)

Kraków grosh → Kraków grosz (link)

Juraj Julije Klović → Giulio Clovio (link)

Juraj Dalmatinac → Giorgio da Sebenico (link & link)

Ivan Duknović → Giovanni Dalmata (link)

Nike → Nike (disambiguation) (link) -opposed- Because valid concerns of wikilink maintenance were raised during the discussion, I have been doing the necessary disambiguations ever since: diff.

Uşak carpet → Ushak carpet (link)

Estonian Liberation War → Estonian War of Independence (link)

Mikołaj of Ryńsk → Nicholas von Renys (link and see sections 4, 5 & 7 of the talk page).

Hala Ludowa → Centennial Hall (link)

Grand Duchy of Poznań → Grand Duchy of Posen (link)

Beli Drim → White Drin (diff.)

Shtime → Štimlje (link)

Suharekë → Suva Reka (link)

From time to time I have also tried to lend a hand in trying to soften some of the discussion related to the former Yugoslavia (mainly Kosovo). To get an idea, see my talk page, the Kosovo archives (link link link diff. link) and some general diffs (diff. diff. ; and this discussion finally leading to this long explanation).

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

A: Although I'm not sure if using the word "conflict" would be appropriate to describe any particular instance, being active in articles about Kosovo naturally implies taking part in heated discussions. Basically, it means having to deal with editors who simply disregard our policies and unilaterally edit articles to reflect The Truth — editors with whom reasoning is virtually impossible — editors apparently unable to distinguish between an encyclopedic article written in accordance to our policies and an opinion piece intended to "correct the biased perceptions" propagated by [name an enemy here]. — In short, disruptive & tendentious editing.

Once an uncompromising editor decides that he's not willing to follow our policies, there's no longer a common ground, a shared editorial framework in which to have a productive discussion on how best to present a topic. This just eliminates any possibility of agreement, and transforms our normal dispute resolution process in an arduous and extremely time- & energy-consuming ordeal. As I mentioned before, attempting to dialogue with such editors feels like talking to a wall.

(To avoid any misinterpretation I must clarify that I know perfectly well the difference between a normal -and perhaps quite emphatic- disagreement among reasonable editors willing to work and dialogue within the framework of our polices, and total deafness to arguments, explanations and reason).

In these circumstances, I have often resorted to revert-warring. Sometimes to force the other party to engage in the talk page discussion, sometimes just considering edit-warring the simplest, most time-effective way of dealing with someone with whom discussion appeared to be pointless.

I must confess that after seeing too many uncompromising editors following the same pattern, upon seeing that kind of edits being made I often assumed the worst (not bad faith, but that the editor would be as uncompromising as the others) and just reverted on sight, without any attempt to discuss, for the simple reason that I didn't want to waste time arguing at the talk page to no avail.

Having said that, I usually tried to explain those reverts in my edit summaries, and while reverting I have often tried to resolve the issue discussing in talk pages. The following discussions took place during or immediately after a revert war: link link link link link link link link link link link link. Check the related article histories to see the many reverts themselves.

Although I try to justify some of those instances based on the above description of the editing environment (and the troll in me has actually enjoyed some of them :-), with the pass of time I have understood just how disruptive such behaviour is; behaviour for which I apologize.

I made two reverts at Shatt al-Arab a few days ago, but I did so to restore a very-hard-to-archieve consensus and my very clearly explained edits, after an editor's unexplained, blind reverts (four days afterwards, he has yet to make any comment at the talk page). Moreover, fearing that the reverts would continue, at the same time of doing a second and final one (01:07 UTC) I asked for help from a third party.

I do believe that administrators should be held to a higher standard. I intend to abide by one, and expect to be held accountable for any inappropriate behaviour: revert-warring is an issue for which I would be open to recall without imposing any restriction at all, after a simple pro forma request.

Nevertheless, except for those cases described above in which I restricted myself to revert, I believe that my record shows that I have always been willing to dialogue, and to go to significant lenghts & detail to solve editorial disagreements by discussing the issues.

Stress:

I can only think of three occasions in which I have experienced anger or stress in Wikipedia:

• Anger when facing what I percieved as an unilateral action to present other editors with a fait accompli. I vented at the talk page (diff. diff.), later regretted my choice of words. As usual, regretting having done something tends to be the best way of avoiding doing it again.
• Real stress (disillusionment) at some moments during the Shatt al-Arab ordeal (1st RM 2nd RM 3rd time lucky), not derived from the eternal talk page discussion, but from what I percieved as administrators blocking consensus-building by treating the move requests as simple polls decided on vote-tallies. I ended up venting in a silly rant at AN , taking a short wiki-break & with another silly rant at AN/I.
• I took a preventive wiki-break after this surreal edit-war & discussion.

I've found that checking Wikipedia fewer times per day, delaying answers and edits to the following day -after a good night of sleep- and taking short wiki-breaks can do wonders. Especially when combined with an adequate amount of drinks ;-)

4. If promoted, would you be open to recall, and why?

A: Yes, I would. I believe that accountability is paramount, and -as long as we don't find saints willing to run for office- the best form to expect a reasonable, responsible, proper conduct from those in whose hands we entrust functions that can be abused. As I see it, this is important primarily to avoid the disruptions to the editing environment that would derive from a perception of unfairness, arbitrariness and, worse, immunity.

I have not given much thought to the details of the circumstances under which I would agree to such a request, but, if promoted, any restrictions would gradually decrease according to the time elapsed since this discussion or the last re-confirmation. Once a year has passed after the last "vote of confidence" I would impose no restrictions at all.

Optional question from User:Piotrus

5: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes, I would. I addressed the issue in the fourth question (which I took the liberty to add to the standard three optional ones - diff.). In the answer to the third question I also mentioned that "revert-warring is an issue for which I would be open to recall without imposing any restriction at all, after a simple pro forma request." — Feel free to ask any follow-ups or for further details :-) Best regards, Ev 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Ev: Ev (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Talk Page now contains information on edits this user has made. Rudget _{Contributions} 10:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ev before commenting.

• Talk Page now contains information on edits this user has made. Rudget _{Contributions} 10:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. I guess I'll start the bidding then...answers look good, in absence of evidence to the contrary (a quick check of the contribs didn't throw up anything), looks like a support. Daniel 08:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - I think he would make a good candidate. Based on what I viewed in his edits he seems to have a strong understanding of wikipedia rules and regulations. businessman332211 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Having a quick look, can't find anything to oppose with and the answers are truly excellent. Rudget _{Contributions} 09:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Ditto. Nothing terribly wrong from what I saw. - TwoOars (Rev) 09:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Probably not going to be the most active of admins, but that in no way prevents you from having the tools. I'd have liked a lot more experience in traditional admin areas, but as per your excellent statement above you clearly wish to focus in one area, and the tools will help you. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - Doubt you would abuse the tools, nice answers to questions. Tiddly-Tom 10:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Very weak support - a disappointingly low Wikipedia-space edit count is countered by good answers to the questions given and an otherwise spotless set of contribs. Lradrama 10:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
8. (Forgotten) nominator support. While this is not a vote, some reaffirmation won't hurt :-). Duja► 10:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support It is very unlikely that this user will abuse admin tools. An excellent editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. I greatly appreciate the candidate's excellent, honest answers to the questions. Good luck!  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Seems like a good user. Acalamari 18:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, as from whom I've seen above in his answers as an honest user, who admits mistakes, and is trying to fix up WP. Bearian 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. Neutral arbitrator working towards settlement of conflicts. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. I appreciate the user's honesty. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Weak Support Although I would've preferred a higher involvement in admin-oriented areas, I recall seeing some good work from Ev. Dealing with disputes and requested moves seem fair enough reasons to promote a user who's unlikely to abuse the tools. Húsönd 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Good user. I would like to see Ev be an administrator. NHRHS2010 talk 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support east.718 at 06:02, 10/25/2007
18. Support Definitely no probs with this editor! Phgao 08:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - excellent answers of questions showing good policy knowledge - I think you'll be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support - although lower number of edits, excellent, thoughtful answers to the questions. Jauerback 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support: a calm and useful editor with a good understanding of policy in his areas of interest, which extend far beyond Kossovo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - evidence of 'pedia building and diplomacy a plus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support I've always greatly appreciated his dedication in taking such ungrateful work as mediating in ultraconflictual areas such as the Balkans. Ev is the sort of admins wikipedia desperately needs: not scared away by hot polemics, but instead always there with the bucket.--Aldux 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support I'm not sure if concentrating exclusively on article naming issues is a very helthy choice in the long run, but unfortunately these debates are sometimes necessary, and where I've seen Ev involved in those he's shown good sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support good answers, I hope to see you more active in the project. Carlosguitar 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

    'Support' Good answers, and he can be trusted! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 18:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

27. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support I see nothing but good here. Pig^man 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
29. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Per answer to question 1, regarding encouraging more talk page discussion. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
31. Support per contrib check and answers to questions. K. Scott Bailey 06:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support Jmlk17 07:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support I think the project could use more people who are competent and dedicated towards conflict resolution. This in and of itself warrants my support!Balloonman 00:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Supportgood answers and a quick browse through the contribs turns up nothing troubling --Pumpmeup 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support naming disputes in Eastern Europe are a minefield and this editor seems to have done a good job in navigating it. Buena suerte. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Great Track and great work in the Balkans in particular and eastern Europe where he has done tight rope walking well.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support I like what I see in Ev's collaborations with others, and I think the candidate will make good use of the tools. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - number edits to mainspace is more than 10 times larger than edits to the project namespace. With such a discrepancy, I believe that the candidate has not endeavoured enough into Wikipedia policy and process discussions. Are why you Elloh Engee 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has been indefinitely blocked... — Scientizzle 00:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

☻Who is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpravetz (talk • contribs) 01:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Are why you Elloh Engee has been indef blocked because it impersonates User:Ryulong. Pronounce "Are why you Elloh Engee", and you will see how it impersonates Ryulong. I also put a strike through the indented oppose to prevent confusion. NHRHS2010 talk 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vehemently oppose, admits to committing mistakes often. Unreliable. Ricardo Lagos Perez 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)— Ricardo Lagos Perez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ricardo Lagos Perez has been indef. blocked for persistent editing abuse.--Aldux 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose, low level of edits to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely shortage of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose, low level of real text contrbution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Wikignomes are just as valuable to the encyclopedic project as full article writers. Furthermore, the ability to generate copious amounts of encyclopedic copy is largely irrelevant to the interpretation and execution of policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

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

Kwsn

(55/17/6); ended 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kwsn (talk · contribs) - Please let me introduce Kwsn to you. He's been a wikipedian since March 2007 and has just over 4000 edits. Kwsn does some great anti-antivandalism work and always appropriately warns users after they have vandalised, giving them a chance to change their ways. In discussion, Kwsn is always well reasoned and sticks to policy. His speedy tagging of pages is always accurate, showing a good understanding of the notability criteria, this is also shown in his work at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you take a look at Kwsn's talk page edits you will notice he is a very diligent user who always remains civil - a quick look at his own talk page will show that people appreciate what he does here. I've been very impressed with the way he has improved from his first RfA and feel he is now ready to use the tools wisely. I ask that you support this request and give Kwsn the admin flag. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Namely anti-vandal work during the mid-day in the US. There aren't many admins on at that time and schools are in session, leading to a ton of vandalism and AIV getting clogged. My second task would to help clear out the backlogs, namely the ones at WP:RPP and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My anti-vandal work primarily, more so during the day when the school vandals are out in force. I also got the project page for AFC going, which has influenced that area. I know a lot of people don't look highly on pure anti-vandalism admins, but there sometimes isn't enough of them.

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

A: Not recently, I have in the past however, and knowing this place, will in the future. Though if you're looking for a past source of stress, my last RFA was one, though the comments pretty much were true.

Optional question from User:Shalom:

4. On May 29, you started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin L. Manheim Award For Significant Contributions in the Field of Workflow, and you withdrew the nomination two days later. Could you articulate your thought process when you evaluate whether an article should be deleted for lack of notability? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A. Part of the reason for that AfD was because I prodded it for borderline notability, which got removed by the creator, so I took it to AfD. For notability on other things I would read the article to see if it has any chance of being notable. If there isn't, I would delete it. If there is, I'd look off the site to see if any other sites back it up. If they do, I'd remove the tag, if not I'd probably delete the page.

Questions by Miranda:

5. What is your interpretation of BLP?

A. BLP is a two fold policy. First it's to prevent pure attacks on the subjects and keep the article neutral. Secondly it's to protect the project from lawsuits from the subject.

Requested clarification: I'll be perfectly honest, I've never had a BLP dispute, and never have been really involved in that area of the project, so please forgive my lack of experience with it. Wikipedia is one of the highest viewed sites in the world, and if the someone from say press sees that famous person X supposedly did action Y (which they didn't) and reports on it, it could end up being a whole fiasco for both the project, and the person's life. Because of situations like that one, editors are allowed to remove any libel and/or unsourced, non-neutral statements from the article to prevent harm to the subject.

6. If you had a dispute with a user, and you are an admin, would you block that user and why?

A. I would not block the user because that would be abusing admin powers to gain an upper hand in a dispute. Instead I'd try to find a third party that's neutral to get a new opinion. But if the user is disruptive I'd take it to the appropriate noticeboard.

7. What is 3RR, and when should you ignore it?

A. 3RR is more than three reverts on the same article within 24 hours and should be enforced in content disputes. It should be ignored when A. the user making the edits that are being reverted is clearly a sock of a banned or blocked user, B. plain and simple vandalism is being removed, or C. when what being reverted is a clear violation of another policy.

Question from User:Pedro

8. Hi, and thank you for offering to help out. I notice from your answer to Q1 you're planning on helping at C:CSD. As an admin you come across the following article text, tagged with {{db-bio}}.

James Jones is a well know artist from England. His work has appeared at the Tate Modern and it's great. More to follow soon.

What would be your actions ? Pedro :  Chat  13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A. First off, I'd check to see what Tate Modern is (which turns out to be Britian's national modern art museum). On that aspect alone, I'd probably remove the tag given the notability of the place that the art is in and the artist has a good notability claim. WP:CSD#A7 says "An article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.". I think being featured in a country's national modern art museum falls under being at least somewhat signficant, therefore nulling the A7. However, it does not mean that the article in question would survive an AfD as it stands or even could fall under WP:CSD#A1, but the fact that the author claimed additional content was on the way would prevent me from deleting under A1. If it can fall under one of the crieteria given at WP:BIO after expansion, then it's likely to be notable and kept at an AfD (see here, under creative professionals). So in short, I'd remove the DB tag, but that does not mean it will be kept in the future.

Q --Followup Yes, you'd be right to remove the tag for the reason you gave. But is there anything else you would do or say? DGG (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A: First I'd try to find some sources proving the claim, if I can find some, I'll add them into the article, it not, I'd ask the creator where he found this fact out. Depending on outcome of this, I'd either A. let it stay (meaning sources were found), or B. inform the creator that unless sources are found soon, it's likely to get prodded or sent to AfD (but I would not do the actual nominating myself, that would seem a little bitey to me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwsn (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Q --Further Followup How about looking past the db-bio tag and looking at the actual text. Is it encyclopedic? What editing changes would you make? Other than sourcing, grammar, spelling, are there any issues? --Richard 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A. I'll do this in parts here. "Is it encyclopedic?" That requirement isn't a big one. A lot of articles start out looking, for lack of better words, crappy. Which leads me to "What editing changes would you make?" I'd try my hardest to hash it into sections it it's long enough for them or condense it into one if it's not. Then I'd add whatever sources I could find to the end of the article and perhaps add a bit more info if I can find it. "Other than sourcing, grammar, spelling, are there any issues?" If there are any POV or other MOS violating sections, I'd remove them or tweak them if I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwsn (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what answer Pedro was looking for when he asked the question. What I saw when I read the question, aside from what you pointed out about figuring out what the Tate Modern Museum was and whether the fact could be sourced, was the WP:OR in the assertion "it's great" (subjective opinion) and the unencyclopedicity of "More to follow." (wouldn't leave those in an article, would you?) Not a big deal. Just a couple of picky points. --Richard 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer I was looking for was what I got - a decline to speedy delete. If that exact text appeared it would never fall foul of any speedy deletion criteria I can see. WP:AFD maybe so, but never Speedy. WP:OR is not a speedy criteria. Neither is being too short, poorly written or subjective. If in doubt, shove it to AFD and make certain IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree. I didn't say I would delete the article, did I? I would fix the problems I mentioned by deleting the specific text that I called attention to. That's what WikiGnomes do with or without the admin tools. I value the vandal-fighting and AFD work that this editor does but I would like to see more editing of the text as well. If you see bad writing, why not fix it as long as you're looking at it? --Richard 22:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Piotrus

9: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A. Yes, adminship is gained though the trust of the community. If the community loses trust in the admin, then the admin should have to deal with the consequences of being recalled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwsn (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from Carnildo

10. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?

A: IAR is one of the oldest rules on the project, but one that shouldn't be used willingly. The only time I can really see it being used without problem is when the project is on the line. Most other problems we have poilcies and such, but sometimes even they hurt the project. Those cases are when IAR could be used. IAR shouldn't be used negatively, and only as a last resort.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Kwsn
• Requests for adminship/Kwsn 2

• Links for Kwsn: Kwsn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Analysis of Kwsn's contributions using the Interiot's Wannabe_Kate tool can be found here

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kwsn before commenting.

Discussion

I dont understand why he tagged my update on Memory leak as vandalism I beleive the information is totally incorrect in the example of a elevator/lift personally beleive this person just clicks undo/vandalism button without reading ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.235.188 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• (Moved from voting section) Oppose Nasty unreadable signature. 72.139.97.176 23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • IP's are more than welcome to comment in the discussion section, but unfortunately not under support, neutral or oppose. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Does it matter? I thought, through my observations, that RfA is supposed to be a discussion, and not a vote. I don't want to have an admin with such a ludicrous signature. 72.139.97.176 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but they're the rules I'm affraid, but you're more than welcome to add to the discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Your rules, Mr. Postlethwaite, make absolutely no sense. 72.139.97.176 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not his rules -- it's wikipedia's policy. Gscshoyru 23:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Where's the policy? 72.139.97.176 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
              • At the top of the WP:RFA page, where it says any user with an account. Gscshoyru 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
                • That is not a policy. As long as they are socking, IPs should be able to !vote !their !opinions. --86.29.37.121 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (indent) I thought it wasn't a vote. All the same, this doesn't count towards the final count, but you are welcome to voice your opinion. I am moving this discussion to the Discussion heading to avoid confusion. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I assume since Ryan nominates, this is a good user (I'm unfamiliar with the user myself). No doubt !my !vote !will !get !removed !though. --86.29.37.121 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Bingo ;-) --Agüeybaná 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Consider creating an account. We are always looking for more editors. I'd be happy to adopt you if you do. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

terrible signature therefore I say oppose. But of course, I have no voice in the matter because I refuse to register a username. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit...especially with a username" 68.143.88.2 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. This isn't an article. Neil ☎ 10:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology for screwing things up with my previous edit to this page - Majoreditor drew my attention to the irregularity of my last edit and when I reviewed it, I was puzzled to see that the edit counts had dropped from 51/13/6 to 45/11/5. At first, I thought that somebody had managed to hijack my account or something but I figured it out. The "vandal" is me. I got here by looking at Mikkalai's !vote (there's some controversy about the way he's !voting against "professional police"). I started reading the entire RFA and decided to add a follow-up to Pedro's question but I forgot that I needed to edit the current revision so I accidentally edited the old revision. Yeah, yeah, I know there's a big pink bar up there at the top that says "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikkalai...". I guess I haven't woken up completely yet. My apologies, once again. --Richard 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per my nom - best of luck mate :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
2. I supported last time. Good user. Acalamari 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Definitely has a clue. —Animum (etc.) 23:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support I've seen this user as a constructive editor several times. This user will be a good admin. NHRHS2010 talk 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - Best of luck.   jj137 (Talk) 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
6. PxMa 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Will work for the improvement of Wikipedia!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support as I did last time. He has plenty of experience in the areas which he intends to frequent as an admin, has lots of common sense and remains nice and civil. Will make a fine admin. Will (aka Wimt) 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Kwsn is mature and ready for the mop. I support. Regards, Neranei (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. That explains what happened to "Whsitchy"! Despite the lack of article writing, I think he's ready to take on the vandals. I'd like a little more info regarding deletions; see question 4 above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I thought the previous RfA had passed. Anyway I can't see anything really wrong in Kwsn's contributions, so there's no reason to oppose. - TwoOars (Rev) 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Trust nom, user seems to know policy well, and a great vandal fighter! Tiddly-Tom 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support - experienced vandal fighter, mature, thoughtful and willing to help with blocking vandals. Addhoc 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. I trust him with the tools, and believe he knows how to use them. --Mark (Mschel) 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I trust this user with the tools and has improved his understanding of the notability criteria. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. I have seen Kwsn doing good work in a number of areas and his checkuser clerking is helpful. He makes sensible contributions to deletion discussions and to Arbitration workshops. Seems sane and to understand our policies. His weakness is in a lack of content writing, but I do not think that alone should disqualify him - I think Wikipedia will gain from him being able to perform more administrative tasks. I am reassured by the expanded answer to Q.5. I think Kwsn is aware of what areas he is sufficiently experienced to apply to tools to and which it would be better if he steared away from. WjBscribe 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, the issue I had has been cleared, and I find "lack of article writing" to be a rather superficial oppose. Wizardman 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Support Not everyone can create reams of content, and as ever I give out my total respect to our hard working editors that do. But as the project grows the janitorial element is ever more important to keep this place tidy for the most important thing on Wikipedia - our readers. Your answer to my question was spot on, really spot on. Best wishes, and I hope the opposers take note of your clear knowledge of policy despite scant content contributions. Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - plenty of experience and good answers to questions. Bearian 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Support I see nothing that would cause me to oppose. Captain panda 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support without reservation. As a checkuser, I know how useful it is when clerks on RFCU have administrator rights. Performing so many checks, I frequently don't have the time to decide whether or not to block the socks/sockmaster as well. Kwsn is an active clerk on RFCU. Being an administrator greatly improves the quality of one's work clerking on RFCU, though it is by no means a requirement. This specific requirement for the tool, coupled with the fact that I trust Kwsn to not abuse the tools means this user should have administrator rights. --Deskana (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. It bugs me to see the opposition below based on lack of article contributions. Administrators do not need to be good editors, they just need to be able to keep a cool head and be trustable with the tools. Everything I've seen about Kwsn has shown me that that is likely to be the case. However, one thing I would ask you to do is trim some or all of the HTML from your signature, as it's going to cause you unnecessary problems in the future. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - Would make an excellent admin. Good luck. Rudget _{Contributions} 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Why the hell not? Don't care about mainspace so long as the user seems to understand things pretty well. Ral315 » 14:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
25. Support As per Deskana. Track is good and user has been regular contributor through account was created only in March.Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Support per above reasons and meets User:Dlohcierekim/standards, particularly User:Dlohcierekim/standards#Tyrenius_on_adminship_from_Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. An editor need not be a great encyclopedia builder to block vandals and delete CSD articles. Given the chronic backlog at CSD and AIV, I believe this user will be an asset. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

    PS A lack of contentiousness should not be a disqualifier. While admins do need to be firm at times, they need not be spoiling for trouble. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

27. Support Yep, no signs this user will abuse the tools. GDonato (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support Good user.—trey^{omg he's back} 22:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support Accidentally found you while attempting to nominate you ;) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Crap, I accidentally put oppose at first because I thought you vandalized the Titans page, but you actually reverted the vandalizism. Sorry about that. I think he'd be a great admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb (talk • contribs)
31. Support I supported this users last RfA, and I see no reason to change my !vote. While the user may not be the most prolific article writer, the areas in which he contributes in greatly benefit from his presence. henrik•talk 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

    Support I have supported him before, and I will do it again! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Support indented. Acalamari 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

32. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. Behind-the-scenes work contributes to building the encyclopedia too, and this candidate's work in that area is exceptional. Arakunem^Talk 13:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support My reason for opposing was a little ridiculous, nothing wrong with the candidate. east.718 at 19:25, 10/27/2007
35. Support John254 01:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
36. Support despite your garish signature. :P --Werdan7^{T @} 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Jmlk17 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
38. Support While content is important so is other duties in Wikipedia; housekeeping. Phgao 07:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
39. Nothing wrong with specialists. — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Involvements in various Wiki-related articles.--JForget 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
41. Support, of course support. We'll need his help come the ninth. *Cremepuff222* 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - I see no reason in particular to oppose, and kwsn has a track record in my books of being decently friendly while an effective vandalism fighter. Allowing him to block vandals rather than merely revert them would help. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
43. Support solid question answers --Pumpmeup 04:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
44. Support per nom and more specifically per WJBscribe and Deskana. Pig^man 04:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
45. Support The opposers bring up nothing concerning, and as far as I can tell, this is an otherwise good candidate. Majorly (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. User is a hard worker and the detractors do not show anything worrisome. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. Candidate is fully qualified for the administrator tasks he proposes to perform. Many of us should do a little bit more mainspace editing, but its lack should not deter us from promoting a candidate with a good record of contributions in other areas. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - User seems adequately responsible and helpful. No concerns here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Quick contrib check, and we need good admins. K. Scott Bailey 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
50. Support I can't see a real reason not to. Plus, we do need more good admins! S_QL^{Query me!} 04:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
51. Support. He may not be a fantastic content contributor, but we always need more admins who are willing to take on dull maintenance and housekeeping tasks. Walton^One 11:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
52. People are complaining that he doesn't "write the 'Pedia" enough. Well, administrator tools do absolutely nothing to "write the 'Pedia" either, but they would help Kwsn in what he does. Why deny the tools to a decent vandal-fighter? We've seen so many RfAs pass now where the candidate says, "I don't really think I'll use the tools", and now people are trying to deny the tools to someone who could actually use them to better the encyclopedia... Seen the user around. Interesting variety of POVs among the supporters. Seems good. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
53. Support, looks good to me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. Won't abuse the tools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
55. Support per Newyorkbrad. Good editor who can be trusted with the tools. --Farosdaughter 21:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I do not see any improvement since the last RfA, only a higher edit count, but that means nothing, as they're all vandalism reversions. Let's take a look at the points raised by the opposition last time, shall we?

   1.) No real mainspace contribs — I do not see any improvement, or even an attempt at fixing this.

   2.) Problems with your participation at XfDs — I have no way of knowing if you've improved, as I don't see any recent, significant participation in discussions.

   3.) Inability to handle disputes — You say you haven't gotten in any disputes recently. If this is true, how are we supposed to evaluate your (in)ability to handle them?

   Also, Ryan, you say that the candidate "always remains civil". Well, of course he does; most of his user talk page edits are slapping user warning templates. There's not a better way to be civil than that in the universe, is there? :-) Sorry, man, but oppose. Best of luck, though. --Agüeybaná 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

   Whenever he's in discussion he's civil, there's evidence in his contribs. The key to this is will he abuse the tools? I think Kwsn has proven his trust. He does invaluble work to the encyclopedia, yeah it might not be main space work, but it's still great work and he has shown a real need for the tools. You have made no commentary as to how you believe the tools will be misued by Kwsn. He's improved his knowledge of policy since his last RfA and his requests for creation contributions are clear evidence that he understands notability criteria. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

   As you say, Ryan, the important thing here is trust. This user has not gained my trust by not improving the points I mentioned. It's as simple as that. Sorry. --Agüeybaná 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

   For someone who is no longer active on Wikipedia, I find it odd you find your way to the RFA page to oppose someone. --86.29.37.121 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

   That's what happens when you forget to clear your watchlist when you "leave" ;-) --Agüeybaná 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

   Check his contribs. He's plenty active, just probably not as much since joining Evilzendium :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah I can almost hear The Imperial March when he's around now... :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. One of the reasons your last RfA failed was due to lack of encyclopedia-building experience. I'm sorry to see that you haven't made much headway. Come on, there must be some articles you'd like to help along! Otherwise, you're doing some great work--keep it up. Majoreditor 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

   But how will not editing articles have an effect on the way he uses the tools in the areas he wants to use them? This is the sort of person that really needs the tools. The article writers are often better off without them so they can concentrate on what they are good at - writing. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's best for an admin to first try walking a mile in an editor's shoes. Majoreditor 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose Shown little to no improvement since last time. T Rex | talk 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

   And explain how he should have made improavement? I strongly believe he has improved his understanding of the notaility criteria from the work he has done at articles for creation. Remember, it's not the article wirters that need the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose I opposed last time due this user not making any mainspace contributions, such as creating articles. I still oppose on that ground, as well as the answer to question #5. Miranda 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Without commenting on anything else, I find the answer to Q. 5 woefully vague and incomplete. I will be happy to reconsider this position if the candidate rethinks and expands his answer. Xoloz 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose not enough article work. Q2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - the most number of edits made to any one mainspace article is 7 (?!) - [32]. The whole point is 'pedia building and only by doing this can one appreciate the effort involved when nominating and deleting. I do agree you've done some useful work bu c'mon one GA or some DYK or something. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Lack of mainspace contributions is worrisome.--MONGO 07:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Not opposing because of the lack of mainspace contributions per se, but because that was the reason the last RfA tanked and advice for improvement there was not heeded. east.718 at 12:45, 10/27/2007

   Struck my oppose. east.718 at 19:25, 10/27/2007

9. Oppose good simple vandalism experience but not a lot of intereaction with mainspace articles or regular contributors. --DHeyward 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose There are only two articles where he has made more than 5 edits. Zero mainpages where he has made more than 7! His edit count is rather low for a person who is primarily a vandal fighter. With all the tools available for vandal fighting, 2K is nothing. This is a sign of somebody who is very one dimensional in his contributions.Balloonman 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose - I am concerned with the answer to Q2. Vandal fighting is very important to this project, but it is not the only area where an admin needs to have experience. I believe article writing and editing exposure are needed as well for the advanced tools to be granted. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
12. This seems likely to pass, so this is mostly a symbolic oppose. Please consider doing some article work. It will give you a fuller perspective on this project. Far too often we see administrators who do no article work but build sprawling halls of bureaucracy and write vast tomes of wikilaws; who do not recognize the valuable contributor who quietly toils on some obscure corner of the wiki -- a little known painting, a long dead king, some complicated physics thing; who are quick to delete content because, indeed, such content just appears of its own accord! Very few sysops do such things in bad faith -- they may not even realize they're doing it! -- but by not ever having worked on articles they simply don't understand. --JayHenry 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose - quickly scrolling hru last 1000 edits I failed to see not a single contribution of article text. May be I was scrolling too fast, but I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    Do you think he would abuse or misuse the tools? --Mark (Mschel) 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    I think that we need editors who after sufficient time become respectable contributiors and entrusted with the sherriff's star. Your accent of "tools" is misplaced. I think he would misunderstand what policies are for: they are for editing, not for policing. Unless you are an editor, you don't feel it. Fighting "bad guys" is not an issue in wikipedia. The main and hard task is dealing with "good guys" who make errors. And no amount of tools gives you this knack, neither learning of policies by heart. `'Míkka 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    You still have not answered my question. Could you just give a yes or no? Thanks. --Mark (Mschel) 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose: Solely on the basis that the candidate has made no attempt to prevent the above heckling. If the candidate can't successfully defuse such behaviour on their own RfA, they're not ready to do so anywhere else on the project. Nick 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Opppose - I don't believe the user has the broad experience I like to see in a candidate. Comparing to previous RfA, I don't see adequate progress. Also, I'm not particularly impressed with answers to some of the questions, #5 and #6, in particular. Lara❤Love 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose Good vandal fighting, but consider addressing the concerns of the previous RFA, such as mainspace article writing experience.--Alasdair 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    E kala mai for elbowing in here, but may I ask what administrator tools have to do with mainspace article writing? To me, this argument is specious and moot. He's asking for some deletion tools and vandal-fighting powers, not research, prose writing, and grammar-improvement devices. How would mainspace writing make him more worthy of the sysop tools? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Good article writing can be seen as a practise to see which policies apply to certain articles, such as BLP, etc. We have people and bots to revert vandalism, but with the tools, you have to apply cases separately on a case by case basis. Miranda 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Response to Ali'i: What admin tools are needed to fight vandals that are not already available to the admin?

    The issue here is that admin tools include the ability to block and the ability to protect a page. To use these tools well in the enforcement of policy, it helps to understand what it's like to be in a dispute with a non-vandal editor or at least editing a page on which there is such a dispute. Fighting vandals is like shooting ducks in a pond. There may be a lot of ducks but they're still ducks. If you haven't proved your mettle in a content dispute, then you're not fully qualified in my book. Content disputes happen when you're editing articles. They could happen in an AFD also but many AFD's are slam-dunk pile-on me-too fests. --Richard 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose, per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning towards support Has not done much article writing but is otherwise a hard worker and would not abuse the tools. Waiting on questions 5, 6, 7. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral - I wasn't going to !vote on this RFA until Kwsn answered the fifth question, the response to that question proves that this user isn't familiar with BLP, though the evidence of contribution to Wikipedia space and the response to question #6 prevent me from opposing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral - this is the first time in ages I've gone to neutral. I hate doing it but I'm afraid I can't do anything else yet (see my standards). Your contributions are excellent, and you've achieved a real lot in your time here, but mainspace article work is at a big low. I'd like to see more work there. Lradrama 10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral Per reasoning given by Agüeybaná (talk · contribs) in the oppose section. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
5. Neutral A mix of votes above. Somewhat shaky answers and lack of mainspace edits. tosh²^(talk) 02:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral the concerns of the opposers also concern me, but not enough to oppose. Carlossuarez46 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

RyanLupin

(talk page) Final (10/19/4); Ended early 23:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

RyanLupin (talk · contribs) - This user seems like a good editor and a dedicated vandal fighter. He has accumulated over 2,000 edits. He expresses a desire to become an admin, and I believe that granting him adminship could give him an opportunity to help out further.--Avant Guard 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept and appreciate this nomination Ryan (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RyanLupin's Statement

I do recall nominating myself for adminship a few months ago, however, after assessing the requirements and reading through all the wikipedia policies I decided that I really wasn't ready for an RfA and therefore changed my mind to save myself from the intimidated process of reading through over 100 or so opposes. It's been at least 4 months since that day and I believe now, after learning the various policies by heart that I can contribute to wikipedia still further with the aid of a few extra tools. Again, I'm deeply flattered by the nomination, it's something I wasn't expecting and I will now let everyone here, decide my fate...

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I've read the Wikipedia:Administrators page time and time again and I believe I can contribute extensively to to following areas of work:

• Tackling vandalism - I'm already a keen reverter of vandalism. However, the process will be a lot easier with a few extra tools so I can monitor the WP:AIV and ban reoccurring offenders.
• I have a tendency to add pages that are frequently vandalized to my watchlist so I can monitor them and decide whether or not I should request page protection. Therefore, I believe I can also be of assistance in the protecting/unprotecting of pages.
• Having tagged dozens of articles for speedy deletion in my time as a member, I believe I can also help out with actually carrying out the deletions therefore the monitoring of CAT:CSD will be on my to-do list. Similarly with monitoring the WP:AFD pages to finalise discussions and disputes listed there.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: To be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I have a single 'best' contribution to Wikipedia in terms of a Wikiproject or a particular article I've taken a liking to, however, I am deeply proud with the work and effort I've put into tackling vandalism. Therefore, in answer to this question, my best contribution to Wikipedia is my stance against vandalism and my efforts in protecting the site from those who chose to deface our work. However, saying that, I will often click the 'random article' button and make the odd grammatical correction or make necessary expansions whether that includes adding references or restructuring the article completely. I will also monitor the new article page and make major editions to articles that are likely to gain a speedy tag. A recent example of this is my contributions to this article which started off as a small paragraph of text consisting of links that a new page patroller considered as being SPAM and tagged it accordingly. As you can see, the article has undergone a rigorous change.

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

A: I don't believe I have. Not off the top of my head. There have been times where a particular vandal hasn't liked the fact that I've reverted their desperate attempts for attention and have reverted my reversion but I've never participated in a full-on edit war with another user.

Optional question from User:Piotrus

4: Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A: I would yes. If I ever was granted adminship (and I can see that my RfA is going no where at the moment) then I would happily step down if it was requested of me. I think it's only fair. Ryan (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Justanother

5: Since a number of editors are basing their oppose votes on this, I would like you to directly address Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk. Do you still hold to your reasoning there or have you modified your position? Please explain your answer. --Justanother 15:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A: It's a shame I made that AfD the very same day I was also nominated for adminship because like you said, everyone is now basing their decision on that. To be honest, I don't really know what I was trying to prove in my rationale, reading back over it again just reminds me how silly it is to nominate articles for deletion that early in the morning. :P —— Ryan (^talk/_contribs) 09:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for RyanLupin: RyanLupin (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RyanLupin before commenting.

Discussion

• Note to opposers Note that edit counts mean absolutely nothing (Particulaly aimed at you, Bearian)--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions, and have to agree with you, partially. While it's true that edit count is a poor reason by itself, I'm just using it as a proxy that I can't see that the user understands enough about WP to be an admin yet. I may change my mind with the discussion's progress. Bearian 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse this broader definition of edit count: User:Dlohcierekim/standards, i.e., "3,000 edits or equivalent service". Bearian 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I agree that this isn't one of the best candidates we've had but I doubt he will abuse (or even misuse) the tools--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another set of standards I might endorse is here User:Lradrama/RfA_Criteria (note the 400 mainspace edits). Bearian 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also guys, I can take an 'oppose,' but a weak "I agree with Person X" (WP:AAAD) is just a lazy way out of increasing the oppose tally and making me feel even more indimidated. If you wish to oppose, heck you have every right to, but please explain your reasons. How else am I going to learn for possible future RfAs? Thanks Ryan (^talk/_contribs)

22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I opposed per Speciate because his reason for opposing reflects what I think should be the consensus. If someone says 'Oppose per...' you might consider that opposer to be writing the exact same reason for emphasis and to demonstrate community support for that point of view. Avruch^Talk 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that "oppose per...." means you simply concur with the other opposers findings or reasoning, it is also important to remember that this is (in theory) a discussion. Certainly a failed RfA is also an opportunity to learn, and postive criticism can only help any candidate further in their work here. Pedro :  Chat  15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a matter of enquiry, is my RfA criteria causing problems? Is it something I shouldn't have? It's just that I've seen other users have them too and it answers a lot of queries about the varying standards various people have. If it is just going to cause more conflict I'll get rid of it. Lradrama 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you should keep it out there. Your standards are quite reasonable, and less than what I'd previously considered. 400 Mainspace edits is a good (if random) number to ascertain a level of trust. Bearian 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again, here's my combination of the two (not exactly what Lradrama suggests) - significant edits, at least 400 in Mainspace (but not all vandalism-reverters) because it shows you know how to build an encyclopedia. Bearian 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Looks to be a level-headed person who is active against Vandalism. Will be an asset to Wikipedia as an Administrator. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - An excellent candidate for this position. He is always dedicated to ensuring that vandals don't get away with their havoc. Articulate and friendly, but knows how to take control of a situation. He has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, correcting and creating many articles. Wikipedia would benefit greatly from Ryan becoming an Admin. Angel caboodle 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - Appears to be a good vandal fighter with almost 40 edits to AIV Tiddly-Tom 10:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
4. SupportAdminship is no big deal, unlikely to abuse tools--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
5. I see no compelling reason to oppose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
6. It appears that this request for adminship won't succeed. Well, I hope that won't discourage you from running again. I suggest you listen to the advice your opposers are giving, and try again in three or so months time. Good luck. Acalamari 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Weak Support - I concur with Acalamari, I'd suggest a withdraw. But please don't be discouraged, from what I've seen all you need is another few months, and you'll be a perfect candidate. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - Ryan is a good guy, he has helped me a lot in the past and I trust him with the tools. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support not only his work against vandalism but his enthusiasm to help wikipedians is notable. Don't base all his contributions to wikipedia on the 'loopy AfD.' An excellent candidate for adminship Tazangel 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Given Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia, we need every admin we can get. Neil ☎ 10:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Don't think he'll abuse the tools, and willing to help out at WP:CSD and WP:AIV. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Oppose

Oppose Insufficient number of edits, especially Mainspace. Bearian 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How many edits are you looking for? 2417 seems more than enough. Acalamari 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What is sufficient? Could you qualify it? Mercury 02:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Like many users here, I share the idea that about 3,000 edits are the preferred number to see evidence of trust. I generally support candidates with more than this, or close enough; I don't suffer from acute editcountitis. I endorse the essay at User:Keegan/On_administrators. Bearian 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. For me (not speaking for anyone else) edit count is merely an objective measure of how much work has been done, so that I can see whether to trust a certain user whom I've not encountered yet at WP. It does not mean that I don't trust a user; it merely means that I do not have enough information to figure it out. Bearian 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you looked through all 3,000 edits for evidence you could trust the user, and that wasn't enough? I disbelieve. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, of course I did not look through all 2400 edits, but to be honest, only scanned the last 100 made at that time. For the sake of fairness, I took a look through his contributions again just now at [33] and found a great start with 2500+ total edits, 900+ in mainspace, but lots of those are reverts and talk; his biggest contribution to any article is only 29 edits, which shows relative inexperience at encyclopedia-building. Actually, the nom at AfD mentioned elsewhere at this RfA is really "no big deal". I'm still a neutral. Bearian 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose, for his loopy nomination of Tv-links.co.uk for deletion. His interpretations need to be read to be believed. Speciate 06:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - No-where near enough experience anywhere yet, although you do seem to be heading in the right direction. Give it a few more months and your RfA should look much better. Lradrama 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Speciate. That AfD is nuts. Avruch^Talk 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose The nomination of Tv.links.co.uk mentioned above is very strange, indeed. Criminals are not deleted from the encyclopedia for the reason of being criminal. The encyclopedia has a duty to convey accurately and fairly all notable things, be they great achievements or crimes. Wikipedia is not Pollyanna. That nomination (from yesterday, by the way) severely calls into question candidate's understanding of key policies. Xoloz 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose as per Speciate and Xoloz. Ronnotel 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose oppose per the afd. That's scary. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose The lack of experience here is a major concern. Although you are active against vandalism, your interpretation on that AfD page is a major concern. Just learn from your mistakes and try again after a few months. In the meantime, do not be discourage over this RFA. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Speciate. Sorry. Majoreditor 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not enough depth in experience - almost 65% of your total non-deleted edits are Twinkle warnings, reversions, tagging, and reporting. Twinkle warnings comprise almost 80% of your user talk edits. Don't get me wrong, Twinkle is a wonderful tool but I'd really need to see more evidence of discussion with other users, more significant (non-automated) editing, and more edits to Wikipedia space other than AIV and RFPP to show knowledge of policy other than WP:VAND and WP:SPAM. Mr.Z-man 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
10. No per above. NHRHS2010 talk 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose Inconsistent judgement. east.718 at 02:58, 10/25/2007
12. Oppose. I know this user only from the aforementioned AfD, but after seeing that he was up for adminship, I felt I had to express my feelings. That AfD shows some basic misunderstandings of policy and the AfD process, and I can not support the adminship of such a user. SorryGuy 07:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Low level of policy knowledge as shown by a rather curious AFD nomination mentioned above, and further shown by a low number of Wikipedia namespace edits. Agree also with Mr. Z-Man. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
14. OpposeAs per Zman and User has been active only since June and very active in September.But feel you can try after a few months and you will have my support.Good Luck.Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose because of Tv-links.co.uk nomination you seems not to be ready. I am requesting some months to you gain experience. Good luck. Carlosguitar 17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose not so much for the deletion itslef, but rather for the rationale. Shows that you need some more time to grow and understand policy. Wizardman 20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
17. No -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Weak Oppose Answers show some lack of experience, and I do not believe you are ready. Try again soon! Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose and other obvious inexperience with policy that I don't need to link to --Pumpmeup 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose Not quite there in terms of experience, but you seem to be well on your way. Jmlk17 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Per the coolest AfD nom ever. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think that the nom was based purely on the idea that Wikipedia condones illegal activity by hosting articles like that. The nominator also mentioned WP:SPAM, which leads me to believe his overall concern was that the article lacked notability or read like an advertisement. I doubt that if we give this user admin tools we'll have to worry about him deleting Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer.--Avant Guard 15:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral to avoid pile on I won't oppose as there are a lot of positive aspects to your contributions, and your vandal fighting is very much valued. However the AFD nomination bought up by Speciate is, well, scary. Sorry, an dplease do not be put off of down hearted. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral, a change from oppose, after a re-read of some of the user's work, for example, at Joseph McManners. Close enough to 3,000 todal, with over 900 mainspace, might do it for me. No evidence he'll abuse the tools, but I'd more evidence to support. Bearian 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. See also above discussion about edit counts, how low is good, and why they matter. Bearian 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Pedro, and I think that putting some more edits behind you will make that afd become a less glaring issue. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral with moral support Ryan, don't let this get you down. Please consider entering the admin coaching program. I do not think that this AfD thing is any big deal or anything that you have to "live down", it simply shows that you could use some good coaching. Good luck to you! --Justanother 12:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

---

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

Currently none.

Related requests

• 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