Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
→Current nominations for adminship: DanMS is an admin |
m RfA withdrawn by candidate |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Reedy Boy}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Reedy Boy}} |
||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Imdanumber1}} |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Superbfc}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Superbfc}} |
Revision as of 17:07, 30 May 2007
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DoomsDay349 | 40 | 12 | 0 | 77 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Goodnightmush | 34 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 02:54, 6 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Black Falcon | 82 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 02:57, 6 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Arkyan | 26 | 12 | 0 | 68 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ozgod | 21 | 11 | 0 | 66 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
hmwith | 38 | 15 | 0 | 72 | Unsuccessful | 04:12, 4 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Mr.Z-man | 43 | 2 | 0 | 96 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Clamster5 | 12 | 7 | 0 | 63 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Reedy Boy | 48 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 01:08, 3 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Superbfc | 12 | 29 | 0 | 29 | Unsuccessful | 01:55, 2 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
WilyD | 40 | 4 | 0 | 91 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Vassyana | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DoomsDay349 | 40 | 12 | 0 | 77 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Goodnightmush | 34 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 02:54, 6 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Black Falcon | 82 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 02:57, 6 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Arkyan | 26 | 12 | 0 | 68 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ozgod | 21 | 11 | 0 | 66 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
hmwith | 38 | 15 | 0 | 72 | Unsuccessful | 04:12, 4 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Mr.Z-man | 43 | 2 | 0 | 96 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Clamster5 | 12 | 7 | 0 | 63 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Reedy Boy | 48 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 01:08, 3 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Superbfc | 12 | 29 | 0 | 29 | Unsuccessful | 01:55, 2 June 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
WilyD | 40 | 4 | 0 | 91 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Vassyana | Error parsing votes | Successful | Error parsing end time | -- | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
The Night Watch | RfA | Successful | 11 Feb 2024 | 215 | 63 | 13 | 77 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 22:53:20, 24 May 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.
DoomsDay349
Final: (40/12/7); ended 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
DoomsDay349 (talk · contribs) - Friends, Wikipedians, lend me your ears. I'd like to nominate DoomsDay349 for the mop. Starting back in May 2006, DoomsDay has been active in editing articles related to the Dragonlance series of novels. Besides his hard work in this field, he also works a lot in the realm of Good articles, and often reviews articles nommed for GA. DoomsDay also hangs around a lot in AFD's, both listing and discussing about articles. For those editcountitis afflicted, DoomsDay has more than 5000 edits that are very balanced (even 18 Portal Talk edits...it's a record!). I met DoomsDay way back when Esperanza and the infamous Coffee Lounge were around. DoomsDay, if you'll remember, was a big player in these MfD's and overhauls. After the whole debacle, DoomsDay has worked harder towards article improvement. I think that it has been sufficiently long enough to put trust in DoomsDay349 and hand him the tabs. bibliomaniac15 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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: As an administrator I would definitely become involved in newpage patrolling (which I already do now, by adding speedy tags) and recent changes patrolling (which I do less often but as an admin would be easier and permit me to do more often). I would also get involved in WP:AIV, to which I periodically report users (mostly those that I find during my patrolling).
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am fond of the work I have done for Dragonlance, pulling it out of a load of stubs. I recognize that there is still a load of work to do and look eagerly to the future for the improvements I can make. I'm also fond of the good article reviewing; there's a big backlog, and there's something nice about seeing a whole subcategory of reviewees cleared out.
- 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: Well lemme think...yeah. Earliest I can recall was with an editor named Kranar Drogin, over the (written by me and proposed for deletion by me) Speaker of the Suns article. There was a whole load of crap over Esperanza, with me really getting upset over the whole ordeal. Chief among the incidents was my very rude treatment of Elaragirl, who I came to recognize as a wonderful person who (insofar as I understand it) has left Wikipedia. As it happens I am involved in a questioning of my edits to the various gods of the Dragonlance Campaign, and am hoping that I am dealing with it correctly. I'm being as civil as I can and am responding to his comments (however uncivil) to the best of my ability, and am using the best of my patience to wait this out rather than immediately revert his changes (which of course prompts the whole 3RR deals). I plan to take that attitude in the future.
Optional Questions from DarkFalls
- 4. What is your opinion on the IAR policy, and in what situation will you use it?
- A: For one, the policy is very short and very vague. There are certainly certain policies that one can't ignore (WP:CIVIL, for instance). I wonder to what this policy wholly extends to; if you feel that by removing a CSD template from your article improves Wikipedia, then can you remove it? Certainly it's a rule not to do so, but since we can ignore the rules...Also I wonder as to what exactlyconstitutes improving or maintaining Wikipedia; surely that can very often be in the eye of the beholder? For me personally IAR is something I feel is quite vague and doubt that I would invoke it.
- 5. What do you think will make a good/bad admin?
- A: Several things. Certainly knowledge and experience with the project, maturity, and dedication to Wikipedia. Patience and level headedness are also important. At the heart of the matter, though, I think loving the project and, out of care for it and its goals, always working to improve it.
Optional question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 6. How useful to the project is it for an administrator to spend a major portion of their time reviewing the new user logs and indef blocking usernames that in their personal interpretation violate WP:USERNAME?
- A:. I think it's highly important. All of the inappropriate username criteria make sense and having users with inappropriate names can not be a good thing. Blocking those usernames from editing is an important task. I would definitely say that an administrator should focus a good portion of their time to the task.
Optional question from Ed (talk · contribs)
- 7. Your userpage states that you are 14, about to turn 15. This means that you are most likely a freshman or an 8th grader. How is this working out for you? As you are well aware, I myself am 14, and you know how much changes we experience in our lives at this time. (You know what I'm talking about...) Do you feel that you would be able to cope with yout administrative duties along with balancing a family, social, academic, and athletic life? How do you think Wikipedia life has affected you in real life? Furthermore, will gaining an administrative role here bring about added stress consume time in your daily life?
- A:. I am currently an 8th grader with (thankfully) the odd week of school left. As far as balancing my "lives" I see no problems. Many of my hobbies are dealt with online (for instance, I play D&D exclusively online) which just supplements being online with Wikipedia. Academically I am (and no intent to brag) a good student and don't see a problem with neglecting one or the other for the other. I don't play any sports, so that helps. I feel everything is balanced and will continue to be balanced, and like I said, don't see any problems. DoomsDay349 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs)
- 8. I know that this question is rather irrelevant to the whole nom, and that it's queer for the nominator to push in questions, but I would like to know how the whole Esperanza debacle changed your views and opinions towards Wikipedia. Don't answer if you're unwilling, but I'm curious. bibliomaniac15 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Very much so, actually. The whole Esperanza mess had one great point for me, and that was that it brought to my attention a whole bunch of policies about what Wikipedia is and is not. I came out of it with a lot of knowledge armed for the future. It showed me many policies and essays that had a significant impact between the first and second MFDs so that I totally changed positions. The MFD taught me a lot and helped shape the editor I am today. Thanks for bringing this up actually, it was a nice memoir :).
General comments
- See DoomsDay349's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for DoomsDay349: DoomsDay349 (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/DoomsDay349 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support hoping to beat the nom, but…— $PЯINGrαgђ 06:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ha ha! Glad I got in early. I've know Dooms for a while and have no doubt that he'll do an excellent job with admin tools. Dfrg.msc 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nominator. If he's good enough for bibliomaniac to nominate, he's good enough for me to support. An admittedly superficial glance at the candidate's contribs didn't unearth any deal-breakers. —AldeBaer 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've senn DoomsDay349 around, I think he/she would use the tools in a great way... especially with all the bcklogs that are building up around here. Good luck! --The Sunshine Man 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no major concerns. Those backlogs aren't getting any smaller, and we need admins. —Anas talk? 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Looks good to me. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as far as I've seen. Abeg92contribs 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have seen good work from DoomsDay and I see little evidence of immaturity on-wiki (though I have myself warned about the "not giving a fuck" status not being a great message). I am not prepared to oppose based on an IRC discussion I was not present for, but I advise those who who use IRC to comport themselves as they would were they editing a Wikipedia page. WjBscribe 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I don't see any serious concerns; contrary to what Gaillimh says below, looking at the candidate's talkpage doesn't reveal any obvious signs of "immaturity". Good editcount and experience, and we really need more admins. WaltonAssistance! 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User seems ready for adminship. Captain panda 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. And I like the WP:FUCK essay. It's a pretty good message overall, albeit couched in less than ideal terms. Cheers, Lanky TALK 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the essay too. But, let people look at things superficially, what can you do? Wikidan829 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have had many interactions with this user, and I think he is mature to wield the tools with care and aforethought. This is Dev920, btw, using her sockpuppet account. DevAlt 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have known DoomsDay since we met at Esperanza. He is a good editor that will always think about his actions, and he is always trying to keep good relations with his fellow editors. I must oppose those that say he is immature, because DD is definitely not an immature person, given that he is about to complete the 8th grade. His answer to my own question was satisfactory; he clearly demonstrated that he can manage his time. I am confident that this user will be a good admin.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Being an administrator means that they will continue to contribute as needed, have a decent working knowledge of Wikipedia, and not abuse the tools. I believe DoomsDay349 fits into this category. Regardless of what is said below about "maturity", I took a good look at DoomsDay349's contributions, especially the discussion that seemed to be a personal attack, and think that he handled himself quite well - calmly reminding the other party of policy and being kind in every reply. As Jimbo said, "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*...I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." As far as the WP:FUCK thing on his page, I would encourage anyone who didn't already, to not be superficial, and actually read the essay. What it is meant by "not giving a fuck" is not as you may initially think. Wikidan829 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I acknowledge some of the concerns raised by the opposing users, but my personal experience with this user is quite positive and I personally see no major reasons for denying access to the admin tools.--Húsönd 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. Could have cooled things a little more in the discussion highlighted by Majorly, but generally did well. I really think that the WP:FUCK issue has been blown a little out of proportion, and the fact that the user identifies with it encourages me, and shows a greater level of maturity IMHO. I would normally err on the side of oppose if there are maturity concerns, but I am happy to take the chance here. TigerShark 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One 05:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. That spat with User:Cynehelm probably could have been handled a bit better, but really it didn't seem to be going anywhere at all without intervention. The WP:FUCK essay bothers me not, although I would advise that message to stay off the candidate's talk page, and possibly that he remove the "DGAF" userbox from his user page as well - it still might be misleading to a new editor looking for help. Other than that, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Though the WP:FUCK essay may be somewhat worrisome, I'd like invoke it by not giving a f*** about it. I have seen no problems with this user, and think DoomsDay is an excellent candidate for adminship. --tennisman sign here! 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, satisfied with the answers to the new questions, and I believe the user can keep from having repeat performances of a snappy temper. Arkyan • (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, main positive - building a 'pedia - outweighs negatives. If events continue then there is always RfC. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Oppose concerns not enough to oppose. Davewild 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Oppose votes are unimpressive and superficial. The candidate obviously recognizes and corrects errors, which is the most we can expect from anyone. He removed the link people had a problem with. I'm confident that he will ask questions when he has questions and exercise good judgment. --Spike Wilbury 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support someone with such an uplifting user name couldn't be bad --Infrangible 01:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. per nom. Have seen around, have seen no problems. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As being one of the people that got into an arguement with DoomsDay way back when he first started, I fully support. He has matured greatly since I have first had dealings with him, and to this day has been a great contributor to the Wikipedia. He quickly corrects mistakes, does great peer reviews, and has worked on many GA reviews. This whole "Fuck" issues is something people grasp onto, and is not something that should even been considered. I have seen people allowed to become admins with less work that what DoomsDay has contributed.--Kranar drogin 02:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Who hasn't put something stupid on their talk or user page before, especially early on? Good response by candidate -- everybody needs something pointed out here & there, and taking criticism well is a good sign. --Auto(talk / contribs) 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A good editor who will be an asset as an admin. The opposes below that simply give the reasoning "oppose because he's 14" are hugely disappointing. Need I mention how many great admins we have who are that age or younger. Opposing for reasons of immaturity (and giving evidence to show this) is fair enough, but opposing merely based upon someone's age regardless of their work here is entirely unjustifiable. Will (aka Wimt) 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yey for young administrators! I think this candidate will make a great admin (despite my earlier slight concern) and we can always do with some younger admins. Yep, definitely. Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per high edit count. BH (Talk) 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think supporting someone for their edit count is almost as bad as opposing them for their age!- TwoOars 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I please no one? BH (Talk) 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't the best reason for sure, but it's better than a dumb oppose of the same type :) This should not be a big deal. Majorly (talk | meet) 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, no offense meant. Didn't mean to sound like I was jumping on you. :) Really. It was a semi-humorous statement indicating that you might be using the wrong reasons to judge candidates. It is just that I do not find your reasons for opposing or supporting candidates on RfAs that sensible. - TwoOars 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I please no one? BH (Talk) 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think supporting someone for their edit count is almost as bad as opposing them for their age!- TwoOars 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major concerns here. Also, when people start opposing based on the candidate's age, it probably confirms that there are no serious issues here :).- TwoOars 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Matthew trusts this user and Matthew believes that he will make a better administrator than half of our present sysops. Matthew also believes that this user is not a silly twat, has a brain and would not do harm to Wikipedia. Matthew 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per being a great, trustworthy, and underage user. Cbrown1023 talk 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support who says age is a problem. I am a minor and am an administrator on other projects. Lcarsdata 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per Mr Stephen. · AndonicO Talk 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - those agism concerns just make me want to support more. No problems, no big deal. G1ggy! Review me! 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because most opposers have insane arguments. --ST47Talk 23:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. As a fellow Dragonlance editor and contributor, I can attest to this user's maturity and abilities. Although he might have went a little too far on his talk page, it is obvious that he was in a bad mood at that time and thus is excusable as non of us are perfect. In addition, as a fellow 14 year old student in high school, I find this prejudice against his age quite foolish. If anything, his willingness to concentrate on his school subjects should be considered as a sign of maturity as he is prioritizing his tasks. Ddcc 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no problems here. I am confident that he would be an excellent administtator. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- While extra buttons are no big deal, this candidate doesn't appear to possess the necessary maturity to use these buttons responsibly and effectively communicate with others gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please lend me some diffs regarding your oppose, Gaillimh? --DarkFalls talk 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing, DarkFalls. One needs only to look towards the candidate's talk page, specifically his "current status" to see this sort of overt immaturity I'm referring to. I can't quite see when he added this, so apologies in advance for the lack of a "diff". In addition, it rather appears like he's a child who's all to pleased to be without parental supervision on Wikipedia. As such, giving DoomsDay any extra buttons seems to be a recipe for disaster. I'll note that I've no opinion on the essay he cites (other than the way he applies it on his talk page) or any prejudice against young Wikipedians (that'd be a bit hypocritical, hehe); my issue is simply with the candidate's maturity, or more aptly, the lack thereof. gaillimhConas tá tú? 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems about the lack of diffs... According to his user page, he's actually 15 years old. As to the immaturity, I do agree from the "status", that in the future, he might have a tendency to bite. The userpage is particularly eccentric for my taste, though I won't oppose on that basis. What I am frowning on about this user, is frequent gaps of absences, with some being seven days long.. --DarkFalls talk 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Couple responses here; firstly, thank you for your criticism (every bit helps ya know). Firstly to Gaillimh, my apologies for misunderstanding on my part but it's unclear to me what it is you're saying is wrong with the current status template. In honesty it's really just a joke, and never meant in any way to offend anyone. I can honestly say that WP:FUCK helped me out a lot in the post-Esperanza deal, as I was really stressed in that whole period. Also, I am almost 15 years old, I've got a little less than 2 months to go here. Is there anything besides the template that you feel portrays me as immature? I've no problem with you having an opinion of course but I want to know what I can do better to not appear immature to others. Secondly, to DarkFalls. I do know about the gaps of absence and I am busy with other things and sometimes that whole vibe to edit doesn't strike. I'm feeling way more into the swing of things now and don't foresee any such gaps in the future (I've got quite a bit of work to do :)). Also, the recent gap was meant to be two days but was extended without my prior knowledge; no internet access so I couldn't alert anyone. I didn't feel two days warranted a Wikibreak template but had I known about the extension I certainly would have. Again, thanks for all your criticism! DoomsDay349 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there Doomsday! Thanks for removing the silliness from your talk page! Your response is a bit confusing, however, as it seems that since you removed the header, you obviously realise why it is inappropriate. If you simply removed it to appease me or anyone else during your RfA, I appreciate the sentiment, but please, it's not at all necessary. My issue is not with the essay itself (which is quite valid, although the message is largely obscured by the gratuitous use of language), but with the hostile environment you put forth on your talk page. Your Current status: not giving a fuck gives the impression that you don't care about Wikipedia or the community and are unwilling to communicate with others. If you did realise this when you removed the talk page, great, but your response is odd. If you didn't realise this, then you are clearly unfit to use any extra buttons on this project. gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Couple responses here; firstly, thank you for your criticism (every bit helps ya know). Firstly to Gaillimh, my apologies for misunderstanding on my part but it's unclear to me what it is you're saying is wrong with the current status template. In honesty it's really just a joke, and never meant in any way to offend anyone. I can honestly say that WP:FUCK helped me out a lot in the post-Esperanza deal, as I was really stressed in that whole period. Also, I am almost 15 years old, I've got a little less than 2 months to go here. Is there anything besides the template that you feel portrays me as immature? I've no problem with you having an opinion of course but I want to know what I can do better to not appear immature to others. Secondly, to DarkFalls. I do know about the gaps of absence and I am busy with other things and sometimes that whole vibe to edit doesn't strike. I'm feeling way more into the swing of things now and don't foresee any such gaps in the future (I've got quite a bit of work to do :)). Also, the recent gap was meant to be two days but was extended without my prior knowledge; no internet access so I couldn't alert anyone. I didn't feel two days warranted a Wikibreak template but had I known about the extension I certainly would have. Again, thanks for all your criticism! DoomsDay349 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems about the lack of diffs... According to his user page, he's actually 15 years old. As to the immaturity, I do agree from the "status", that in the future, he might have a tendency to bite. The userpage is particularly eccentric for my taste, though I won't oppose on that basis. What I am frowning on about this user, is frequent gaps of absences, with some being seven days long.. --DarkFalls talk 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing, DarkFalls. One needs only to look towards the candidate's talk page, specifically his "current status" to see this sort of overt immaturity I'm referring to. I can't quite see when he added this, so apologies in advance for the lack of a "diff". In addition, it rather appears like he's a child who's all to pleased to be without parental supervision on Wikipedia. As such, giving DoomsDay any extra buttons seems to be a recipe for disaster. I'll note that I've no opinion on the essay he cites (other than the way he applies it on his talk page) or any prejudice against young Wikipedians (that'd be a bit hypocritical, hehe); my issue is simply with the candidate's maturity, or more aptly, the lack thereof. gaillimhConas tá tú? 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (indents getting a bit long). I did remove the header after some more consideration, after reading some comments (including yours). I was more fearful of offending anyone rather than trying to appease anyone. After I asked you for clarification, I started thinking more about it, and began to see problems in it. I think in retrospect it was a joke that should have been there for about a week and became something else. Thanks a lot for your criticism of this, because it helped out a lot. As I said, after thinking it over (after posting my response) I saw the problems with it, but it wouldn't have been right to simply edit it out without giving a chance for response. My intent was never to create a hostile environment nor was it to appear like I don't care about Wikipedia. I do, deeply. The essay for me means more of a "Don't get so riled up" rather than, "Don't care about Wikipedia". DoomsDay349 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me for skimming the discussion, but is DoomsDay being opposed at all due to his age? One 05:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not directly, but I would highly doubt if he were, say, 35, that the word "immature" would appear in such a discussion. Wikidan829 13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm 13 and I'm doing fine as an admin... One 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise I know many adult users who would not make suitable admins. Who cares what age he is... Majorly (talk | meet) 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One, no worries about skimming the discussion, but if you read my comments a bit more closely, you would have seen that I actually mentioned that this has nothing to do with his age, and for me to hold this against the fellow would be rather hypocritical, as I, myself, am a student. Also, while you should feel free to participate in this discussion as fully or as superficially as you want, it seems silly that you would not read the discussions and simply sign your name in the supporting section, igoring the discussion and adding nothing of value to these proceedings. gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise I know many adult users who would not make suitable admins. Who cares what age he is... Majorly (talk | meet) 20:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm 13 and I'm doing fine as an admin... One 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not directly, but I would highly doubt if he were, say, 35, that the word "immature" would appear in such a discussion. Wikidan829 13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me for skimming the discussion, but is DoomsDay being opposed at all due to his age? One 05:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please lend me some diffs regarding your oppose, Gaillimh? --DarkFalls talk 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Well lemme think...yeah I think anyone who wants to be an admin should give a f**k talk page. Nick mallory 09:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, did you actually read that essay? Wikidan829 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and that's not the point. Imagine an editor, new to wikipedia, comes to his talk page for help or advice and the first thing he sees is the statement 'I don't give a fuck'? What sort of impression does that give, not just of this proposed admin but the whole project? That's not the right attitude for someone taking this seriously. Neither do I think writing 'Well lemme think...yeah' is good enough when writing answers to questions on this RfA. If it's good enough for you, then fine, but it's not good enough for me. Nick mallory 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, did you actually read that essay? Wikidan829 16:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems an alright guy, but not quite ready - he was on IRC last night and didn't know how to respond to a personal attack, and was asking for help. Not sure how he'll cope as an admin I'm afraid. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I mean no disrespect, but I'm awfully uncomfortable with an oppose that's based off something that happened in IRC. If the candidate is truly unprepared then surely you can dig up some diffs or on-wiki behavior that the rest of us can use to assess? To be clear, I'm not defending either, I'm just someone trying to make that assessment --JayHenry 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the discussion. Majorly (talk | meet) 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree with Nick. An admin must be concerned about comments users send his way. Perhaps he's just trying to be funny but it fails. Also, your user page doesn't belong to you. These two things are just signs of a touch of immaturity which I am confident he will come out of in time. But until then I cannot trust him with the tools. Sorry. JodyB talk 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose; immaturity seems an issue. In response to supporters who've said opposes like these are ageist, this has nothing to do with age (I was 15 when I gained adminship), but general demeanor. Also, confronted another opposer in #wikipedia; I have no problem with asking for clarification on a comment, but doing so in an open channel, rather than via PM or e-mail, strikes me as obviously problematic (almost like trying to embarrass the user into changing their vote). Ral315 » 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm a little concerned that you think blocking usernames is such an important task, and that such a large amount of time be spent on it. Not that it's not of value, but the resulting aggressive blocking of newbies is a bad thing. I guess immaturity is a concern also, but has good energy/attitude. Probably needs a little more tempering...RxS 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might just be my personal opinion, but I am reluctant to support a user who is doubtful about invoking IAR. I feel personally, that IAR is a important policy, and that, with common sense, it should be applied. Coupled with some immaturity issues, I will have to oppose this Rfa, but will be willing to support after a few more months. --DarkFalls talk 06:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Changed to neutral..again.[reply]
- Admin deletes controversial article X. Deletion of Wikipedia article makes online news etc. Reporter follows link to deleting admin's page to get a little bit of info to add to report, finds "User does not give a fuck". Hilarity ensues. Also have concerns with maturity and the areas of focus, as well as not understanding Wikipedia's primary goal. Daniel 10:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize he took it down, right? Wikidan829 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I appreciate editor's readiness to compromise, and respect a tentative approach to IAR. I see many good signs here. Still, editor has more to learn. I'd think that a renom. around his birthday would be very well-timed. Xoloz 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose granting the bit at this time, with no prejudice against a future nomination that I could probably support. I believe this user has more to learn before I would be comfortable with them as a sysop. Concur with Daniel and Xoloz in general. -- nae'blis 15:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per weak answer to question #1. Also, per your comment that you "periodically report users" to WP:AIV, I see only one edit that you have made there in the last 3 months, so that doesn't seem very periodic to me. The one report that you did make [1] was the day before your RFA started. Oddly, it appears that next user who reported someone wiped off your entry and restored some from 30 minutes prior, so your request was never acted on. I would have preferred that you had followed up on this. I think that this attention to detail is necessary. --After Midnight 0001 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're going to hold him accountable because another user wiped out his entry? Is this a joke? Furthermore, I find it rare that a user gets as far as needing AIV, nearly all of them stop at, if not before, their last warning. Wikidan829 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would I joke about this? He said that he uses the AIV page, but his edit history says otherwise. And yes, if you take the trouble to post something, you generally look to see what the result was. Seeing that his request was neither accepted nor denied he should have taken further action. Whether or not most users need to be reported in not relevant; what is relevant are this candidates statements and actions. --After Midnight 0001 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose according to DoomsDays talk page, he's 13 (maybe 15 by now). I think he's too young to trust with the tools of an admin. BH (Talk) 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Switched to support[reply]
- You're going to hold him accountable because another user wiped out his entry? Is this a joke? Furthermore, I find it rare that a user gets as far as needing AIV, nearly all of them stop at, if not before, their last warning. Wikidan829 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot approve someone who does not show enough substance in their answers to 2 of 3 primary RFA questions. TML 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. No euphemisms: I would very much prefer that we did not have 14 year old admins. Mr Stephen 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd very much prefer people assessing this candidate to bother to look past ageist views and look at the quality of his edits. Would you mind doing that? Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be editor review, somewhere down the corridor, I believe. Mr Stephen 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So tell me, how did you come to the decision this user would make a bad administrator? Did you bother to look past his age? Clearly not, since that only happens at editor reviews according to you. Well, let me tell you, that's incorrect. This is a discussion about whether he'll make a good admin candidate. It's clear you haven't bothered to do that assessment, and simply imposed your ageist view on him. Nice work. Despite the fact we have plenty of 14 year old admins doing a fine job (and younger) you simply cannot accept the fact that someone so young could be mature enough to be able to do it. Please reconsider. Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think your tone in this section reflects very well on under-18 administrators, or for that matter administrators in general. RxS 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for voicing your opinion, Rx StrangeLove. Simply put, I find this oppose as offensive as one based on race or gender. Would you think that is acceptable? Majorly (talk | meet) 21:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think your tone in this section reflects very well on under-18 administrators, or for that matter administrators in general. RxS 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, I think people should avoid making the generalization that underage people are immature and thus not suitable to be administrators. If you just look at the number of under-age admins here, you can see that they have all done excellent jobs. I think most of the underage people who come here to actually edit, and not vandalize, have a certain level of maturity to start with. Given that, it would not seem fair to deny someone a request for adminship because of age. If you could make a connection that this user appears to be immature and not suitable for adminship, then that's fine. However, please don't just oppose a user based on age, without actually considering the user's actual work. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So tell me, how did you come to the decision this user would make a bad administrator? Did you bother to look past his age? Clearly not, since that only happens at editor reviews according to you. Well, let me tell you, that's incorrect. This is a discussion about whether he'll make a good admin candidate. It's clear you haven't bothered to do that assessment, and simply imposed your ageist view on him. Nice work. Despite the fact we have plenty of 14 year old admins doing a fine job (and younger) you simply cannot accept the fact that someone so young could be mature enough to be able to do it. Please reconsider. Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be editor review, somewhere down the corridor, I believe. Mr Stephen 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reason is stupid, end of. Should I oppose you when you go up for RfA... for being too old? Matthew 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fellows, lets not get silly here. Mr. Stephen's opposition is as valid as any and given Wikipedia's ever-growing brand recognition and cultural impact, it's quite reasonable to expect administrators to have at least passed their A-levels (bit convenient that I met my rather superfluous requirement just a few months before becoming an admin, but there it is) gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid Gaillimh that I rather disagree with your reasoning. It is very true that Wikipedia is quickly growing in terms of recognition and cultural impact and therefore we do need our administrators to be mature and trustworthy. However, it is equally important in terms of this growing cultural phenomenon that we are part of, that our administrators properly reflect the cultural make up of our editors. Now it's a fact that younger people tend to have different interests that older ones, so it makes a lot of sense to have younger administrators. Of course they need to be mature, but to say an oppose based simply on age which does not take into account maturity at all is entirely "valid" seems rather unfounded. As I (and others) have stated previously, we have a lot of administrators who haven't passed their A levels, to take your rather arbitrary definition. And there is absolutely no evidence to show that these have demonstrated themselves less equipped than the older ones. Furthermore, by your reasoning, are you saying that 20 year olds who dropped out of school at 16 and don't have A levels shouldn't be administrators? Perhaps I am reading too much into your argument, but to oppose an otherwise excellent candidate based on age or lack of a particular qualification is, in my opinion, shooting Wikipedia in the foot. Will (aka Wimt) 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, mate, I think you took my comment a bit too literally without fully reading it (which is a bit of a paradox); see the word "superfluous", hehe. Disregarding the bit about A-levels for a moment here and focusing on the candidate himself, the larger issue is not with the fellow's age, but his maturity, or more aptly, his immaturity. A potential administrator having Current status: Not giving a fuck on his user talk page reflects poorly on not only himself, but Wikipedia at large, as it projects a hostile environment and an unwillingness to engage the community, and most importantly newcomers. It's nice that he removed it from his talk page during this RfA, but as he mentions, he did it not because he realised it created such an environment, but because he misinterpreted the opposition who he thought was offended by an essay he linked to (which, of course, is not the case). gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually I think you rather ambiguously phrased your statement. Although you described the requirement as superfluous, you also described it as "quite reasonable". Back to the more important issue though, I have never said that the candidate displaying "not giving a fuck" or whatever it was on his userpage was not a valid reason to oppose on maturity grounds. It is not one I agree with, but I respect those who oppose because of it. As such, I am not disputing your opposition. However, you will not that this particular oppose here states nothing more than "I would very much prefer that we did not have 14 year old admins." That, I feel strongly, is not a valid oppose reason unless backed up with evidence and it makes me think the opposer has done nothing more than read the candidate's age and typed oppose. I hope that isn't the case, but that's what I am so strongly against. And I'm glad you aren't serious about opposing based on any particular qualifications because I would also be strongly against that. Will (aka Wimt) 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, mate, I think you took my comment a bit too literally without fully reading it (which is a bit of a paradox); see the word "superfluous", hehe. Disregarding the bit about A-levels for a moment here and focusing on the candidate himself, the larger issue is not with the fellow's age, but his maturity, or more aptly, his immaturity. A potential administrator having Current status: Not giving a fuck on his user talk page reflects poorly on not only himself, but Wikipedia at large, as it projects a hostile environment and an unwillingness to engage the community, and most importantly newcomers. It's nice that he removed it from his talk page during this RfA, but as he mentions, he did it not because he realised it created such an environment, but because he misinterpreted the opposition who he thought was offended by an essay he linked to (which, of course, is not the case). gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid Gaillimh that I rather disagree with your reasoning. It is very true that Wikipedia is quickly growing in terms of recognition and cultural impact and therefore we do need our administrators to be mature and trustworthy. However, it is equally important in terms of this growing cultural phenomenon that we are part of, that our administrators properly reflect the cultural make up of our editors. Now it's a fact that younger people tend to have different interests that older ones, so it makes a lot of sense to have younger administrators. Of course they need to be mature, but to say an oppose based simply on age which does not take into account maturity at all is entirely "valid" seems rather unfounded. As I (and others) have stated previously, we have a lot of administrators who haven't passed their A levels, to take your rather arbitrary definition. And there is absolutely no evidence to show that these have demonstrated themselves less equipped than the older ones. Furthermore, by your reasoning, are you saying that 20 year olds who dropped out of school at 16 and don't have A levels shouldn't be administrators? Perhaps I am reading too much into your argument, but to oppose an otherwise excellent candidate based on age or lack of a particular qualification is, in my opinion, shooting Wikipedia in the foot. Will (aka Wimt) 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fellows, lets not get silly here. Mr. Stephen's opposition is as valid as any and given Wikipedia's ever-growing brand recognition and cultural impact, it's quite reasonable to expect administrators to have at least passed their A-levels (bit convenient that I met my rather superfluous requirement just a few months before becoming an admin, but there it is) gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. First of all, let me say (further to a message at my talk page) that I am not here to offend anyone. I haven't made any comment about DoomsDay349, simply noted his age: I don't say "DD is 14 therefore he will be a bad administrator"; I say I would prefer not to have 14 year old administrators. The foundation has made a start at requiring certain positions here to be filled only by those over 18 and over the age of majority. Have accusations of ageism have been levelled at them? Feel free to give me a hard time at a venue of your choice, but this RFA is probably not the best place. Mr Stephen 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It simply isn't fair on the candidate to oppose based on that alone. Just because they are doing it for checkusers doesn't mean they are for admins. I see nowhere there being an age requirement to be an admin. So why force one unnecessarily? And I ask again, please look at the user's edits, not his age. Thank you. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the foundation's 18+ policy was a result of concerns over maturity. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was done so that the foundation could confirm users' identities (to avoid another Essjay controversy) without having to disclose information of a child if it was ever needed. This isn't really needed for adminship. It's only needed for things that are only given to trusted people (ie. checkuser, oversight). Signed, under 18 user, --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (sorry Majorly, just had to copy that :) )[reply]
- I agree. I think I've only seen such a thing with Stewards. Wikidan829 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was done so that the foundation could confirm users' identities (to avoid another Essjay controversy) without having to disclose information of a child if it was ever needed. This isn't really needed for adminship. It's only needed for things that are only given to trusted people (ie. checkuser, oversight). Signed, under 18 user, --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (sorry Majorly, just had to copy that :) )[reply]
- I don't believe the foundation's 18+ policy was a result of concerns over maturity. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, accusations of ageism have been levelled at the Foundation, not least by the users who had taken on these responsibilities only to be stripped of them despite doing a perfectly good job. Essentially, they've got jittery over legal issues, and decided that all contributors in these positions must be over 18 and supply proof of identity to them. This means that if they screw up and someone tries to take legal action, the Foundation can send the lawyers after them rather than being sued themselves. Pathetic, but bearable – Gurch 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It simply isn't fair on the candidate to oppose based on that alone. Just because they are doing it for checkusers doesn't mean they are for admins. I see nowhere there being an age requirement to be an admin. So why force one unnecessarily? And I ask again, please look at the user's edits, not his age. Thank you. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd very much prefer people assessing this candidate to bother to look past ageist views and look at the quality of his edits. Would you mind doing that? Signed, under-18 administrator Majorly (talk | meet) 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per questions and maturity concerns. Friday (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Per my comments above. Pending answer for the questions, before making a decision. --DarkFalls talk 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Switched to oppose[reply]
- Neutral - Some sterling work, but I recognise the concerns of User:Gaillimh above. Seems a touch bitey and prone to rushing in which won't be so hot with the buttons - e.g. [2] Using this type of template seems rather bitey and also [3] seems to have jumped the gun. Otherwise a great contributor but I'm worried about letting out the tools here at the moment - Neutral for now I'm afraid. Pedro | Chat 09:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I read the essay on Don't Give a F**k, and while the philosophy is ok the use of language is immature. I will not oppose, as I think that this editor has real potential, but on the basis of perceived immaturity I cannot support at this time.--Anthony.bradbury 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for what I perceive as lack of maturity and conflict-resolution skills. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Seems well on their way towards becoming a superb editor, but the maturity and temper aspects concern me. I realize the Internet is an anonymous venue, but Wikipedia strives to keep a cohesive sense of community. I'm not exactly sure if this user could keep with that goal. I like the edits and the future of the editor, but now is not the right time. Jmlk17 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing to neutral here, due to my misintepretation of the answer to my question {IAR). The reasons for support and oppose are extremely balanced, and although I am still leaning towards oppose due to reasons of bad temperament, there are numerous edits of experience and knowledge. --Dark Falls talk 11:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While the FUCK essay has a good message overall, I am somewhat concerned about how the candidate applies it. --Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I cannot get a strong enough impression of this editor to make a decision either way, so vote neutral. I don't really give a f**k about his not giving a f**k. As for his age, there are other successful younger admins. Appears to have made a substantial contribution. Still, I really did not get a great sense from reading the answers to his questions that he would make a stellar admin. IAR basically comes down to exercise common sense. That for me has got to be one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. Its exhausting seeing some of the things that wind up in XFD or otherwise tying up editorial time because IAR is not applied. —Gaff ταλκ 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- While opinions seem to be what RfA is about, there are several comments here, and on other RfAs, both positive and negative, that cannot be backed by anything. They have no verifiability, and several people above make comments based on "what the guy above me said", when the guy above him may not be able to back up his claims. I could say (and this is extreme) that I ran into DoomsDay349 at the store and he kicked me in the shins, he clearly doesn't qualify for adminship. This just isn't right. I would kindly request that, especially to the people who opposed him, or are neutral: if you said "per user above" or something similar, be sure that the user can back it up and you're not just taking his/her word for it, for the rest, it would be really nice to see some evidence/examples of your claims. I don't see why the quality of RfAs should be any different from what we expect of our articles. We can't rely on he said she said. Peace.. Wikidan829 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments are very accurate and fair. However with the exception of JodyB (who in fairness also then fleshed out her answer) I can't see a single example at time of posting of your above statements within neutral and oppose. All the editors have made there own comments and not "oppose as per" or "neutral as above". I know this happens a lot on other RfA's, and as I say you are dead right that there should be verifiability to claims, but I don't see any issues on this one. Pedro | Chat 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I won't name any particular users. I want to see who first used the word "mature", then who else made "maturity" an issue afterward, for example. Personally looking at the users, and probably the same with his supporters, I find him more mature than a lot of people here, and certainly enough to be an admin. While I should be assuming better faith, this does seem to be an indirect "what the guy above me said" mentality that is damaging and unnecessary. It would be nice if users had to completely vote on their own opinions, rather than have a chance of being influenced by those who already voted and just trying to follow a trend. I've been accused of being too much of an idealist. ;) Wikidan829 11:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments are very accurate and fair. However with the exception of JodyB (who in fairness also then fleshed out her answer) I can't see a single example at time of posting of your above statements within neutral and oppose. All the editors have made there own comments and not "oppose as per" or "neutral as above". I know this happens a lot on other RfA's, and as I say you are dead right that there should be verifiability to claims, but I don't see any issues on this one. Pedro | Chat 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To an extent I do agree - there is often a "herd mentality" at RfA - "if plenty of other editors support then so should I" and vice versa. Within that context there may be an issue here regarding the <immaturity> votes, although that was not the reason for my neutral at all. Just one point I do feel is germane would be that sometimes an editor digs further than others, and uncovers something quite concerning (not in this RfA to clarify) and that revelation is then enough for others to oppose without needing to make further opinions of there own. I won't mention any specific RfA's, as I've been shot down in flames by another editor before for referncing one RfA within another, so sorry about the lack of diffs to evidence this. Pedro | Chat 11:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, thanks for the dialog. I wanted to get that out, maybe confirm that I'm not the only (in)sane one here. We don't need another clown show. Wikidan829 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To an extent I do agree - there is often a "herd mentality" at RfA - "if plenty of other editors support then so should I" and vice versa. Within that context there may be an issue here regarding the <immaturity> votes, although that was not the reason for my neutral at all. Just one point I do feel is germane would be that sometimes an editor digs further than others, and uncovers something quite concerning (not in this RfA to clarify) and that revelation is then enough for others to oppose without needing to make further opinions of there own. I won't mention any specific RfA's, as I've been shot down in flames by another editor before for referncing one RfA within another, so sorry about the lack of diffs to evidence this. Pedro | Chat 11:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Goodnightmush
Closed as successful by Cecropia 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC) at (34/0/0); Scheduled end time 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodnightmush (talk · contribs) - I've been with the project for about two years now, first editing anonymously in mid-2005. I created my account about 16 months ago, and have been truly active for about 5 months now. I believe the administrator mop would aid me in vandal-fighting, which accounts for the vast majority of my contributions. I accept going into this process that I will face opposition on the grounds that I am only not the most active contributor apart from vandal-fighting, a valid criticism. Beyond that I contribute regularly the the 3 dozen or so pages on my watchlist, (A number around which I like to keep it. A close eye on a few pages is more important than a brief look at hundreds, I think.) come and go in XfD, and, of course, cleanup and correct pages I come across in actually using Wikipedia (reading it like an encyclopedia). I am well versed in just about everything at WP:ARL, and, while the scope of my contributions is narrow, my understanding of policy is fairly broad, I believe. That said, there are areas I will not employ the administrator tools, such as with improper fair-use image deletion, until I am very confident in my understanding of policy, as I am in the areas I work in more often. I have just over 5100 edits if thats relevant, which I know it is to some, although I want to be the first to point out that probably 150 of those are to my own userpage, several hundred more done with AWB, and countless on top of those aided by Twinkle or, occasionally, VandalProof. GoodnightmushTalk 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: As mentioned above, I would use the tools most often in vandal fighting. I currently investigate cases at AIV and note if, for instance, the user has not received a final warning. With the mop I could take appropriate action if a vandal has received the full spread of warnings and continues to vandalize, and so on. It seems everyone plans to work on the backlog at CAT:CSD at their RfA, and yet it lives on, so I’ll do my best to help fight that as well. I also will delete pages on sight that I previously would have tagged with a {{db}} tag, taking more pages from the backlog. That said, if I have any doubt that a page meets the criteria for deletion, I may tag it instead of delete it, bringing another admin into the fold to ensure a debatably or legitimately belonging page isn’t deleted in error. I also would help out at almost anything on the backlog except, as mentioned, probably not replaceable fair-use images, at least at first.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia are my efforts at fighting vandalism. I have only created a handful of pages, all of which are just above stubs at present I believe, and instead believe the best thing I do in the project is to maintain what others have written. (That and possibly my intermittent Wiki-vendettas against the use of “passed away” in place of “died” and other euphemisms.)
- 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 conflicts in the past, although very few. I can’t say they caused me any true stress, at best a fleeting aggravation. After all, we’re just building an encyclopedia, a noble and important cause, but disputes over its wording aren’t worth losing sleep about in my opinion. In the cases that have arisen, I usually see to its resolution one way or another (as opposed to leaving in the middle) and step away for a while to relax. A sad truth of being human is that our judgment is worst when our desire to act is greatest, so I take a leave of absence (on the order of hours or days, not weeks or months) to calm down, and make sure to return with some task unrelated to what upset me originally.
- 4. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? ··coelacan 09:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: The most appropriate, and probably most common, implicit invocation of IAR is when new or even experienced users take actions without knowledge of the rules. It encourages the timid and unfamiliar to be bold about contributing on the whole, or in ways they are unfamiliar with. It isn't a justification for going around how one pleases, ignoring policy, but an invitation to act boldly, even if unsure of the absolutely correct method. It's funny coming from me, not the most bold editor out there, but almost any action can be reversed and IAR helps prevent potentially valuable contributions from being lost for fear of inadvertent violation of policy. As for explicitly, IAR is useful when challenging the rules. One should never act directly against consensus against them, but IAR provides grounds for users to call for a needed change in the rules. I like how Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules - a beginners guide put it: "Since Wikipedia is consensus, think of it as Wikipedia's Jury nullification."
- 5. Can you give an example of an XfD that you think was closed wrongly, and explain why it should have been closed differently? ··coelacan 09:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I'm actually having trouble coming up with one right now. I'll dig through my contributions to XfD and look through recently closed discussions, but for now, no I can't give an example. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the recommendation of YechielMan, I went through recent deletion reviews and managed to find a closure I disagreed with here. In that instance the closing admin saw consensus in a 4 vs. 3 vote in favor of deletion, when two of the votes for deletion were just "per nom" or "i agree", whereas all three of the keep votes made valid points in favor of keeping the article. In that instance I think a no consensus keep or, at the very least, relisting would have been appropriate. GoodnightmushTalk 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I'm actually having trouble coming up with one right now. I'll dig through my contributions to XfD and look through recently closed discussions, but for now, no I can't give an example. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Malber (talk · contribs)
- 6. How useful to the project is it for an administrator to spend a major portion of their time reviewing the new user logs and indef blocking usernames that in their personal interpretation violate WP:USERNAME?
- A: Disruptive user names are, well, disruptive to the project. That said, an administrator's time might be better spent dealing with cases that have already been reported WP:UAA. This would filter out accounts that never end up being used anyways. However, I don't see that as a waste of time, if that's what your asking. It is useful to the project to prevent disruptions that arise from problematice usernames. I would hope, however, the direct these users attention to WP:USERNAME, which they might have been ignorant of up to that point. I also find the phrase "personal interpretation" a little suspect. If the name is borderline or debatable in its inappropriateness, the admin should reach out the user and ask them to choose a new user name, rather than indef blocking immediately. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Do you think that becoming an administrator will reduce your ability to write and edit articles or will you be able to continue to do so and balance your work as a full-time student?
- A: Becoming an admin should not reduce my ability to write and edit articles. The administrator tools will only become another way for me to combat vandalism on Wikipedia. Having them should not, in any way I can foresee, decrease the (admittedly small) proportion of the time I spend writing and editing article content. As for time I have to invest in being a student, I have had no trouble so far finding a balance. My contribution level has dipped during exam week the last two times, but I cannot see my position as a student interfering with my abilities to serve as an administrator or my administrator duties interfering with my schooling. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. What would your opinion be of an administrator who indef blocked a user for "Colbert vandalism" but failed to revert said vandalism? (Examples: [4] [5])
- A: I'll refrain from drawing conclusions about the administrator, but I disagree with the action. The blocking admin clearly saw the vandalism, as he or she noted it in the block description, and yet did not revert it. I hope, if I pass RfA, that I don't become too enthralled with the new tools that I forget my purpose and duties in fighting vandalism, reverting the vandalism. All that said, my assumption is that in such a case the administrator just forgot to go back and fix the vandalism. It would take 1 click to roll it back, so I figure he or she just forgot or was urgently drawn away from the computer. GoodnightmushTalk 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Goodnightmush's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Goodnightmush: Goodnightmush (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- To clarify for those who are unsure, I am male. Should save people having to say "he or she" or "they", which I know I hate having to do in discussions.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Goodnightmush before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- I've seen you often, and I've never seen you do anything crazy. ··coelacan 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As Coelacan, I don't see any reason to expect that the net effect on the project of Goodnightmush's being sysopped should be other-than-positive. Plus, anyone who abhors that perniciously unencyclopedic locution passed away must be wise. Joe 04:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Your contributions seem pretty much entirely anti-vandal in nature and I can't see any serious errors, so I think that the tools would benefit your activities on the project. (aeropagitica) 04:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. PeaceNT 07:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nothing wrong with specialists. —AldeBaer 08:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing concerning. We can use another vandal-fighter. —Anas talk? 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support despite Gaillimh's concerns, looking through your edits you do add content abeit not often. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support, Would be slightly happier if this wikipedians Wikipedia space edits were higher, but otherwise looks good. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think his conservative approach to the admin tasks is admirable. I do not foresee any problems. JodyB talk 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no makor concerns here, it would be nice to see more article work but I think your vandal fighting is great and AIV reports are good. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see no issues or problems with this user or the contributions, anything to make me think they would abuse the tools. Arkyan • (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - being overly focused on anti-vandalism is not a sufficient reason to oppose, IMO, particularly as adminship is no big deal, and we desperately need more admins. Candidate seems competent enough. WaltonAssistance! 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vandal fighting is an important part of Wikipedia. We should support vandal fighters who qualify for getting adminship. Captain panda 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support great vandal-fighter, can surely use the tools for a positive effect on the project. —MrSomeone ( tlk • cntrb ) 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vandal fighting is a big contribution, and while this user is a big vandalism fighter, that is not all they do. Jmlk17 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes he does fights vandalism and that's good but he has done much other work on here like working with tags and welcoming new users which is great. Oo7565 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and thanks for mentioning me by name in Q5 and giving the barnstar. It shows respect, a trait I value highly in admins and in everyone. YechielMan 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good fellow gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very good vandal fighter. --Carioca 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a good editor as well as a vandal fighter..--Cometstyles 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've seen him around and looks like a good user. TimV.B.{critic & speak} 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My 1800th Edit Support - Why should I use my 1800th edit here? Because I believe that Goodnightmush will make a fine admin. (and because NP is boring at 10:10PM)--tennisman sign here! 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell yes. This user's been here for the long haul, and has shown nothing but great stuff in doing so. Daniel 10:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sounds good, good luck to you. Gryffindor 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 18:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Davewild. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support frbzzzzzing!! yap. --Infrangible 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per AldeBaer. My review of the candidate's record revealed nothing concerning. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another fine editor that needs a mop! Nice answers knows there way around an article. Æon Insanity Now! 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
"opposeEurocopter tigre 21:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Eurocopter tigre removed his vote diff with edit summary "mistake". I have restored it and struck it instead, assuming he meant to withdraw it. GoodnightmushTalk 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Would you please supply the reason for your opposition? Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am leery of giving extra responsibility to someone who joined this project to warn others and revert vandalism. For me personally, this is an irksome reason to join Wikipedia, and while his contributions are certainly valuable, I don't believe that Goodnightmush's oeuvre coincides with our primary goals. Specifically, his affinity for automated edit making programs and a lack of content addition and/or article collaborations are a concern gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I may have missed something Goodnightmush said, but it looks to me like the first edits were content additions and not vandal reversions, so I don't think the purpose of registering the account was anti-vandalism. The candidate also takes an interest in cycling articles (fourth edit) although some of these have been deleted (Industry Nine, Seven Cycles). A search of "for d" in Goodnightmush's contribs shows intermittent but not insignificant participation in XfD, and work at Keith Olbermann (apparently a watchlisted item) shows referencing and BLP. I do see a lot of anti-vandalism in the candidate's contribs, and other work as well. ··coelacan 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My original purpose for becoming involved with the project was with the intent of expanding and cleaning up a few articles, such as Ambergris Caye, Cannondale and Mountain Bike, projects I have made progress in to various degrees (little with the former, more with the latter two and Keith Olbermann as coelacan mentioned). However, I do concede vandal-fighting got me involved with the project to the degree I am now, and accounts for most of my work. GoodnightmushTalk 11:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, cheers Goodnightmush. Thanks for taking the time out of your day to clarify, as it appears as if I've made a mistake in interpreting your previous responses to the optional questions above. I think I'm inherently leery of those who only revert vandalism, and I fear that this has contributed to a clouded view of your oeuvre as a volunteer. Apologies, and you have my support for new buttons. gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My original purpose for becoming involved with the project was with the intent of expanding and cleaning up a few articles, such as Ambergris Caye, Cannondale and Mountain Bike, projects I have made progress in to various degrees (little with the former, more with the latter two and Keith Olbermann as coelacan mentioned). However, I do concede vandal-fighting got me involved with the project to the degree I am now, and accounts for most of my work. GoodnightmushTalk 11:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Black Falcon
Closed as successful by Cecropia 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC) at (82/0/0); Scheduled end time 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon (talk · contribs) - I am honored to be a part of Black Falcon's nomination for adminship. Black Falcon made his first edits to Wikipedia in mid-2005, and started contributing on a regular basis in November of 2006, and has amassed a very considerable contribution history. In the handful of significant interactions I've had with him, I have been struck at his insight into how Wikipedia works and how it should work, and also at his extremely constructive manner of discussion. The more admins we can have like him, the better. Mangojuicetalk 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon (talk · contribs) - I am delighted to join in this nomination. Black Falcon has amazing versatility, working in policy discussions, XfDs, WikiProjects, vandal fighting, detail for templates and articles, and substantial mainspace edits. He's even able to be productive with such contentious articles as Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War. I have never seen him make a foolish move. DGG 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another co-nomination - I have a great deal of respect for Black Falcon's overall dedication to this project. To cite one example of his diligence, I remember in recent weeks on WP:MFD that he listed a dozen inactive Wikiprojects, and offered carefully worded reasons for deletion instead of just saying "Delete - inactive." He also listed several dozen items, I can't remember what exactly, in a mass nomination, where he could have just said, "Here's a few, and the rest are at (some link)." Black Falcon's work ethic makes him the perfect addition to our team of backlog busters. YechielMan 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and again thank my nominators for their show of trust. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm Black Falcon and I would like to be considered for adminship. I have been actively editing since late November 2006 and have a good grasp of our policies, guidelines, and processes. I spend quite a bit of time on Wikipedia and feel that I could contribute more and more efficiently as an administrator. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 would initially help out with those tasks with which I am familiar (see below). Over time, I would branch out into other areas as needed.
Admin work area | Notes |
---|---|
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion | As a member of WikiProject Notability, I regularly work through Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance and its subcategories. I also occasionally peruse Category:Stubs. As a result, I have tagged hundreds of articles for speedy deletion and am well-acquainted with the speedy deletion criteria. I also do a lot of wikignoming, tagging for deletion talk pages of deleted articles, redirects to non-existing targets (if an alternate target is not available), and other pages that can be deleted as part of "routine maintenance" (see, for instance, these). As an admin, I would both help with the ever-present CSD backlog and would also be able to limit my personal contribution to the backlog. |
Category:Proposed deletion | I have {{prod}}ded many articles and am also a proposed deletion patroller. The category becomes backlogged every so often and, as an admin, I could help ease that during my fairly regular patrols. |
Wikipedia:Deletion debates | I have made many XfD nominations and also have experience closing deletion discussions. As XfD pages frequently accumulate backlogs (especially AfD and CfD), I'd pitch in here as well. My primary focus (at least initially) would be on closing discussions related to articles, redirects, templates, and miscellaneous pages. |
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism | I am an occasional recent changes patroller and have made multiple reports to WP:AIV. Although most reports there are taken care of fairly quickly, even a 2- or 3-minute delay affords plenty of time to vandalise a dozen more articles. Thus, AIV would be a fairly regular stop for me. |
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am not a featured article writer; most of my mainspace contributions consist of improvements to low- and medium-quality articles, many of which I encounter at AfD or in Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance. See, for instance, my edits to Abduction of Russian diplomats in Iraq (diff), Ed Rudolph Velodrome (diff), New Utopia (diff), and Reformed Mennonite (diff). That said, I have started over two dozen articles, of which I am proudest of Afrobarometer, Andrew Moravcsik, Karbala provincial headquarters raid, and The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (not necessarily in that order). Finally, I am currently working on List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics, which I hope to turn into a featured list. So far, I have taken the article from this to this, but it still needs some reorganisation, a lead paragraph, additional descriptive content (a "Notes" section or column), and probably a name change ... so, there's still a little way to go.
- In the Wikipedia namespace, I do a lot of work to streamline processes and projects by, for instance, organising maintenance categories, nominating for deletion inactive/redundant pages, and other wikignome tasks. One of the more time-consuming things I did involved creating and populating Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting by country and Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting by U.S. state. I was motivated to create the two subcategories after the main category had become populated by nearly 300 pages, making it virtually inaccessible to new users.
- Finally, I recently ventured into the Portal: namespace (though I was aware of it long before, it held little interest for me). I began working on Portal:Africa a few days ago and intend to nominate it for featured status in early June. It still needs quite a bit of work but I have, thus far, automated the rotation of the featured article and picture, added a "Recent events" section, and made numerous other cosmetic and substantive updates and improvements.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I've been party to few conflicts with other users and none have been serious enough to require formal dispute resolution. In fact, most were resolved within a few hours. I can really think of only one worth mention, regarding the article Special Task Force. I became involved with the article in February after selectively merging back content that had been forked off elsewhere. The brief (just over 24 hours) dispute took place in early April and was about the phrasing of one particular sentence and started with this edit by Snowolfd4. After going back and forth a few times between several different versions and discussing the matter on the talk page, we were able to arrive at a compromise version that addressed the concerns regarding neutrality raised by Snowolfd4 and my concerns regarding accuracy/original research. Since then, I have begun editing other articles related to the Sri Lankan conflict and Snowolfd4 and I are currently intend to collaborate on improving another Sri Lanka-related article.
- If I ever do become stressed, I would just remind myself of the reasons why I edit Wikipedia: I like the idea behind the project and I find editing enjoyable. If, at some point, editing becomes overly stressful and unenjoyable, it's best to take a break ... anywhere from a few hours to a few days. However, on the whole, I am not that easily stressed.
- 4. Optional question from After Midnight 0001 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Please discuss your philosophy towards deletion of pages in the User namespace as well as the procedure that you personally have followed for same.[reply]
- A: I suspect that your question was motivated by my proposed deletion of the userpage of User:Skraz, who has been inactive since 2005. My personal thoughts on this matter have changed somewhat in the past week in response to discussions (on talk pages, at MfD, and at WP:AN/I) regarding the deletion of the userpage of a user with thousands of edits who recently changed to a different name.
- In the past, I decided whether to nominate a userpage (or subpage) for deletion based on two factors: the appropriateness of the page's content and whether the editor is currently active. If the editor is inactive, I also considered the length of time that he or she has been inactive. I have since begun considering two other factors. The first is whether a page has more than just a few incoming links. If it does, I will not propose its deletion unless it contains objectionable content or there is some other reason to do so. The second is whether the user ever was really active, assuming that he or she is currently inactive. Deleting the userpage of an inactive user with only 2 edits is probably uncontroversial. Deleting the userpage of an inactive user with 2,000 edits is significantly less so. Thus, in retrospect, I disagree with my proposed deletion of User:Skraz's userpage. In a way, I now think about userpages what I do about redirects ... if they're not problematic and not entirely useless, it's probably better to leave them. I hope I have answered your question in sufficient detail.
General comments
- See Black Falcon's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Black Falcon: Black Falcon (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/Black Falcon before commenting.
Discussion
- (Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers) In reviewing this editor, I was mindful that he and I had past disagreements. I've attempted to separate myself from those and treat with him dispassionately. I've reviewed a significant number of edits to talk pages in different namespaces, and have been generally pleased with a number of comments he has made. However, I have significant concerns regarding this user's stance on civility vs. his actual practice. His stance; civility is important (see his userpage, under "On editors"), being uncivil is sufficient reason not to support a nominee [6], and WP:NPA should never be ignored [7]. Yet, this nominee verbally assaulted another editor after he made a reasonable and polite suggestion [8] in which he referred to this posting as "misrepresent[ing]", "insulting", "spiteful" and (the part that ties these attacks to the editor he's responding to) "not something I would have expected from an editor like you"[9]. Not surprisingly, this generated fairly heated discussion (see all of it [10]).
- My opinion on this was further cinched by this post commenting on David Gerard. Most chilling was him suggesting he stop posting, referring to his posts as "arrogant".
- While this nominee more often than not keeps a level head, I am quite concerned that the heat he will come under as an admin will inevitably result in him creating more problems for the project than him being an admin would solve. --Durin 15:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support as co-nominator. YechielMan 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've been waiting some time for this nom. bibliomaniac15 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've run into this user multiple times on XfD discussions and have always been impressed by the contributions there, displaying a firm grasp on policy. Easy support. Arkyan • (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a very good editor and his contributions to XfDs are marvellous and deserves the mop..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 01:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything I've seen from this candidate is positive. RfA cliche. G1ggy! 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Cliche #1. James086Talk | Email 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definitely. I've been very impressed by Black Falcon's good judgment and his belief on the need for consensus and a productive civil environment on Wikipedia. He'll make a great admin and mediator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I've had a few minor (ahem!) disagreements with Black Falcon in the past, he's always acted impressively throughout. Confident he'll do a great job as an admin.--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I first remember Black Falcon from a disagreement on an AFD-DRV-AFD cycle of List of tall men. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to exhaust his patience (or if I did, he didn't show it). I've found that he gives thought to detail before acting, and reacts calmly to criticism. I have no worries. ··coelacan 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, strongly. Is a very reasonable user. Majorly (talk | meet) 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Total support. I find BF's contributions to be consistently well thought out and constructive. I consider him to be the best kind of Wikipedian.--Kubigula (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as nominator. Mangojuicetalk 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a great nomination and user. Gutworth 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems well rounded and competent. JodyB talk 02:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good editor. Everyking 02:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I don't see why he would abuse the tools. I've seen a lot of good-standing editors lately applying for adminship. Sr13 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean William @ 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be an excellent user, great edit summaries made it easy to look through contribs, and even a fancy little table to answer Q1! Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no problem. Pascal.Tesson 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for the consistently sound and thorough reasoning in deletion discussions. –Pomte 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Maybe now {{prod}} will have some power. And I've never seen a Q1 answer like that. Whsitchy 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Tried to support earlier, but wasn't working. More than happy to support now...should be a good transition to sysop. Jmlk17 04:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thanks for the thoughtful answer to my question. I have some follow-up, but we can catch up later either via usertalk: or on IRC. --After Midnight 0001 04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen Black Falcon all over the project and thought he was already clicking admin buttons. A good fellow and a dedicated volunteer gaillimhConas tá tú? 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Kla'quot 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (per Noms) Get on it. Dfrg.msc 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PeaceNT 07:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Default support per nom. —AldeBaer 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seen him around Wikipedia, and everything looks good. Nothing bad in review of his recent contribs.. --DarkFalls talk 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Diverse editing and a real need for the tools. Pedro | Chat 09:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seen him around. Excellent user, good answers, and a real need for the tools. —Anas talk? 10:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support without reservation. Great user, deserves the tools, needs the tools, etc. Black Falcon has done and will do excellent things on WP. -- Kicking222 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, No reservations. Good answers to the questions. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen you multiple times at XFD and I never saw anything bad, I like your edit count and the variety across the different namespaces, best of luck! --The Sunshine Man 15:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have come across Black falcon in numerous Sri Lankan conflict related articles and I can say with 1000% assurance that he/she has always been neutral, to the point, cordial and sticks to wiki policy. Black Falcon deserves to be an admin long time ago Taprobanus 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support For his clarity in understanding difficult issues with detail communication to others[11].Lustead 16:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I thought Black Falcon was already one. :) Acalamari 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Happy to add my first ever RfA comment and endorsement for someone who seems to have contributed thoroughly wherever I went. --Tikiwont 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportRlevse 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definately someone to support. Captain panda 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Black Falcon's comments at AfD and RfA are always well-reasoned, and <cliché>I assumed s/he was already an admin.</cliché> Definite support. WaltonAssistance! 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support an excellent editor with a full understanding of our policies - will make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mostly from personal interactions - A knowledgable, civil user with experience. WilyD 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very good editor, will certainly be a good administrator. --Carioca 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I don't think that there's a doubt in anyone's mind that he will make a superior admin, including mine. hmwithtalk 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good candidate to help clear those backlogs! --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support The candidate is a dedicated wiki-dynamo of seemingly endless energy, whose mophood will benefit the project as greatly as anyone's ever has. Xoloz 00:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Will this editor cause damage as an admin? :) Nope. -- DS1953 talk 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sensible person who'll do the admin roster proud. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the list of avian admins is rather too short at the moment. >Radiant< 08:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Chensiyuan 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything looks good here.--Isotope23 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. On the basis of the good work I have seen from Black Falcon, most notably at WP:AFD and (especially) WP:RFD, I am satisfied that he would be a good administrator. WjBscribe 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no problem, good luck and good work. Carlosguitar 23:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, lots of good work especially at AfD EliminatorJR Talk 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent editor with heaps of diligent work on xfD. Kralizec! (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--MONGO 09:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Do not believe he will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MoralSupport --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Request for bureaucrat clarification: does this cancel out my immoral support? ··coelacan 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- :-D --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for bureaucrat clarification: does this cancel out my immoral support? ··coelacan 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, not that it's needed, but I've dealt with Black Falcon before and been quite impressed. We don't always agree, but he's always been considerate and civil in my experience. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, right on. Good head on his shoulders. Riana ⁂ 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Definitely an asset to the project.--Danaman5 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good asset to be an Admin. Keeps cool head and acts very civil. Works for the better of the wikipedia community as a whole. Good luck Watchdogb 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Just like the silent bird of prey, Black Falcon swoops out of the night to save the world from the treachery of the Purple Buzzard and the Biege Canary --Infrangible 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great answers. You'll do fine and, like Danaman said, you're definitely an asset to the project. --132 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - From his conduct and experience, I thought he already was one... SalaSkan 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There is nothing else I can really say that has not already been expressed by others here, so I will add to the support pile-on. --Ozgod 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. yes plz. --- RockMFR 13:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's unanimous so far, must mean there's no reason to oppose.--Wizardman 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have a generally positive impression of this editor, and my review of his contributions corroborated my impression. JavaTenor 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I wanted to nominate this user a while back, but I've been amiss in my other WP duties lately as well. Xiner (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support From other's comments, and answers to questions, I can tell that this user would be a great admin. (lemonflash)(t)/(c) 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Trusted, experienced user. utcursch | talk 13:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very Experienced very trustworthy. Æon Insanity Now! 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Deli nk 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Its nice to see Black Falcon here, users a strong editor and will use tools well. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good answers and excellent track record. Should make a fine admin - Alison ☺ 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I've seen him around, very respectful and shows a great attitude - A Raider Like Indiana 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As above. Yup, all good. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Arkyan
Final (26/12/3); Ended Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:38:10 UTC
Arkyan (talk · contribs) - Hello, I'm Arkyan. I've been a long-time Wikipedia user and sometime contributer, having first created an account back in 2004. My contributions were a bit spotty due to several cross-country moves and job swaps, but I've finally been settled in enough since February to do some serious contributing. I have been active in XfD discussions, most visibly on AfD, and have expanded my work there to include closing of several straightforward discussion with keep variations. I have also been active on the mediation cabal of late and have mediated a couple of cases. I also enjoy dropping in at third opinions and offering insight where I feel I can help. I have long had an interest in helping out with geography articles, and to that end I now operate a recently approved bot, ArkyBot, to update US city articles with infobox templates and new maps. I have an account on the commons under the same username where I upload these maps (and a few other images) I use. Arkyan • (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: As much of my work is centered on AfD discussions I presume the bulk of administrative work would be done there as well. I already close a number of straightforward discussions, as well as perform minor cleanup on discussions that may not have been opened or closed properly - having a mop would just mean expanding my cleanup duties there over what I do currently. I also anticipate assisting with speedy deletion candidates as well as proposed deletions. However, as my primary goal is to be helpful, I would be willing to expand my efforts to wherever may be required.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: This is a difficult question. In spite of the impression one may get from my userpage (and yes I do consider my philosphy leaning toward deletionism) some of my favorite and most fulfilling contributions have been to save valid articles from the axe, such as Westgate City Center. I also enjoy finding good stub material to expand, like Oraibi, Arizona. I am also extremely fond of helping people out - some of the comments I have recieved after leaving third opinions, or being able to reach an agreement while mediating a dispute are easily some of the happier moments I have while contributing.
- 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. I am usually pretty easygoing and feel that assuming good faith is one of the more important, fundamental aspects to building a good encyclopedia and making the collaborative effort work. That said, I have run in to some heated debates in the past on AfD that have exposed some raw nerves. I have discovered that the best way to avoid getting personally involved is simply to not take things personal, and to try and respond to heated comments in a calm manner. I've found that a combative response tends to engender more of the same, but when you make it clear your intent is to discuss and not argue, the situation is often defused and people are more willing to listen to reason and come to a solution. My work with the Medcab has affirmed this, and I have found that while people may be quick to display temper and impatience, most of us have a genuine desire to contribute and improve Wikipedia and focusing on that rather than a "who is right, who is wrong" attitude leads to that desired improvement.
- Optional question from Pomte
- 4. Are all popular culture references junk, trivia and/or unencyclopedic? If not, how do you determine whether any piece of information is encyclopedic?
- A: It is no secret that I am not a fan of "in popular culture" articles. The answer to your first question, however, is no - not all popular culture references are junk and mere trivia. The distinction is a difficult one to make as it relies a lot of subjective reasoning, but I do not think it is impossible. Basically the question to ask (and indeed, the question to ask in virtually any sticky situation) is "How does this content contribute to Wikipedia? Will the reader learn anything from it?" I understand the original intent behind the authors in creating "pop culture" sections in articles was to demonstrate that something has had a pervasive effect upon society. Take, for example, the article D'oh!. Without any context it is reduced to a simple catchphrase used on The Simpsons, and likely wouldn't merit an article of its own. The sourced examples provided by this article, such as the inclusion in the OED or the appearance in a widely read periodical such as "The Mirror" provide the context to show us that the phrase has indeed had an appreciable impact upon society. Many of the entries - particularly the ones that deal with one specific episode of one specific television show - are more superfluous and do little to demonstrate the point. When these lists wind up forked into their own "List of" articles, they lack the context that makes them valuable and that is why I am generally not a fan of said articles.
- To answer your second, broader question (and forgive me if I'm overwordy) I will fall back again on the same question. "What will this content contribute to Wikipedia?" Our guidelines help to determine if something is verifiable, notable and attributable, but the broader question of "encyclopedic value" is one left to the discretion of all the editors. There is no hard and fast rule to judge content by. As Wikipedia is supposed to be a "general knowledge" encyclopedia, the question I therefore ask myself is whether a piece of information makes sense in the context of "general knowledge". If someone could pick up an article, read it, understand it and use it without relying on hotlinks to related articles, it is likely "encyclopedic". If it requires specialized knowledge or specialized context to make sense of, it's likely better suited to a specialized source. Sorry if I am rambly, and I do hope this answers your question! Arkyan • (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from WJBscribe
- 5. How important is WP:BITE? What sort of response do you think is best when a relative newbie makes the mistake of a very premature RfA? You might want to address this diff in your reply.
- A: WP:BITE is one of the most important guidelines we have, and for a good reason - new editors are the most valuable resource to the project. At one point or another we were all new editors with little or no understanding of policy and guidelines. WP:BITE can mean the difference between running a new editor away from the project permanently or helping to better educate them and encourage their contributions. Every new editor is a potential for dozens of future FA's and thousands of valuable contributions. Scaring them off would be the worst thing we could do.
- With regards to the diff provided, I don't feel that my response was very BITEy, but I will confess that it could have been more constructive. I did advise the candidate to withdraw in order to avert a pileon, but I should have taken it one step further and provided the candidate with better advise rather than simply "not ready yet". BITE is about not scaring people away, but it can also be about the very opposite, welcoming them to the project, and I could have done that better. Arkyan • (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Arkyan's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Arkyan: Arkyan (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/Arkyan before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support by all evidence I've found and by the answers provided, this user seems solid and dependable. Answers to the questions are sufficient enough for me. Cheers, Lanky (TALK) 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the candidate's excellent work at WP:AFD and WP:DRV. PeaceNT 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have encountered this user around several times. A good user from what I've seen. Acalamari 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for the same reason as Acalamari. YechielMan 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason, no evidence to suggest he would be a problem. JodyB talk 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - Although admin Majorly makes a good point, I really can't see the user ever putting personal concerns of articles over community concensus. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Looks good to me. --Random Say it here! 23:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I thought you already were, to be honest. As someone I've run into repeatedly on XfDs, I don't see any problem. Yes, mainspace edits are a little low but I can't see anything bad in there — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, in the issue Majorly brings up, I see no evidence of impropriety or intent to canvass, just a notification to everyone who might be interested in discussing the matter, including those who may not have a favorable opinion. The prohibition against canvassing doesn't mean you can never try to start a discussion, it just means you can't only invite one side to it, and I see nothing to indicate that this principle was violated. As to deletionism, everyone's somewhere along the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum, I don't see any issue in coming out and saying where one personally is. I see no other issues or cause for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen him around a lot as well, and he always demonstrates good judgment and his solid knowledge of policies and guidelines, and a dedication that is valued in administrative chores. I don't see how his admission of being "somewhat of a deletionist" is a concern; he described his philosophy on his userpage in a tasteful fashion, not in a tone of promoting factionalism. Also his nonpartisan invitation to editors on both sides in the previous debate to express their opinion on a merge was a helpful courtesy, not malicious canvassing. I trust Arkyan with the mop and bucket. Krimpet (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I remember that we've disagreed in a couple of XfDs, but I've always been impressed with the quality of your comments. Moreover, I've noticed that you're willing to improve articles at XfD and to modify your recommendation in light of new information and/or improvements. I see no problem with your being a self-proclaimed deletionist as I trust that you will not ignore policy or consensus to impose your personal views. Also, I see nothing wrong with your notification of the participants of the "Lowercase i prefix" AfD as you notified all of the participants in the discussion. Finally, though you may have less edits than the average admin candidate, I think the quality of your contributions demonstrates that you have a solid grasp on policy. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, in spite of deletionism. You won't override concensus. Abeg92contribs 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like the large amount of Wikipedia edits. Captain panda 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, feeling pretty confident this user will make a great administrator. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the reasonable answer to Q4, dispelling deletionism concerns. –Pomte 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per Pomte above. I've seen this editor around AfD discussions quite a bit and he's never said anything that sets my sirens off. Good luck. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom (in case that isn't enough to count as legitimate support: there's nothing wrong with specialists, and while I'm more of an incrementalist, I have no problem with inclusionist or deletionist tendencies). —AldeBaer 08:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- That, and WP:CANVASS should be abolished ASAP. I won't oppose any more based on that idiotic "reason". —AldeBaer 08:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Nothing wrong with being of a deletionist bent (I am), as long as you can establish consensus correctly and be sensible with the tools. I see no evidence why Arkyan would not be able to do this, and no proof that he'd turn into a foaming at the mouth batshit deletion crazy lunatic as soon as he had the sysop box ticked. Neil (►) 11:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Arkyan is an outstanding editor who has been a sensible and even-tempered force on AfD debates. To oppose him on the sole grounds that he's an alleged "deletionist" is specious in the extreme. RGTraynor 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alleged?!?!?!" See User:Arkyan, where the first substantive statement is "I consider myself something of a deletionist when it comes to AfD discussions." The Deletionist userbox might also be a dead giveaway. Alansohn 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support stoke the fire and ready the biscuits --Infrangible 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am not concerned by your stance on being an active deletionist - with a few million articles here on Wikipedia it is hard to keep track of what is a valid encyclopedia article and what is not. I feel you can be entrusted with the tools and not abuse them. --Ozgod 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this editor around and haven't seen anyone have any issues with him. -N 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support we need admins, and this one seems willing to settle AfD's to reduce backlog. Deletionist or not he's good by my book. BH (Talk) 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (changed from neutral). I am happy with the answer to Q5, especially the recognition that WP:BITE should be applied to very premature RfAs not just so as to not be unpleasant but also to actively offer encouragement to the new editor. I have seen good contributions from Arkyan at AfD and have not detected any particular bias in his arguments. It is my opinion that he will make a good administrator. WjBscribe 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see any problems with this user being an admin. --Wikihermit(Speak) £ 04:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose per the spamming of other users to advanced your POV in an AfD/DRV debate. I'm also not sure you understand our deletion criterion properly, also the deletionist attitude does worry me. Matthew 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I was simply notifying all the contributers to the AfD debate as to my intentions so that if any of them disagreed they could bring it up on the talk page and discuss it further - I fail to see how this constitutes spamming to advance any POV. Also, per our deletion criteria, a "merge" is a type of "keep" and I don't see how what I did was in any way against the closure of the debate - I even notified the closing admin of my intentions. If notifying editors who have participated in a debate that I intended to perform the merge was in any way improper, then please let me know why so I don't make the same mistake twice. Arkyan • (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This shouldn't be a problem. People who have participated in the AfD may feel interested when a relevant discussion comes up, therefore they should be asked to comment. PeaceNT 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish that other people would do similarly to you about the page moves and merges that often follow an AfD. DGG 20:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is spamming at all. The decision was made and he was simply making sure involved parties knew of his decision. JodyB talk 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with the above here: this was clearly a good-natured invitation for both sides to contribute their opinion to the merge debate. This is a helpful courtesy, not disruptive canvassing; WP:CANVAS makes a clear distinction between the two. Krimpet (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As said above, I am one of the "spammed" users and I really appreciate Arkyan's attitude to notice users about merge. Carlosguitar 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You specify you want to close AfDs - however, you appear to be a deletionist, and I quote from your userpage:
I'd prefer a more neutral, less POV administrator, especially one who closes AfDs. Majorly (talk | meet) 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]Probably the only time you'll see a keep from me is if either I feel strongly on the subject or the article is otherwise headed for a delete. I guess this makes me something of a deletionist.
- The statement on my userpage is a little old, but I do acknowledge it is a little on the strong side. I am willing to change this statement to better reflect my philosophy, and I believe a review of my participation at AfD will show that I am by no means the sort who strictly !votes to delete articles, but I do understand your reservations about my philosophy and will not ask you to change your decision based on a change to my statement. Arkyan • (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would assume in good faith that his personal philosophy would not override community consensus. JodyB talk 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of his 34 recent AfDs, his vote has matched the consensus 31 times and been different in 3. I call that middle-of-the road, and I've seen nothing to indicate that he would close against the guidelines and the consensus.DGG 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really fair to oppose the candidate on account of the content in their userpage? It's just a personal viewpoint. The candidate should be judged based on what they do, for actions speak louder than words. Also, from what I can gather, Arkyan acts quite properly and his input on AfDs is usually backed up by appropriate arguments. PeaceNT 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Per edit count and lack of experience with policy. Real96 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit count, particularly in article space, is a relatively low 866 (despite being padded by serial edits, which, while helpful and (generally) reflective of various portions of the MoS, don't really demonstrate much familiarity with content policies, which are far more important). [12] Self-proclaimed deletionism is the tie-breaker for me. Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm not comfortable with an editor holding deletion as a value having the admin tools, and Q4 just reinforces that feeling. Along the same lines, I'm not sure this was a great speedy call:[13] I didn't really go through the contribs with a fine toothed comb or anything but the deletionist philosphy is pretty clear from them as well as showing in the answers here. I wonder sometimes why deletion seems so attractive to new-ish editors, is it because it's easier than content creation? I've always wondered about that...anyway this is not a reflection/comment on Arkyan in any way, he certainly seems like a hard worker. RxS 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with Charlotte on this one. Daniel 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The combination of a proud deletionist (demonstrated by the user page and userbox) and admin tools is always a dangerous one. But, throwing a distinct lack of mainspace edits into the mix only gives me greater concern. Someone who has spent so little time working on articles is far less likely to have the awareness or sensitivity to strike an appropriate balance in dealing with the XfD process, and the answer to Q4 isn't making me feel any warmer or fuzzier. Alansohn 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns about the combination of "avowed deletionist" and "admin tools". However I would think it better to judge someone based on contributions rather than userboxes, and I like to believe that my actions on XfD discussions reflect my willingness and ability to put my feelings second and consensus first. I specifically remember your work convincing me to recant an AfD nomination. I do appreciate the concerns and hope to continue to demonstrate to yourself and others with similar concerns that I do not let personal philosophies interfere with my work here, regardless of the outcome of this request. Arkyan • (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Concerned that this user's strongly deletionist viewpoint indicates a general approach which at odds with the objectiveness required of an admin. TigerShark 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - several concerns as expressed by those above. --After Midnight 0001 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - You've clearly stated that you are both a deletionist and want to work around AfD. Admins need to be neutral. I can't support this nomination knowing that you, yourself, admit to not being neutral. --132 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Charlotte's comment's re: limited mainspace edits raise concern, as does this csd nom another editor listed. A red-linked disambig page of towns is an opportunity for several new articles, rather than one less. If Arkyan can demonstrate some contributions to mainspace, I would easily convert to a support. You may well pass this time through, and although I suspect that you will do a fine job, I am not ready to get behind you with a support. —Gaff ταλκ 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Issues with neutrality. —Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral I feel like I want to support, but Majorly makes a good point.Cool Bluetalk to me 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Anything I could do to help alleviate the concern? Others above have made the point for me, it would seem, in stating that personal philosphy does not trump consensus and policy - I believe a review of my contributions shows I am more than willing to abide by consensus even when the decision goes against my personal philosophy. As above, I would not expect someone to alter their !vote here based on something I said, but I would hope that someone's track record and quality of contribution would outweigh a pronouncement of belief on a user page. I have my personal beliefs, yes, but I also have zero desire to push them on Wikipedia. Arkyan • (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Majorly's point is important, but a lot of people who start on Wikipedia set up their User Page with all of their opinions, then they slowly grow into the culture of the project. Learning and becoming a part of the culture is a good quality. But, it's out there in the public, and it appears that your edits don't confirm what you've wrote, so I'm not concerned about that issue. I would like to see more mainspace edits in some articles that show your personality. By the way, it appears that 100% of the time, you add an edit summary. Now that's impressive! Anyways, I think I'm going to stay neutral, though I think that the Arkyan probably will, in the long run, be an above average admin. The spamming was just a bit strange to me, so I'm just not absolutely convinced (but who ever is). Orangemarlin 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Per issues mentioned, but I'm not going to just rely on that. The lack of consistent editing until a couple months ago just keeps me on this side of support. Jmlk17 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Looks like a good person, but the edit count and Majorly's comment make me say neutral for now. (lemonflash)(t)/(c) 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Ozgod
Final: (20/11/8); ended 22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ozgod (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate myself for this RFA. I have been perusing for a few years now, and only began to edit on Wikipedia last fall - mostly sticking to the subjects I knew. Back in February I became involved with the Wikipedia Biography Project and began exposing myself to the wikignome culture of Wikipedia. At first I stuck to the simple assessment of biographical articles, but as my experience on Wikipedia grew I began to become involved with AFD, and within the past month CSD. I try to take time, if not every night, at least a few times a week to search for Vandals and report and revert appropriately. I cannot say that I know every policy and procedure off of the top of my head, but I am a fast learner. Ozgod 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nom; I accept. --Ozgod 22:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: Currently I hope to start out by helping with CSD and AFD, but I am hoping to broaden my scope and take part in any area that has a backlog that needs work. I am mostly invigorated when I am dealing with a task that has a large volume of work to be done.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I consider my best contributions to be an ongoing process - helping out with the Unassessed backlog at the WPBiography project has been a favorite, but my work on Judy Garland and some of my smaller efforts, like organizing the biography of William G. Thrash.
- 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: Most of my conflicts tend to be any article I nominate for AFD - but that is merely a nomination and for the community to decide. Other times it is when simple tagging of new articles with {expand} or {unsourced}. Some editors feel it makes the article look unattractive, and while I understand how they feel about it I do it to in hopes that future readers and editors will know what the article needs for improvements. I cannot recall any time where I have been stressed by Wikipedia - after all, I have a life outside of the internet.
Optional question from User:William Henry Harrison
- 4. If you were given the power to have complete control over wikipedia what would you do, what would you change, and why?
- That is always an interesting questions - I suppose I could write volumes on it. Firstly, what would I do? I would give articles a "development" period - where the creator could theoretically sandbox an article; develop, layout, expand, reference and fine-tune it before publishing it and potentially have it speedy deleted or tagged with a {prod}. Creating an article is sort of like writing any essay - it is impossible to get it correct on the first try, but with Wikipedia it is out there immediately and can come under immediate scrutiny - and as mentioned - speedy deleted before its importance or notability can be adequately established. What else would I change? I think one of the big things I would change, although I imagine it being out of the realm of feasibility, is to hide other users votes during any AFD, RFA, or any other matter which relies on community opinion. I think when people see an argument has more on one side than the other, it can influence their decision; had they not been influenced by that factor they may have vote a little more objectively. When I went to participate in one my first AFDs - I cannot lie - I was influenced by how many people I had seen vote to Oppose was greater than those had voted to Support. Being new to the whole process it definitely influenced my decision - but had the votes been "masked" or "invisible" I would not have been influenced by the popular opinion and may have judged the article a little more objectively. I think seeing those tallies can certaintly affect some people and where they decide to stand on the issue. Yet, conversely, I also see the good in being able to debate and discuss when voting. My only solution to this would be to have an initial "vote" period followed by a discuss and debate, if necessary, a second "voting" period. --Ozgod 03:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Wooyi
- 5. What is your stance on WP:BLP and how will you treat editors who insert poorly sourced information into biographical articles?
- I do not see myself treating editors in a different manner from any other were they to insert poorly sourced or unverifiable information to an article; unless it were to become a habit. If the information falls outside the category of vandalism, but is still speculative, or a rumor, then removal is the best option (with an explanatory edit summary). Were it to become a persistent habit where an editor continually submits poorly sourced/unverifiable information to an article(s), then a discussion is always the best route - maybe they are unaware of the Wikipedia Culture and a lot of the policies (like WP:BLP) and merely want to furnish an article with any bit of information they come across and/or hear. You cannot fault someone for being unaware of procedures on a project as a large as Wikipedia - and being human, we all make mistakes. Education, not punishment, is the better choice.
- As far as my stance on WP:BLP - better to have guidelines, especially when dealing with people where information can change in a moments notice. When Anna Nicole Smith passed away there were a flurry of updates, most of which were reverted in seconds (a few of mine, before a proection was placed. Rather than have her article become a live news feed or become a carrier of misinformation, I am grateful for WP:BLP's policy for the removal of poorly sourced or unsourced information. With any biography, especially living people, it takes time before any information becomes concrete.
- As a whole, I support WP:BLP - I would rather have it there than not having any guidelines for biographies. Wikipedia being the ever evolving project it is I know in a few months it all may change - I may not like what is added to it, or taken away - but if it is policy I will follow it. Should I feel bold enough - offer a suggestion to change it. --Ozgod 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Geo Swan
- 6 Do you believe administrators have a responsibility to set an example, and should make a special effort to comply with WP:CIV and WP:BITE?
- Remember, with great power, comes great responsibility. [14]
- With any position that bestows any additional "powers/user rights" there has to be some degree of integrity of how well-intentioned and benevolently that editor will use them. The hope is that they will use them not only wisely, but appropriately to aide the project as a whole and not for their own personal projects, or in rare cases, vendettas. Since administrative powers are something that can editor can be granted one day, should they so desire, it is in the best interest of the community that the perception that they have of administrators are that they are editors who can rise above their foibles, be objective, and do what is best for the community as a whole. However, since administrators and editors alike are both human, no person who is part of this project is exempt from errors - thus the old adage; to err is human.
- Personally, I feel administrators should be conscious of the example they set, but more importantly, should they make an error, or have a lapse in judgment, or in any particular case breach WP:CIV/WP:BITE - be humble, admit their transgression and make peace with those they have offend or newb they have bitten.
- Do I, personally, feel administrators should make a special effort to comply with WP:CIV and WP:BITE? Yes - I prefer peace over warfare. Do I expect an administrator may once, or occasionally, breach those policies? Yes. More important than their error is the ability, when if called out on their blunder, to own up to it. --Ozgod 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Ozgod's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Ozgod: Ozgod (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Wannabe Kate's edit summary of Ozgod.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ozgod before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- I've got to say the wikipedia space edit count isn't great, but I've seen a lot of good things from Ozgod and I think he could use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only positive experiences with this editor. I have full confidence they would use the tools wisely. Errabee 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've come across the contribs of this user multiple times and I'm feeling pretty confident it's a good addition to the admin team. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, this user is good and they had a great non-political answer to my question--William Henry Harrison 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've seen some of the stuff this user has contributed and it's all good, so I believe Ozgod would be a good part of the admin team. ~Sushi 09:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Majorly (talk | meet) 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems experienced enough, and adminship is no big deal. WaltonAssistance! 19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe the tools will be used for good. I don't feel that the candidate's inexperience in certain areas would lead to misuse of the tools, and that the candidate will continue to seek out new Wikipedia experience regardless of admin status.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all my experiences him have been good, the quality of his experience outweighs any time problems.--Wizardman 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good user and nice answer to my question. WooyiTalk to me? 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, helpful contributor to the WP1.0 project, Ozgod has shown good judgment in all the work I've seen. Walkerma 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Sure, there's a learning curve but he'll do fine. No concrete history to suggest he'll be a problem. JodyB talk 02:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "I am mostly invigorated when I am dealing with a task that has a large volume of work to be done.". Best of luck at WP:CSD then!!! Seriously, enough strength and civility here and some actual justification of the need for the tools, something a bit rare in a lot of RfA's. Pedro | Chat 09:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence 09:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The user seems to have knowledge of policy, and admits to minor faults, which is refreshing. He seems like a good person who will assume good faith and do his best to make Wikipedia a better place. This user will certainly never abuse the tools. hmwithtalk 11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems exist that would cause me to vote oppose. Captain panda 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Arnon Chaffin Reveiw me? Talk 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Why not? Abeg92contribs 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Event though you opposed my Rfa I think you would make a good admin. You seem to know what your doing and you have a fairly good amount of experience. Mattl2001 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Changed from neutrality. Ran back through your contributions, and decided I liked the quality of your editing. I am excited to see what you could expand into as an admin. Jmlk17 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support SNAAAAARF! --Infrangible 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This person really does not have enough experience here. He/she has not really proved themselves.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose - a look at some random AfD comments don't inspire confidence in me. Examples are here and here - I just don't think you're ready to be judging, and closing, AfD's, something you say you'll be doing. G1ggy! 23:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I am just dull but I have difficulty understanding your concern with the second diff. Could you explain? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose G1ggy's examples and candidate's answer to Question 4 both demonstrate a lack of experience of the sort needed to perform routine admin tasks. More seasoning required. Xoloz 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand G1ggy's examples and the points he brings up, but I am curious what is at fault with my answer to Question 4? --Ozgod 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first part of your answer, the article "development period," already happens at user subpages all the time. That's a good thing -- but the fact that it showed up in your answer to Q. 4 shows that you're inexperienced: you thought a standard part of wiki-practice was your own new idea. No problem, except that it shows you need to hang around a bit more to get the swing of things. Xoloz 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point on that - but I have never been aware, nor have I ever, used a subpage for developing an article before releasing it, nor do many new users that enter Wikipedia practice that either. I have some people register for Wikipedia and immediately begin generating articles on their topic of choice at a steady pace - without really asserting their notability or making it entirely acceptable for an entry in an encyclopedia. What I was suggesting as a more of a "draft" phase - and while editors can use subpages under the profile to do so, I am not sure that many new editors are aware of their capability to do that. I certainly was not aware of that for a long time when I first started using Wikipedia. --Ozgod 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Xoloz, I have to say that I don't think you're being entirely fair - some people certainly do userfy articles and work on them there, but I don't blame the candidate for being unaware of this practice; Wikipedia is so big and complex that it's not necessarily fair to expect admin candidates to be aware of everything, IMHO. And as Ozgod said, most new users who create articles wouldn't be aware of that feature either, so the candidate's idea for a formal "article development stage" is not by any means a bad one. WaltonAssistance! 19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first part of your answer, the article "development period," already happens at user subpages all the time. That's a good thing -- but the fact that it showed up in your answer to Q. 4 shows that you're inexperienced: you thought a standard part of wiki-practice was your own new idea. No problem, except that it shows you need to hang around a bit more to get the swing of things. Xoloz 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand G1ggy's examples and the points he brings up, but I am curious what is at fault with my answer to Question 4? --Ozgod 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Seems a bit inexperienced. Skimming a list of his AfD votes I seem to find several votes that demonstrate confusion regarding policy. Particularly after reading question 4 I was surprised to see many "per nom" votes, and those were the best justified when it comes to policy. GoodnightmushTalk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this user last February he had like 2200 edits but in the following then not as active. the user seems to needs to look up polices as his recnt afd votes seems he not look at them resently like the afd for William Spaniel to mention one of them.Oo7565 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, poor AfD votes demonstrating lack of policy knowledge are a bit too recent for me to be willing to entrust this user closing AfD discussions. Would certainly be willing to consider again in a couple months. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have trouble believing this user understands Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines given the above evidence. Put frankly, I can't trust this user to be an effective administrator on Wikipedia at this time. Daniel 10:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - concerns regarding judgement. --After Midnight 0001 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - fortunately, voting is not blind, and I find myself rather convinced by my peer's arguments above. However, I'm probably an anachronism in that I see AfD as an actual attempt at measuring community consensus rather than a vote. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - not impressed by some of his AfD contributions, and IMO lacks general experience.HeartofaDog 00:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - not sure you're quite familiar enough with how Wikipedia works yet. Looking through your AfD contribs, a lot of them do seem a bit confused and I'm not sure (given you propose to close these discussions) that you're ready to do that. I also share worries that you see them a little too much as a vote. The fact you hadn't considered the use of userspace for drafting (though not very relevant to adminship) seems to me a further indication that you could use more time familiarising yourself with how things work. There may be policies that similarly you haven't come across and that may be problematic if you were to be an admin. I also worry based on your answer to Q.5. that you won't tough enough in applying WP:BLP - inserting poorly sourced material about living people is far more serious than in any other article given our high google rating - it can make someone's life unpleasant very quickly. I hope you won't be discouraged but I think you need a little more time before adminship is a good idea. WjBscribe 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I commend Ozgod's wikignome activities, but I think he's a bit muddled at times. There's no point putting an expand tag on a stub a few minutes after its creation. He replied on my user page instead of my talk page and formed the conclusion that I had taken this personally. He stopped replying, and ignored a request which I hoped would be just right for him. I think he needs more interaction with other users and more experience. He has the promise of admin material, but not yet. Tyrenius 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry if it came off that I was ignoring your request, but the WPBiography Summer Assessment Drive kicking off and with 110,000+ Biography articles that need assessment, as well as the Wikipedia Review team, I have for the most part recently been focusing on those two projects. --Ozgod 14:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral Looking at the breakdown of your stats, you've only really been making substantial contributions since February of this year. I'd like to see two or three months where you also participate in the policy space and demonstrate your knowledge of the policies and guidelines in your contributions to debates. Apart from that, I don't see any cause for concern with you. (aeropagitica) 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm also on the fence. Giggy's diffs aren't too much cause for concern, but the comment on the football player doesn't really show the experience in dealing with non-notable biographies to recognize that it might be one. I'll stay out of the main issue: playing in a professional link counts, but the article linking to another article doesn't prove much - after all, suppose I write an article saying "YechielMan lives in the United States of America" - that doesn't make me notable. The reason I'm not opposing is that AFD is really about evaluating consensus, and if consensus is unclear then trying to weigh strength of arguments. Overall I don't see this skill being a particular challenge for the candidate. YechielMan 01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral 3988 is a bit to low of an edit count for me to support someone. I would vote to support you if you got active in fighting vandalism, and were active in AFD'S. Sorry about that.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, I agree with Sir james paul. Your count is kind of low, but that is not my principal concern. The fact that you do not have any real experience fighting vandals, is what worries me. However, I like everything else I see so I will not opppose.
--Random Say it here! 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Neutral for the moment. I'd like to ask you about Q4, for I think it doesn't take into account the dynamics at AfD. Most of the information in these discussions comes from the interplay of comments: One person questions Notability, and another responds, and then the others have something to build on, & the discussion explores all the issues. Might having a "voting phase" or multiple voting phases detract from the already fragile principle of deciding by the best arguments, not the most supporters? DGG 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was suggesting a "masked" voting phase (where tallies and votes are not displayed), and then a discussion phase would help an administrator get a clearer idea on consensus. As I stated, I feel when people approach any issue - for instance, an AFD - and see 8 people supporting to keep the article and 14 voting to delete, it may sway how they feel rather than letting be objective about the issue. After the "masked" voting period has finished, an open discussion and debate. Should no clear consensus be reached in either phase, then a second, final, voting period. Personally that is how I organize it (being the Virgo I am) - and I recongize that is not Wikipedia Policy. My rationale is that people, especially newcomers to AfD, can be pretty affected by the tallies of Delete/Keep, and to avoid ruining their objectivity of the issue, splitting into two parts, and if necessary, a third. As I stated, I base this on my own experience when I encountered some of my first AfD's and did not want to be on the "wrong" side of the decision making process. I do understand your point though, how it could clutter up the process. --Ozgod 03:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ozgod I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing in the diff links provided by "G1ggy". Your "development period" suggestion (in question 4) might have some potential in avoiding situations where an article is overzealously deleted because the user has not finished writing it. However, that is one of the many applications of user-space, we just need to advertise that more, especially to new editors who may not realize their work is immediately visible. I know this is written in big bold letters, but those big bold letters are far below the edit box and possibly difficult to notice. What's this about secret voting? I mean... what's this about formal "voting" of any kind, and why should it be kept secret? The strength of the arguments is much more important than the number of people supporting a position. Changing the software to facilitate secret votes — in matters as trivial as AFD! — would only cause more people to lose focus on the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy! I don't see why you would consider that bit helpful, or why you think the developers would want to micro-manage us like that, or if you were half-joking for lack of any obvious response to such an open-ended (but thought-provoking) question . Please explain! — CharlotteWebb 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern with displaying tallies or votes for Keep Delete Support etc, is it can influence people before they enter a debate. I tend to micromanage - and any sort of system that facilitates that is a winner in my book! When asked what I would change on Wikipedia, I proposed the aforementioned voting/discussion system - this is not to say I would ever push for this to become policy. I was being honest, for in my mind it helps keep participants of the discussion objective without seeing so many bold lettered votes potentially influencing their stance on issue. I whole-heartedly agree that the strength of an argument should outweigh votes, but so many decisions are reached on consensus. Knowing that people can be influenced, in my mind it would seem best to have a system where people can vote on an argument/debate/matter without being influenced by what the "popular" vote may be - thus masking the votes until the matter is settled. In retrospect a discussion then vote system would be better than the reverse I originally suggested. Again, this not a policy I would actually ever push for - as I see it being infeasible to work within the current Wikipedia system (then again, I have zero skill at programming languages so it may easier than I presume!)
- As for the using user-space to "draft" articles - there a lot of things that can be done on Wikipedia that remain a mystery to some, even being here for ages! I know at my job, for two years, I am still learning new things on our computer system. It would be nice if for when new users register their talk page automatically pre-loads with a very nice box that explains some of these hidden tips and tricks. --Ozgod 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Pace WJB, I'm not sure that Ozgod's general understanding of BLP and the fashion in which it ought to be applied is all that inconsistent with that interpretation of BLP for which a consensus exists, and I would observe relatedly that even one who advocates for the strictest construction of BLP would suggest that even as one removes edits the contravene BLP, he should be civil and understanding in explaining policy to those good-faith editors (typically quite new) who make such edits, lest we should lose a prospective contributor over a misunderstanding; I suppose I interpreted Ozgod's response as reflecting such a disposition. On the broader question, though, I am convinced on the whole the candidate is possessed of good judgment, a deliberative temperament, and a cordial demeanor, but I am not certain that his conversance with policy is such that he should not avolitionally misuse the tools (e.g., by acting whereof he does not know in ignorance of such lack of knowledge), and I can't at this point, then, conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of Oz's being sysopped should be positive, and so I am rather regretfully unable to support. Joe 06:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards support. I'm slightly dissatisfied with insufficient experience (not edit count proper). Please try again later. Ukrained 10:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
hmwith
Closed without consensus by Cecropia 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC) at (38/15/14); Scheduled end time 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith (talk · contribs) - I regularly participate in WikiProjects, combat vandalism, make substantial edits as well as minor, tedious fixes, participate in AFD discussions, and upload free images. Plus, I always assume good faith. Also, note that I contributed for several years before creating an account, so I have no simply been participating here for 2.5 months. hmwithtalk 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 intend on doing a lot of routine maintenance, such as deleting legit speedy delete pages, editing protected pages when it is needed, blocking IP addresses that have gotten several recent "last warnings", and other tasks. I would love to help Wikipedia reach its fullest potential.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I create a great deal of needed templates, upload my own, free images, and fix grammar and such on articles. Everyday, I revert a great deal of vandalism on my watched articles as well as recent changes. I particularly enjoy fixing improperly cited references, as one can see in my edit summaries. I also regularly take part in AFD and other similar discussions, as well as provide third opinions.
- 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: There have been one of two good faith users who didn't know Wikipedia policy. I tried to educate them, used a third opinion, and we reached a compromise. If no one will compromise, I simply take the page or template off of my watchlist, and let it go. In the future, I will always assume good faith, and try to reach a compromise.
- Optional question by User:Sefringle
- 4 What articles have you made a lot of contributions to? Briefly describe your contributions to those articles. What exactly is your bias?
- A: My most edited articles include Gesu School and Hayley, both of which I fully created, as well as completely rewriting St. Ursula Academy (Toledo, Ohio), Kings (drinking game), NERF, Beer pong, Asshole (game), and Drinking game to the highest quality with available resources/references, as well as adding a great deal of information to Ottawa Hills, Ohio, Roman Catholic Diocese of Toledo, and Toledo, Ohio. I've also created many templates, including my most edited Guster, Toledo, Spaniels, Mobile phones, and Toy dogs.
- 5 As you are still a new user, only two months old[15], do you think you fully understand Wikipedia policies? Explain. Do you think your lack of experience editing wikipedia may put you at a disadvantage when it comes to the work you would do if you were to become an admin?
- A: I have taken in a lot during these months. I've edited Wikipedia for years, and I feel that I am completely ready to be an admin. I feel that I took in as much information in these months as most would over at least a year, as I've spent more hours on the site since I've been a member than most would in about that long.
- 5B Clarification question. You say you have edited wikipedia for years, however the log of your account (which I linked above), says you have only been a user for the last two months. Could you please explain?
- A: I apologize for poorly wording my response. I edited under IP address for years before making an account, and that is to what I was referring.
- Optional question from User:Anthony.bradbury
- 6 Would you be willing to indicate under which IP address(es) you edited befor getting an account?
- A: Oh, geez. I have no idea. I wasn't a regular editor, but, rather, mostly made changes only when I saw errors, such as grammar, misspellings, typos, etc. when researching on here for schoolwork and such. I have no idea what the IPs are. No significant edits, just little things. I'm just saying that I've been on here, familiar with the process for a while.
- Optional question from Anynobody
- 7. Let's assume you are granted sysop status, and you turn out to be wrong about question 5 above. Lets further assume you make many mistakes which cause others much disruption and work. Do you resign and try again later, keep going till you figure out what is lacking, or do something else? (I don't want to lock you into a two choice option hence the something else option)
- A: First off, I wouldn't make any reckless changes, but since I'm obviously not faultless, as no one is, let's say, hypothetically, I accidentally, for any reason, caused others much disruption and work. In this situation, I would sincerely apologize and consider resigning out of embarrassment. However, I would opt to instead help with cleaning up my mess, possibly take a Wikibreak after that to clear my head, and press on after getting advice and help from others and learning from my mistakes, working my best to regain the trust of the community.
- Optional question from Abu badali
- 8.: A question regarding your knowledge about the policies you'll be helping to enforce: Suppose you find a picture in some photographer's website that you believe can be useful for a given Wikipedia article. Describe the steps should you take to try have this image used in the article (from contacting the photographer to tagging the image). --Abu badali (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I would rather go and take one myself, as I have done for several articles. However, if that was impossible, I would email the copyright owner and ask for their permission to release it under the GFDL adapting the permission requests, as I have done for several images used in the articles Ottawa Hills, Ohio, Ottawa River (Lake Erie), and Sculpture in the Park.
- Optional question from Whstchy
- 9. If you had to clean up one category from here and one category from the admin backlog (link is on the normal backlog page, somehow it won't show), what would they be and why? Time is not a major issue here.
- A: From the regular backlog, I would choose Catagory:All pages needing to be wikified, as that's something for which I have a niche, and many other editors seem to disregard. I actually enjoy doing this a great deal, as you can see from my frequent "wikified" edit summaries. From the admin backlog, I would choose Category:Replaceable fair use images, as I have had experience witnessing editors disagreeing and having minor disputes over whether or not an image is replaceable, and I would be of help to sort of these problems, and figure out if the image is truly replaceable at the time.
- Optional questions from user:coelacan
- 10. You have taken images from http://www.ottawahills.org/ (for example http://www.ottawahills.org/SculptureGarden.htm ) and used them in Ottawa Hills, Ohio, Ottawa River (Lake Erie), and Sculpture in the Park. One of these images, Image:Ohsc4.gif, you have dual-licensed with {{GFDL}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} under {{self}}, which asserts you as the copyright holder. The others you have marked as {{GFDL}}. You have said that the website gave permission, but the site itself has no obvious indication of permission (correct me if I'm wrong), and there are no OTRS tickets. Can you explain this apparent discrepancy? ··coelacan 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: As for Image:Ohsc4.gif, I didn't put on that tag. I put the same tag as the rest, which is peculiar. It must have been changed when it was moved to the commons. As for the others, I wasn't aware at the time that I had to forward the messages to WP. I have emailed the permissions address, and I assume that I will have a response shortly.
- The page history says you did use the {{self}} tag. ··coelacan 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must have accidentally clicked the wrong tag or something. What I do know is that I didn't put the image in the commons, so I couldn't have provided that exact tag. hmwithtalk 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Ohsc4.gif is a local (en.wiki) image; it's not on Commons. ··coelacan 18:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must have accidentally clicked the wrong tag or something. What I do know is that I didn't put the image in the commons, so I couldn't have provided that exact tag. hmwithtalk 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The page history says you did use the {{self}} tag. ··coelacan 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: As for Image:Ohsc4.gif, I didn't put on that tag. I put the same tag as the rest, which is peculiar. It must have been changed when it was moved to the commons. As for the others, I wasn't aware at the time that I had to forward the messages to WP. I have emailed the permissions address, and I assume that I will have a response shortly.
- 11. In Q9 you say you'd like to work on replaceable fair use images. Can you make some judgments on Image:Chasemanhatt.jpg, Image:RB history.jpg, Image:Miranda Kerr.jpg, Image:Wycombeareas.jpg, and Image:Eppstein-UC03.jpg? ··coelacan 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A:It would be different for each image:
- Image:Chasemanhatt.jpg - Delete, as it’s unnecessary, and other similar images can be found. Plus, it’s not currently used in any articles.
- Image:RB history.jpg - Hold my decision, as I’d ask the uploader to forward the permission email to Wikipedia, and get get an OTRS ticket to release the image under GFDL. My decision will be made after that has been done (or not done if there isn’t truly permission).
- Image:Miranda Kerr.jpg - Delete image, as a copyrighted image shouldn’t be used to illustrate the subject, an image of a living person should reasonably be able to be found, and replace the image in the infobox with “no free image”. Plus, the image shouldn’t be used in the infobox in the first place.
- Image:Wycombeareas.jpg - Delete, as a similar one could be made.
- Image:Eppstein-UC03.jpg - Delete image per reasons stated for Image:Miranda Kerr.jpg
General comments
- See hmwith's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for hmwith: Hmwith (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- moved out of voting area
- Oppose. Having witnessed Hmwith in action, I am strongly opposed to this applicant becoming an administrator. On the plus side, this applicant is eager and energetic, but I have major concerns. While lack of operational experience and managerial skills s/b a concern, more significant to me was the disturbing behavior I witnessed. General communication skills were lacking, but, more worrisome was the applicant’s combative, irrational, excitable demeanor, with an exaggerated sense of a “need” to “win” the discussion. Most disturbing of all, were the off the wall personal insults Hmwith directed at others. For these reasons, I’m concerned this applicant would become a disruptive influence at Wiki, even possibly engaging in personal vendettas. So much so, I’m not willing to use my account name for fear of retaliation. (Of note, applicant’s responses to questions #s 2, 3 & 7 are in conflict with applicant's actions I witnessed, which included ignoring obvious vandalism while addressing own agenda) For what it's worth, I hire/supervise/evaluate managers as part of my profession. I wouldn't consider this person for a supervisory role with my company. 4.137.196.6 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (I looked, but might have missed seeing a policy concerning opinions posted without being logged in. Hopefully, not being logged won't negate my expressed concerns.) — 4.137.196.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Could you provide proof of said actions? Also, no offense, but you smell like a sock. Whsitchy 14:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am distraught about this. I can't recall any action that I have done. I'm not sure why you're so upset with me as an editor, but I hope that we can come past our differences, whoever you are. I am completely willing to work everything out. If you still want to remain anonymous, then, I suppose not to much can be done. I'll post on your talk page, because I am upset by this situation... which seems very, very extreme from your comment and fear of showing you real name. I am upset that I missed some vandalism if some article, but I will be the first the admit that I'm not 100% faultless, as no one is, and I can't catch every piece of vandalism on every article, although I wish that I could. Please not that I will not personally attacks, so don't worry about that. Thanks for your opinion here, however, and I hope that these strong feelings can be somewhat relaxed in the near future. hmwithtalk 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is silly. She wants to get things done and she wants what is best for the project. She is not disruptive, rather, it is the comments made without any evidence, such as your own, that disrupt the nature of this process. --wpktsfs 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Whs and wpktsfs (who was recently nominated by Hmwith to become an administrator, but declined the nomination): I anticipated and understand such comments in response to my anonymous opinion. However, my fear of retaliation outweighed my concern for such a response. Giving specifics would be too identifying. Believe me, it was a tough decision to post such serious concerns, but I felt that strongly about what I witnessed. So, I spoke. I'll be very happy to be wrong about future disruptive influences by Hmwith. Hmwith, I sincerely wish you and this site well. If reading my concerns has a positive effect on how you deal with issues/people in the future, then my speaking out would have been worth it. I'd prefer that productive result, rather then you being "distraught". With that, I'll bow out since I'm not willing to identify myself. I understand my opinion will be moved elsewhere and not counted. 4.137.196.6 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, we can use a checkuser to ID you, so the "I don't want to ID myself" point is moot. Secondly, I have never been nominated to be an admin (never mind, I see that the anon was refering to wpktsfs). Why are you even saying this, do you have some vendetta against her? Whsitchy 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Whs and wpktsfs (who was recently nominated by Hmwith to become an administrator, but declined the nomination): I anticipated and understand such comments in response to my anonymous opinion. However, my fear of retaliation outweighed my concern for such a response. Giving specifics would be too identifying. Believe me, it was a tough decision to post such serious concerns, but I felt that strongly about what I witnessed. So, I spoke. I'll be very happy to be wrong about future disruptive influences by Hmwith. Hmwith, I sincerely wish you and this site well. If reading my concerns has a positive effect on how you deal with issues/people in the future, then my speaking out would have been worth it. I'd prefer that productive result, rather then you being "distraught". With that, I'll bow out since I'm not willing to identify myself. I understand my opinion will be moved elsewhere and not counted. 4.137.196.6 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the above out of the voting area since the IP is unwilling to identify themelf. ··coelacan 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/hmwith before commenting.
Discussion
- Cautious support, though I do have some concerns (unrelated to those already raised). — CharlotteWebb 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please enable an e-mail address. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am much more likely to respond to a talk page comment. If anyone has anything to let me know, my talk page should provide a sufficient place to say anything. If it's personal, and anyone really wanted an email address, I would provide one. Would you like one to send me a personal comment? hmwithtalk 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vote" withdrawn. — CharlotteWebb 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask why please? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please enable an e-mail address. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmwith has been a encuraging and helpful guide to my Wikipedia account. She is a very kind, top-quality person who has helped numerous users become great Wikipedians. Good luck hmwith! Meldshal42 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Moral support This looks like a lost cause because I (like other users) abide by a somewhat arbitrary standard of 3+ months experience for admin candidates. The distribution of edits is not a problem - every little bit helps. YechielMan 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, the experience thing doesn't bother me much. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely looks good... shame about edit counters and people with arbitary cut off times. Someone doesn't magically become experienced on their three month anniversary. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Experience doesn't just have to be gained with time on the project, it can be gained with experience editing, looking over Hmwiths contribs, I think the user is more than capable to use the tools wisely - hence my Support. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. With respect, I have no idea what the opposers are talking about. 332 edits in the WP namespace is plenty, and 8000 edits is around twice as many as I had when I passed RfA. Even discounting the sandbox and userspace edits, this user has at least 6500-7000 edits. WaltonAssistance! 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Tons of good contributions. Plus my previous interaction with this editor has been all positive. PeaceNT 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As a fierce enemy of editcountitis and timecountitis, I can't help but to voice my sadness at the use of this criteria to reject a great candidate. I personally had just above 5,000 edits when my RfA passed, and I still have less edits than Hmwith. Seeing that this RfA is unlike to pass at this point, don't feel bad if that happens; your excellent work is much appreciated and valued, and you can count on my support as many times as you need. Love, Phaedriel - 16:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. You don't need to have written 27 featured articles to become an admin. --Mschel 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-I never seen nobody with 5000 edits in 1 months and it looks like she is very active on wikipedia.Arnon Chaffin Got a message? 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
supportsupport with a caveat From her edits, I see nothing to suggest that she would misuse the tools. - TwoOars (T | C) 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I too did not like the tone of her comment on Clamster5's RfA which seemed a bit confrontational (whether she meant it that way or not). But of course, I don't think this alone is reason enough to oppose and certainly hope that she words her statements better in future. - TwoOars 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral.- TwoOars 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Ok, I am back to support from neutral. Though I still think she's a bit inexperienced, I am going to go with my original instincts here. I am sure she would learn fast and would hold up well under pressure, as she amply demonstrated in this RfA. Sorry for the flip flops :P. This was a particularly difficult RfA I think, as can be seen from the many neutrals and many shifting their stance. - TwoOars 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The admins that concentrate on maintenance issues are precisely the ones we lack now. WooyiTalk to me? 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seeing how she has handled this RfA has made me change my mind. She is a very fine diplomat and has kept her head high throughout the process. She will make a fine admin. --wpktsfs 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above -Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see we have several editors here suffering from editcountitis (among other things). Experience comes not with time but with contribution to Wikipedia. --Latish redone (formerly All in) 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Never mind my oppose, good article edits in addition anti-vandal work. --Whsitchy 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Ryan Postlethwaite. Contributions look good; I despise "time" arguments. --Spike Wilbury 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I don't honestly believe you are going to run into difficulties completing the tasks you mention in Q1 and the backlogs need clearing. Addhoc 10:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support. You seem like you will do a good job, but only 2.5 months is slightly unsettling. Abeg92contribs 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Not insane. Will not grow magical fairy wings on 3 month anniversary. Riana ⁂ 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like a good user to me. Acalamari 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Brevity of time could be concerning except there are really no events that suggest she will do anything other than a good job. Absent such evidence I support. JodyB talk 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per above, Unless convinced otherwise. Good answers to my questions.--Sefringle 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Humility is a good quality. Jehochman Talk 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Per the candidates increase in Wikipedia space edits. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Contribs look good, and the quality of someone's work far outweighs arbitrary metrics. User has shown good understanding in the short period of time and no reason to suspect they'd abuse the tools. Arkyan • (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support- I strongly support hmwith, as I am her first adoptee, and as her adoptee, I don't think anyone could have helped me better. - Groovydude777 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Though user has only been on Wikipedia for a few months, this user had 5000 edits in a single month. With that kind of editing, knowledge of Wikipedia will come very quickly. Captain panda 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Changed from neutral. I think she will do well if given the tools, and I like her answers, including the one to my optional question.--Anthony.bradbury 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hey, I don't think the amount of time on Wikipedia should factor in all that much, and I believe her when she says she's been editing on ip addresses for a while. I did the same thing. Going on thsi assumption that she knows a thing or two about what's going on here, I'll support. Plus, I'm a nice guy. :) - Bagel7WU TANG! 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I honestly can't see why not. Insisting on "magic numbers" is a very bad idea. Hut 8.5 12:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: * Hmwith has been a encouraging and helpful guide to my Wikipedia account. She is a very kind, top-quality person who has helped numerous users become great Wikipedians. I think that since she had the work of an expert, Wpktsfs to guide her, she is well-prepared to become an admin. Good luck hmwith! Meldshal42 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, the way that this user has been responding to concerns, especially in the last few days, has indicated to me that this user will have no problem behaving in an acceptable way as an administrator, collaborating with others and asking for advice when necessary.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this user around a lot (guess that says something about how much I've been on wikipedia lately). Very reasonable editor that I think will make an awesome admin. Its so funny to hear people argue about things like how long an editor has been here or how many edits they have logged. Of course these are important to some degree, but there are exceptions...—Gaff ταλκ 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the hell not? Ral315 » 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with reckless abandon --Infrangible 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support despite that your a self-nom who has been active for one month longer than I (generally I wold oppose under those circumstances). you have made alot of edits in about ten weeks, and i loved the response where you said you just go and take picture yourself Black Harry 07:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have read through the opposition discussions here on your RFA, as well as the support discussions, and looked through your contributions and I feel you could use the tools wisely. --Ozgod 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose for the moment. You only have 332 edits in the Project namespace, but otherwise you seem like a fine nomination. I urge you to try again later. Gutworth 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright I'll ask. I'm dying to know - what is the magic number that suddenly makes you experienced? What would you have said if the number was 333? Or what about 444? Please inform the community of this special number of project space edits that candidates must have before applying to be an admin. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, this oppose does seem somewhat arbitrary - a good case for the {{shrubbery}} template, I think. WaltonAssistance! 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This "magic number" question comes up a lot in RFAs and I'm sorry to say I have no magic number. I instead try to look at it in context. I could support a RFA with this many Project namespace edits, but most of this user's Project namespace edits have been in the sandbox. Gutworth 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of your contribs seem to be vandal reverts. But... there are some with actual content. But... personally, edit count doesn't matter, it's the quality. Most of your edits being vandal reverts, combined with your time here makes me say oppose for now. --Whsitchy 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright I'll ask. I'm dying to know - what is the magic number that suddenly makes you experienced? What would you have said if the number was 333? Or what about 444? Please inform the community of this special number of project space edits that candidates must have before applying to be an admin. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite Creationlaw's comments, I still can't support...RfA's with less then 3 months experience never pass, you just can't prove your knowledge of policy in that time. Do more work in the Wikipedia space...more useful edits - word association makes up about half of your low number of project space edits, something that is NOT good...and come back in two months. You should breeze through then. G1ggy! 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. Per Gutworth. Dfrg.msc 07:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - with only 2 months of experience (from March 29 to May 28), and only 8190 edits (of these, about 1000 in a sandbox), I don't think this user is really ready to be an admin. (If you had over 10,000 edits, then even with 2 months you may be worth considering; With around 7000 edits, I think you need at least half a year before applying.) Od Mishehu 08:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? 8,000 edits isn't enough? I became an admin with 4,000 edits and around 4 months experience. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to concerns above and amount of experience, except for that: Great! The Sunshine Man 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]Also, you are canvassing your RfA on your userpage, I suggest removing this. The Sunshine Man 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Canvassing would involve spamming users talk pages, this is simply stating on her userpage that she is running for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: [Copy/pasted from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate]: "While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfAs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{Rfa-notice}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed." Thanks! hmwithtalk 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing would involve spamming users talk pages, this is simply stating on her userpage that she is running for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Insufficient experience in project-space -- this objection is not based on an arbitrary number, but a legitimate expectation that an admin candidate should have some seasoning in admin-related tasks before being given the mop. If the candidate knows of no other alternative, I suggest commenting regularly at XfDs for a few weeks -- that will demonstrate the sort of knowledge I'm looking for. Xoloz 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - well I believe experience is more important then edit counts and you have been here for just over 2 months which is still too low for my liking but you have 8000 plus edits which is very good but I believe if you had waited fro another 3 months before applying..I would have supported you no questions asked..--Cometstyles 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your contributions, and the opinions of those who have supported, but I count myself among those who are uneasy with only 2 months on this account. Your answer to Q3 is very brief; either enticingly so or worryingly so. If you haven't yet been so damn frustrated with Wikipedia that you just want to scream, I'd like to wait until you have. ;-) 2 months is still the honeymoon. ··coelacan 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at this time. There are some things that just take time to learn, and two months is much too short a time to become truly familiar with the arcane intricacies of Wikipedia. I do not distrust the user, but I do not yet trust them with the sysop tools. Please keep working and editing and learning, however, and I will be glad to support at a future time. -- nae'blis 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't managed to say why you don't trust her. What is your arbitary cut off time? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; my standards can be found here. I prefer six months experience (three bare minimum for an exceptional candidate), substantial edits as compared with me-too-ism and gnomish fixing of typos and redirects, and more experience with project space than this user has. In addition, this oppose seems overly confrontational, and I don't like the attitude expressed therein (plus itns not based in policy or encyclopedic consideration). -- nae'blis 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is no policy for your deadlines for opposing me, there is no policy for my opinion of who would make a good admin. It's all the vibe that one gets from the editor, and what those casting their opinions' personal standards are for admins. Everyone has different opinions. I also went back and completely reworded the statement, still with the same meaning, but less confrontational, I believe. After sleeping on it, I also decided to move my vote to neutral, as that would not as much be a reason to oppose, but, rather, a reason to not support. On a different note, those basic tasks that you claim that I do a great deal of proves that I could be a great admin, as I would take care of built up maintenance tasks, which is just the type of admin needed right now, in my opinion. Cheers. hmwithtalk 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, and I could have worded that better. But I still see a world of difference between non-policy "I don't see enough evidence of experience from this user" and non-policy "I don't like that you asked another user to nominate you in this one process". Per your comment on my talk page, I see you've reworded to Neutral there, so everyone here should be aware of your willingness to accept criticism with aplomb, and act on it when you agree. -- nae'blis 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is no policy for your deadlines for opposing me, there is no policy for my opinion of who would make a good admin. It's all the vibe that one gets from the editor, and what those casting their opinions' personal standards are for admins. Everyone has different opinions. I also went back and completely reworded the statement, still with the same meaning, but less confrontational, I believe. After sleeping on it, I also decided to move my vote to neutral, as that would not as much be a reason to oppose, but, rather, a reason to not support. On a different note, those basic tasks that you claim that I do a great deal of proves that I could be a great admin, as I would take care of built up maintenance tasks, which is just the type of admin needed right now, in my opinion. Cheers. hmwithtalk 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; my standards can be found here. I prefer six months experience (three bare minimum for an exceptional candidate), substantial edits as compared with me-too-ism and gnomish fixing of typos and redirects, and more experience with project space than this user has. In addition, this oppose seems overly confrontational, and I don't like the attitude expressed therein (plus itns not based in policy or encyclopedic consideration). -- nae'blis 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't managed to say why you don't trust her. What is your arbitary cut off time? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. While Hmwith has been very polite and friendly during our interactions and has handled constructive criticism well, I cannot in good faith support any editor's RfA when just last month they were moving articles via cut-and-paste or did not know how fair use rationale worked. Additionally, while Hmwith's 8100 edits are most impressive at first blush, I admit to being more than a little disquieted by the fact that over 3300 of them (or about 40%) are to her own userspace. Once Hmwith has had a few more months of experience with the nuances of Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, and procedures (and a while lot fewer userspace edits), I look forward to casting a support vote in her next RfA. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Serious lack of experience, and concerns that user is a little too keen to get the mop. TigerShark 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you figure that I am too keen? I would only love the be an admin this summer, as I have a great deal more free time in the summer to edit Wikipedia, since I don't have classes. However, I haven't previously said that, so what did I do to make you feel this way? I'll be positive to fix anything that gives off that vibe! hmwithtalk 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Hmwith that this oppose seems rather unfair. Given the immense backlogs that build up at CAT:CSD and elsewhere, being "keen to get the mop" is hardly a bad thing. WaltonAssistance! 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but a lot of users apply for adminship when they have very little experience and are keen for the wrong reasons. The backlogs are not a big problem and one extra admin is not going to make a whole lot of difference. We need to be careful that users don't want to be admins because they feel that it gives them status, an ego boost etc and this leads to problems later. Not every one that applies has these reasons but it is common enought to raise a red flag. However, the fundamental problem here is lack of experience, backlogs are irrelevant. TigerShark 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose You say that you want to be involved in blocking users, but I see no history of AIV activity. You say that you are interested in deletion, but I see very little XFD activity. You do have a ton of edits, but it is hard to filter out what your project contribution really is because it appears that at least half of your edits are to your own user space or to Sandbox/Word Association, etc. I really don't see a strong need for the tools and I don't feel that you have been here long enough for me to have a true picture of how you will interact with other users. —comment added by After Midnight(t/c) 10:35, May 30, 2007
- I'm very involved in reverting vandalism and warning those users, and I've reported several who had gotten many "last warnings". I've nominated a bunch of articles for speedy delete and several for AfD. However, I could have made more edits to XfD discussions, and I have been. Please also note that most of the edits to my userspace are due to the fact that I use it to edit/create articles, templates, and tables. hmwithtalk 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of experience in project-space. Experience with administrative tasks is an issue that I do not feel has been adequately addressed. Daniel 10:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Seems nice enough but barely 2 months experience is obscenely small. I mean. When I was given the mop, I had 6 months (and 10,000 or so edits) under my belt and I still had no clue what I was doing the first few months. Just needs more experience. I'd suggest going to AN and AN/I and spending as much time as possible there. Seems like a very nice user. And in 2-3 months, I'll support her. But right now it's too soon. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Obscenely small"? With respect, this wording seems a little strong. And I have precisely 0 lifetime edits to either AN or AN/I, either before or after I became an admin. Nor have I ever seen it brought up as a requirement at RfA. WaltonAssistance! 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You misread my post. The obscenely small is about the 2 months of edits NOT the not posting to AN or AN/I. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Obscenely small"? With respect, this wording seems a little strong. And I have precisely 0 lifetime edits to either AN or AN/I, either before or after I became an admin. Nor have I ever seen it brought up as a requirement at RfA. WaltonAssistance! 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose-Edit count: ok, but edit count isn't as important as experience, which has only been 2 months (on this account). You haven't told us any of the IP's you've contributed on, so I can only judge from these 2 months. Wait until at least 6 months to get familiar with policies and how to handle situations. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 8000 edits isn't enough experience for you? I had 4 months experience when I became an admin - experience can come with editing rather than time on the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan, 3,000 of those edits are to the userspace. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's 5,000 that aren't to judge the candidate by. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to see a little more time. Also, as said above, until after someone mentioned it in her RFA, she didn't have a lot of WP space edits. It seems since then, she's been trying to build them up, which is good, but isn't going to help in the middle of an RFA. 2-3 months more. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but he's a her ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to see a little more time. Also, as said above, until after someone mentioned it in her RFA, she didn't have a lot of WP space edits. It seems since then, she's been trying to build them up, which is good, but isn't going to help in the middle of an RFA. 2-3 months more. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's 5,000 that aren't to judge the candidate by. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan, 3,000 of those edits are to the userspace. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 8000 edits isn't enough experience for you? I had 4 months experience when I became an admin - experience can come with editing rather than time on the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I'm not comfortable with the short amount of time you've been here. I don't think you've had enough experience of disputes on Wikipedia to judge how you would react to them. Your contributions to XfDs aren't enough to get much of a knowledge of policy (I agree with EVula's analysis below). You're doing great work and I hope you keep it up but I think you need to contribute a while longer before I'd be comfortable with supporting you. WjBscribe 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Wow, a fantastic body of contributions in just two months time. But... in just two months time. Personally, I'm extremely hesitant to promote someone so quickly after joining the project. I see very little involvement in project areas where I could see that you've got a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The few XfD discussions I've found and read don't really suggest that you're basing your opinions on policy (such as !voting to keep a template because "I like having these" [16]). I'd suggest coming back in a few months, and getting involved in XfD and the like in the meantime. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Thanks for you constructive criticism. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to go through my edits. However, for the record, in that edit about a userbox for deletion, I later retracted my comment, rewording it, presenting that the edit count userboxes are positive to the community. hmwithtalk 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Good effort for two months of effort on the project. Get some more experience in the project space and reference the policies and guidelines in XfD/WikiTalk debates when you contribute and I will probably support in a few months' time. (aeropagitica) 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She's cute in real life. If that makes a difference Creationlaw 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be a young male, but hopefully my RfA standards aren't quite that shallow... :-) WaltonAssistance! 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Just too new to the project...otherwise, looks pretty decent. Try again in a few months. Jmlk17 00:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is hard for me to be neutral on, since I adopted her. However, I personally do not feel that she is fully ready to be an admin. I do not doubt her ability to be an admin, but I do feel that there are a few things that can be improved. Just as a child does not stop learning when he reaches adulthood, a new editor does not stop learning things after adoption. I think this is a quick jump of the gun, and I recommend having Hmwith go through editor review first. I have 100% faith that she will become an admin one day, and I look forward to the day when I can give her a strong support. --wpktsfs 01:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I would like to see more contributions and constructive activity from this editor before I would support an adminship. I opine that this RfA is rather premature. --Fahrenheit451 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed To Support
#Neutral, I'm very impressed by the number of edits, but the lack of experience bothers me. Also the fact that you have only 330 something edits on "Wikipedia" space. Otherwise, I like what I see. Try in three months and I will support.[reply]
--Random Say it here! 00:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC) - How is 8,000 edits a lack of experience? Surely we should be judging the candidate on the ability to use the tools correctly. My experience shows that this user can be trusted. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You contradict yourself so badly :) Impressed by the edit count, but find him inexperienced... then you say only 330 Wikipedia edits. Then you like what you see, so you suggest come back in three months... good grief... Majorly (talk | meet) 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All I was saying was that I feel that an editor needs around 4 months experience before I like to vote for them. There is no reason to jump on me. --Random Say it here! 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You contradict yourself so badly :) Impressed by the edit count, but find him inexperienced... then you say only 330 Wikipedia edits. Then you like what you see, so you suggest come back in three months... good grief... Majorly (talk | meet) 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed To Support
- Neutral, per above, and per Gutworth (talk · contribs) and Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs). This might be a good candidate later, but give it some more time and experience. Smee 05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Neutral We do need more admins, and I believe it is possible to be prepared for this in the amount of time you've been here. My main concern is that if I'm wrong you could create a lot of work, whereas admins are supposed to reduce the overall amount of work. I was hoping you'd answer my question by saying something like "If I turn out to be a disaster because of inexperience I'd resign and try again later." Anynobody 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I like your strong stance on civility. I'm kind of worried about your length of time here. Is there a way to see your edits as an anonymous editor? Or am I not allowed? Why would you stay anonymous for an extended period of time? It could push me to strongly support. Orangemarlin 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't been consistently editing, but simply here and there, while at school, usually. hmwithtalk 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Needs to moderate her responses. (like for example, the comments that Nae'blis mentioned and the response to TigerShark above).- TwoOars 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I fixed the wording. If you go through my contribs, you will find that I don't have a history of defensive wording. It's difficult not to get flustered here, obviously, and I must remain cool and levelheaded, thus, after sleeping on it, I reworded my comments. I hope that they are okay now. hmwithtalk 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Both in your reply to my question, as in the images you asked for permission, you failed to remember to change the email with the permission to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (as explained in WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed), so that the permission can be documented and analyzed by others. Make sure to add the OTRS number to the images you mentioned. --Abu badali (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I want to change to support, but would like first to see some sort of answer to question 6.Chasnged to support--Anthony.bradbury 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral – I'm completely on the fence here. I'd like not to be biased against a candidate on the basis of time, but a two-month span does seem rather short. I see no evidence of the requisite understanding of Wikipedia's policies, but then neither do I see ignorance. Your answer to question #5 is reassuring, if unsupported. I see no reason to trust or mistrust you. Just my two cents. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: Wow, this is a tough one. I'm also on the fence here as well. Excellent editor and I have seen you around on AfD. I really really like what I see but for some reason I just can't get over how new this account is. For me, it's not so much the edit counts. I've seen people granted adminship with 2,000 edits (but then again, that was 2 years ago). I value consistency a lot more. Although I know people will say ad nauseum that there shouldn't be a time frame but rather experience which are mutually exclusive, time nevertheless is important to me; and to me # of edits doesn't necessarily equal experience and I've been here long enough for anyone to try and convince me otherwise. I just think this is too premature. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Much like Madman bum and angel (talk · contribs), I think your time with a registered account is a bit shorter than I would normally be comfortable with. I don't see anything that makes me want to oppose, but I don't see anything that compels me to support right now either. My 2 cents is to spend a bit more time in the Wikipedia space (WP:ANI, WP:AFD, policy talkpages, etc) and try again in a few months if this particular RFA does not succeed. You are a promising candidate; for me it is just a bit too early though.--Isotope23 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Like others, I am really on the fence with this one. On one hand, I think you're a good editor. However, I really think you need more experience under your belt before you make the plunge to be an admin. I also feel that some of your answers show this inexperience. I'd be happy to support in the future, but I still wish you luck this time around. --132 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards support. The nominee seems to be unexperienced in editing and discusssing the really controversial articles. Sorry, and please come again later. Ukrained 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Mr.Z-man
Final: (43/2/0); ended 19:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) - I've had a Wikipedia account since December 2005 but have only been editing regularly since the beginning of January 2007, so I have just a few days short of 5 months experience. I've amassed over 5800 edits, including over 2000 mainspace edits. I also have an account on commons for uploading free images. I do much work in the template and article namespaces. I do a significant amount of vandalism reversion, I participate in XfD's, and also close them occasionally, if they have an obvious keep consensus, the nomination was withdrawn with no objections, or it was deleted by an admin but not closed. I am familar with Wikipedia's policies and many guidelines and try to involve myself in discussions, though I have been trying to do more mainspace work lately. I also try to keep BLP articles in good condition. I requested the link to BLP recent changes be added to the Recent changes header (though its not as prominent as I would have liked) and I keep any BLP article I revert things on in my watchlist. I'm also a member of many projects including WP:ADOPT, WikiProject Classroom coordination, WikiProject Michigan, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, and others. I also run an AWB bot, Mr.Z-bot to remove the article categories from WP:AFC archive pages. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 would focus mainly on extensions of what I do now. I do quite a bit of new page patrol and XfD work, and as an admin, I could close all XfDs and help clear CAT:CSD. I'm also fairly good at finding copyvios in CAT:WIKIFY and in new pages, so being able to delete these on sight could help. I also would be able to block users reported to AIV and could block vandals that I find instead of having to report them. I would also like to help at WP:RPP and could provide help in editing protected templates (only if there is good reason to do so, of course)
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: In article namespace, that would be Mackinac Island. I brought it (with help from a few other editors) from a fairly short, unsourced article to its current version, completely sourced and much longer. It is now a GA and has been a featured article candidate since May 13, with no objections. This is also how I became involved in the National Register of Historic Places project. I also like the Template:Infobox Non-profit I created. While it started as a copy of the company infobox with a few things changed, it is now much different and is used on over 100 pages. I list all of my major contributions on my user page, including my favorite image upload.
- 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 generally try to avoid topics that become conflict magnets, and editing conflicts that I have been a party in are usually minor and are quickly resolved. I try not to take things too seriously, as I've found that acting too seriously often leads to problems getting out of hand. If another editor gives a really good reason for why his position is better than mine (Reliable sources for instance), I will accept that. I keep most AfD's I participate in on my watchlist, in case someone turns up evidence that refutes my position. I have done minimal work with the mediation cabal, some of which has led to stress. See the archive of Talk:Autoroute for the only case to date that I really "resolved"
Optional question from User:William Henry Harrison
- 4. If you were given the power to have complete control over wikipedia what would you do, what would you change, and why?
- A: From my experience, with a couple of exceptions, Wikipedia actually runs fairly smoothly for its size. The larger it gets, the more we have to explain, clarify, and create rules/guidelines/processes, to keep a sense of standardization and to keep things orderly. I mean, compare Wikipedia to say, the US government. If we ran Wikipedia like that we would probably have only about 50,000 articles, all the rest would be stuck in committee somewhere but if we remove rules, we create loopholes for undesirable content/actions to creep in. As for what I would change though, I would make Reliable sources (or something similar) a policy for new articles. Basically, for a new article to stay, it would need to be at least partially sourced from its creation. We already don't accept unsourced suggestions at WP:AFC. While applying this to all articles would be impractical (Category Tracker is showing 73960 articles lacking sources), applying it to new articles could stem the influx of unsourced articles, and let people get to work reducing the unsourced article backlog, perhaps some of the articles from December 2005. This could be used in conjunction with the "Wikipedia Attic" idea suggested on the discussion page for the soft deletion proposal in which under some conditions, articles are not immediately deleted but are moved to a subpage of a projectspace page or a new namespace for a certain amount of time. A template could be placed on the mainspace page, explaining why it was removed, where it is moved to, and when it will be deleted. After that time has passed, if the articles are not improved up to standards, they are deleted. Obviously some new unsourced articles would not be kept in any form: copyvios, anything that fails a criteria for speedy deletion, or new articles that violate other policies as well such as WP:NPOV or WP:BLP.
Optional question from User:Vassyana
- 5. You mentioned that some of your experience with MedCab was stressful. Could you please elaborate? What did you take away from the stressful experiences? How do you plan on dealing with stress as a sysop?
- A: It was mainly one stressful situation. As I said above, I have only minimal MedCab experience. I've resolved one situation, 2 other disputes settled themselves with minimal input from me, and I'm working with another editor as co-mediatior on one now, but progress there is slow. One dispute however went really wrong really fast. Part of it was my fault, I assumed that what was asked for on the MedCab request page was what everybody wanted. The editor(s) who filled out the page seemed to be asking for more of a third opinion to break their stalled, deadlocked discussion. However, I quickly learned (after I had provided a 3rd opinion) that that was not what everybody wanted. An extremely heated discussion soon followed, I had to defend myself while still remaining civil, and I ultimately failed (at resolving the dispute, I was able to stay civil). The case is with MedCom now, though after my experiences with it, I am doubtful that they will be able to resolve much. The first comment in opposition to me below is from one of the disputers (one who I disagreed with, obviously). I've learned how to better avoid stressful situations in the first place, as the best way to deal with stress is to not get stressed out. I am better at recognizing situations that may have a tendency to become a powderkeg, and I've learned to keep my distance from disputes of certain subjects that tend to turn in to "conflict magnets" (anything that can attract a lot of emotion and personal feelings). Often in those situations, remaining impersonal and objective can backfire, making you appear heartless and cruel (what I'm pretty sure happened in the dispute that went wrong). Also, I try to remember, we are here to build an encyclpedia, not have debate clubs. I will do what is best for the encyclopedia. As a sysop, I can't imagine myself getting into too many stressful situations. People will get mad of course when they are blocked, when their page is deleted, or when I protect "the wrong version" in a dispute, but I've found the best way to resove minor disputes (more complaints than disputes) such as those is to explain everything: context, reasoning, policy, remedies. If someone complains about a page I deleted (assuming they have not done anything that would be reason not to assume good faith), I'll point them in the direction of the relevant policy (or XfD discussion), tell them what was really wrong and how to fix it, and direct them to DRV if the page wasn't a total disaster. I can't see myself diving right into every sysop chore right away. Mainly long-term abuse and sockpuppet issues. While I can eventually see myself working in these areas, these seem to be some of the more stressful situations. I see myself doing much more of the mop-and-keys janitorial work (along with regular editing) than anything else however.
General comments
- See Mr.Z-man's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Mr.Z-man: Mr.Z-man (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/Mr.Z-man before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Strong support Z-man is a versatile contributor at AFD and elsewhere. He would make the ideal admin based on my observations of him. YechielMan 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to. Also, on a side note, nice work on Mackinac Island. --Whsitchy 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all good to me. Khukri 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the user is well experienced and is an ideal candidate .. --Cometstyles 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Y not? 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen this user around XfD multiple times. He is a fine user. Acalamari 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great answer to question number 4--William Henry Harrison 03:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, go slaughter some vandals...but not in a WP:INSULT kind of way... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He is literally everywhere. PeaceNT 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dfrg.msc 07:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good answers, excellent article work, level-headed. Sure. —Anas talk? 10:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although another 2 or 3 months would be great, I like this user's work. · AndonicO Talk 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Majorly (talk | meet) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-I constantly see him at AIV and xFD, and he does great work. Normally, I would never support somebody this new. Mr. Z-man is the exception. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good user. He is new, but he is very experienced. --Mschel 18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WooyiTalk to me? 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does meaningful cleanup work? Writes FAs? Acts politely even under criticism? Textbook signs that someone will be fine as an admin. --W.marsh 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, No real concerns with this editor. --Random Say it here! 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another user that can tell which end is up. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support non-controversial and helpful editor ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing wrong that I can see... Good contributor, will make a great admin. --DarkFalls talk 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per nom and all of above. Pedro | Chat 08:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence 09:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although you said you've only been editing regularly for a few months, I don't think that time has to do with experience. It's what you've done in that time, which is become a great editor. Cheers! You will make great use of the tools. hmwithtalk 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No indication of problems, helpful, cooperative, good contributions; should be even better with the official mop and bucket. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I would definitely trust Mr.Z-man with the mop. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think he will be trustworthy. JodyB talk 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. You will do well. bibliomaniac15 00:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Particularly per answers to question 4. — CharlotteWebb 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good contributions. Captain panda 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I am unconvinced of the merits of the "soft deletion" proposal but won't let a minor disagreement in opinions get in the way of supporting someone who I'm confident would be a great admin. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent candidate; will make a fine addition to the admincorps. Xoloz 01:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, even if I disagree with answer to question 4. Davewild 17:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers, good edits. I think you'll do fine. --132 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen you around and valued your contributions. I would have probably taken a somewhat different approach (always easier to say with hindsight) to the emotionally charged Phi Kappa Psi dispute , but I'm satisfied that you learned from the experience and impressed that you didn't lose your cool.--Kubigula (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't really see any reason to opposed. Time editing in earnest is slightly less than I normally like to see, but the answers are good (though I'm not a big fan of "soft delete").--Isotope23 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid editor, will do well as an admin. —Gaff ταλκ 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The nominee seems to have a good grasp of his strengths and limitations. I have no reason not to trust this user with the mop & bucket. Vassyana 09:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by the dawn's early light. --Infrangible 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A very good candidate. Daniel 03:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: his contributions are almost an example of admin conduct already. Unlikely to abuse sysop tools. Ukrained 09:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bureaucrats are wasting so much time discussing Gracenotes' RfA I can still support: I thought he was one! ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 00:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. Exhibited grotesque notion of notability, arguing that a class of rapes were not notable because they were common. —SlamDiego←T 20:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps living near Detroit has somewhat insensitized me to most violent crime that does not directly affect me; there is usually one or more reports of a murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, burglary, etc. on the news every night, plus many filling the local sections of the newspapers. (The second headline on the Detroit Free Press Website right now: "Cop faces more sex assault charges, $1-million cash bond") There is a significant difference between newsworthiness and notability. Just because some incident gets a TV story and a newspaper article (some even get more than that if they solve the crime within a few weeks and maybe an op-ed piece) does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia article. The only thing that that rape had to do with the fraternity it was being mentioned with is the fact that it happened on property owned by the fraternity and the rapist may have been a member. Notice that Detroit, Michigan and even Crime in Detroit, Michigan are not filled with accounts of individual crimes, nor are the articles for other large cities, colleges, and fraternities. There are 3 local TV stations in Detroit and 2 newspapers (3 if it happens in a suberb south of the city). That is more than enough for reliable sources, WP:V, and an extremely strict interpretation of WP:N, but the editors in those otehr articles have realized the difference between newsworthiness and notability. Also please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, number 10, News reports. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place to debate whether these other, newly offered reasons (ostensible reliability, &c) could justify your earlier conclusion. Here, I drew specific attention to the notion of notability that underlies your claim that a rape in a fraternity house would not be notable because such rapes are common. It doesn't much matter just how your sense of notability has been “insensitized” (by living near Detroit or otherwise); the point is that it does not function well, and indeed malfunctions in a manner that could bring active disgrace to Wikipedia if you were granted a position of authority. (As it was, your actions when wearing the self-donned hat of Mediator could have brought some very ugly attention from the press on a slow news day.) —SlamDiego←T 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, SlamDiego refes to a veiled threat about taking off-wiki actions in a content dispute. (this being the first). I'm saying that rape in general and on college campuses is common. I'm saying that there is a difference between newsworthiness and notability. I'm saying it was not relevant in terms of the national organization Wikipedia does not report the news. I notice that you made no mention of how you harassed me and any other user who disagreed with you in that dispute. You accused one editor of being a sockpuppet even though you admitted that there was little evidence and rejected any attempts by the two other users at explaining they were not sockpuppets. I actually was suprised by my and other editors' ability to stay civil and assume good faith in that dispute. I wish I could say the same for you. You also made a comment early on (I must have overlooked it, if I noticed it before I would never have commented) that indicated you belived removal was an attempt at censorship and that you had no intention of accepting any decision that was not in line your stance. This whole dispute was my mistake. I should have realzed that any informal resolution attempt (with the exception of full agreement with SlamDiego) was futile. Also, you ignored the main point of my comments on the talk page about relevancy, focusing only on specifics that I gave as examples. (In all fairness to you though, I did not even think about WP:NOT duing my comments then.) Finally, your comment above "malfunctions in a manner that could bring active disgrace to Wikipedia if you were granted a position of authority." — What?! I was discussing the removal of one instance of rape in one article. You make it sould like I suggested I would go around with AWB and remove any paragraph that mentioned a rape as an attempt at censorship. Absolutely not. I do not make judgements on Wikipedia using any sort of precedent or preconceived notions. I make judgements, including my decisions on that article, based on the content within the article and the relevant policies and guidelines. Were that an article about a specific chapter house, inclusion would have been warranted, but in an article about the national organiztion? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one made any threats, veiled or otherwise; your pretense otherwise, and the rest of your response to the core of my objection raises further basis for concern about your suitability to hold administrator privileges. The issue of whether I am a or am not a good editor isn't relevant here; I am not here (or elsewhere) nominated for administration. I linked to your exact words, and people can see what you actually wrote, as opposed to however things might now be spun here. What you actually wrote repelled not only me, but Rjproie and Jmlk17,[17][18] who are the opposing parties in the dispute in question. (We are presently waiting on the assignment of a Mediator from the Mediation Committee.) —SlamDiego←T 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the AfD comment in question, I don't think SlamDiego's assessment above is entirely fair. The comment seemed perfectly reasonable to me - not all rapes are notable, they're only notable if they receive sufficient coverage in independent sources to write a detailed article. So the diff does not detract from my trust in Mr.Z-man's understanding of policy. WaltonAssistance! 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr.Z-man did not make the point that not all rapes were notable, nor has he availed himself of the defense that he misspoke when attempting to make such a point. Instead, he has tried to vindicate his actual remark, and attempted to sidetrack the argument here into one about my actions and character; that response shows all the more clearly why giving him powers of adminsitration would be ill-considered. —SlamDiego←T 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the AfD comment in question, I don't think SlamDiego's assessment above is entirely fair. The comment seemed perfectly reasonable to me - not all rapes are notable, they're only notable if they receive sufficient coverage in independent sources to write a detailed article. So the diff does not detract from my trust in Mr.Z-man's understanding of policy. WaltonAssistance! 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one made any threats, veiled or otherwise; your pretense otherwise, and the rest of your response to the core of my objection raises further basis for concern about your suitability to hold administrator privileges. The issue of whether I am a or am not a good editor isn't relevant here; I am not here (or elsewhere) nominated for administration. I linked to your exact words, and people can see what you actually wrote, as opposed to however things might now be spun here. What you actually wrote repelled not only me, but Rjproie and Jmlk17,[17][18] who are the opposing parties in the dispute in question. (We are presently waiting on the assignment of a Mediator from the Mediation Committee.) —SlamDiego←T 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, SlamDiego refes to a veiled threat about taking off-wiki actions in a content dispute. (this being the first). I'm saying that rape in general and on college campuses is common. I'm saying that there is a difference between newsworthiness and notability. I'm saying it was not relevant in terms of the national organization Wikipedia does not report the news. I notice that you made no mention of how you harassed me and any other user who disagreed with you in that dispute. You accused one editor of being a sockpuppet even though you admitted that there was little evidence and rejected any attempts by the two other users at explaining they were not sockpuppets. I actually was suprised by my and other editors' ability to stay civil and assume good faith in that dispute. I wish I could say the same for you. You also made a comment early on (I must have overlooked it, if I noticed it before I would never have commented) that indicated you belived removal was an attempt at censorship and that you had no intention of accepting any decision that was not in line your stance. This whole dispute was my mistake. I should have realzed that any informal resolution attempt (with the exception of full agreement with SlamDiego) was futile. Also, you ignored the main point of my comments on the talk page about relevancy, focusing only on specifics that I gave as examples. (In all fairness to you though, I did not even think about WP:NOT duing my comments then.) Finally, your comment above "malfunctions in a manner that could bring active disgrace to Wikipedia if you were granted a position of authority." — What?! I was discussing the removal of one instance of rape in one article. You make it sould like I suggested I would go around with AWB and remove any paragraph that mentioned a rape as an attempt at censorship. Absolutely not. I do not make judgements on Wikipedia using any sort of precedent or preconceived notions. I make judgements, including my decisions on that article, based on the content within the article and the relevant policies and guidelines. Were that an article about a specific chapter house, inclusion would have been warranted, but in an article about the national organiztion? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place to debate whether these other, newly offered reasons (ostensible reliability, &c) could justify your earlier conclusion. Here, I drew specific attention to the notion of notability that underlies your claim that a rape in a fraternity house would not be notable because such rapes are common. It doesn't much matter just how your sense of notability has been “insensitized” (by living near Detroit or otherwise); the point is that it does not function well, and indeed malfunctions in a manner that could bring active disgrace to Wikipedia if you were granted a position of authority. (As it was, your actions when wearing the self-donned hat of Mediator could have brought some very ugly attention from the press on a slow news day.) —SlamDiego←T 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps living near Detroit has somewhat insensitized me to most violent crime that does not directly affect me; there is usually one or more reports of a murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, burglary, etc. on the news every night, plus many filling the local sections of the newspapers. (The second headline on the Detroit Free Press Website right now: "Cop faces more sex assault charges, $1-million cash bond") There is a significant difference between newsworthiness and notability. Just because some incident gets a TV story and a newspaper article (some even get more than that if they solve the crime within a few weeks and maybe an op-ed piece) does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia article. The only thing that that rape had to do with the fraternity it was being mentioned with is the fact that it happened on property owned by the fraternity and the rapist may have been a member. Notice that Detroit, Michigan and even Crime in Detroit, Michigan are not filled with accounts of individual crimes, nor are the articles for other large cities, colleges, and fraternities. There are 3 local TV stations in Detroit and 2 newspapers (3 if it happens in a suberb south of the city). That is more than enough for reliable sources, WP:V, and an extremely strict interpretation of WP:N, but the editors in those otehr articles have realized the difference between newsworthiness and notability. Also please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, number 10, News reports. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. He has demonstrated a disregard for the truth. Miss Minerva 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you care to explain what you mean here? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an inflammatory and unsupported comment to place on a user's RfA. It needs to be supported or can be taken as nothing more than a grain of salt. Of note, this user has 7 edits total!—Gaff ταλκ 18:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has insisted on support for the comments in favor of the nominee, nor am I aware of any attempt to count how many edits each has made. As to support, anyone who followed the links above would find support (for example, Mr.Z-man plainly and willfully misrepresented what I'd actually said and done), and if people are not following those links or not seeing the support therein, then I'm not sure why more links that will be ignored or misunderstood would be helpful. —SlamDiego←T 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Clamster5
Final: (12/7/6); ended 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Clamster5 (talk · contribs) - I've worked with Clamster on a number of pages related to A Series of Unfortunate Events, and she's always been very helpful and kind. I think they would make an excellent admin if she were to become one. Mrmoocow 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you, Mrmoocow. ***Clamster 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: One of the many tasks I do on Wikipedia is going through recently-created pages. Much of the time, I stubify and wikify articles, but I also often add speedy-delete tags to articles which meet those criteria. There are always seems to be a backlog for speedy-delete candidates, and I would work to clear that. I have some experience with AFDs and would definitely help out there.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My first registered edit was on July 7, 2006, although I made numerous anonymous edits. I have made many large contributions to WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events (now WikiProject Lemony Snicket). Many, but not all, of my edits have to articles within this scope. I cannot take full credit for any page, but I have been making edits and improvements to A Series of Unfortunate Events since the beginning of my time here on Wikipedia. Additionally, I created and made major contributions to Houses in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Geographic locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Business locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, and Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events. I have also made large contributions to The End. As I do a great deal of reading on Wikipedia, I also tend to just edit and improve things as I find them so I have made edits to articles about many different topics.
- 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 admit there was a time when I got very overheated and fustrated about an AFD that I stooped soo low as to make a personal attack against someone with a different viewpoint. I feel horrible that I blatantly broke an important policy on Wikipedia. The AFD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter Fourteen. The other user involved and I were both stubborn and our differing viewpoints led to to petty fighting. We ended up in a revert war, but were able to settle our differences with a mediation.
- 4. Could you clarify further about this revert war? Why did you continue reverting even though you knew you were breaking 3RR? --ais523 11:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- A: The other user and I were just going back and forth, reverting the page to what we thought was the best setup for the page. We both ended up reporting the other for 3RR. It was a dispute that got just out of hand. Once again, it seemed important at the time, but now I just feel embarrassed that I blatantly broke policy and let a minor dispute get me upset.
Optional question from User:William Henry Harrison
- 5. If you were given the power to have complete control over wikipedia what would you do, what would you change, and why?
- A: Thats a little bit of a pointed question, isn't it? If someone answers it too enthusiastically, they could be labeled power-hungry and misinterpreting what an admin is. I don't think I would want to have complete control over Wikipedia; that would be a nightmare. But, if I could change things, I think new users should have some sort introduction or tutorial they have to read or go through before they can create articles. From what I have seen, a fair amount of pages that fall under the speedy-delete criteria are created by inexperienced users who don't really understand what Wikipedia really is.
Optional Question from Arknascar44
- 6. This is a hypothetical situation: Say that you are an administrator and a student. An IP address from your school repeatedly vandalizes an important Wikipedia article, and has been warned by several users countless times. Do you take action by blocking the IP, or do you not come down on them as hard because you know that the user is your school (assuming that sorting out the problem outside of Wikipedia is not an option).
- A: If someone from my school were to continually vandalize an article after warnings have been placed on their talk page, I would certainly block the user or the IP, either indefinitley or temporarily depending on what the situation warrants. A vandal I know is the same as one I don't.
General comments
- See Clamster5's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Clamster5: Clamster5 (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/Clamster5 before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- In looking over Clamster5's edits, I see nothing to suggest she'd abuse the tools. Another admin on RC patrol is always good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support you seem like a good editor. I recommend that in future you try to fill in an edit summary for just about every edit you make from now on - other than that, nothing seems to be too wrong. Good luck! ;) –Sebi ~ 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support she could use the tools. Everything she does seems to be for the good of wikipedia.
I like how she stood up to the admin, it shows strength and this is what we need in an admin.--William Henry Harrison 17:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support she could use the tools. Everything she does seems to be for the good of wikipedia.
- Support, looks like the tools will help this editor and I don't see any outstanding issues. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator, I support. Mrmoocow 22:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, will not abuse the tools. Abeg92contribs 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, No serious concerns except for the lack of "Wikipedia" space edits. --Random Say it here! 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I don't see much problems here. More edit summaries please, good editor generally. Terence 10:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to work on remembering to put in edit summaries. Since I have been using WP:TWINKLE, which automatically puts edit summaries in for many edits, I think I have gotten better. 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, at first I was slightly worried about your edit summary usage, but I can see that you can learn from certain complications (i. e. the revert war), so that shouldn't be a problem from now on, especially considering the auto edit summary tool you've begun using. Secondly, I'm happy that you'll stand up to vandals and troublemakers, (as shown in my optional question) regardless of relations. This to me implies that you will carry out your duties as an admin without being swayed from adhering to Wikipedia policy for personal reasons. Therefore, I support your RfA. Good luck with your mop and bucket! Arknascar44 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Your temper in the 3RR and the AfD are concerning. However there has been 6+ months of space between that event and now so I am willing to support you. Project work is important. The fact that you asked for nomination means nothing at all to me. JodyB talk 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User has increased edit summary usage from the concerns about edit summaries so I will support. Captain panda 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the AfD incident sounds worrying at first, but a reasonable amount of time has passed and I think this user is unlikely to abuse tools, unless someone can find more recent evidence of misconduct. Insanephantom 13:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Even though I have a few misgivings: mostly related to the AfD debacle (minor to some that I have seen) and your limited experience outside of your specific area of interest. I will support. It sounds to me that you have learned a lesson about handling a heated argument. I trust that you will be better at asking for a third party mediator or just taking some time to sit back and gain perspective if things get dicey in the future. —Gaff ταλκ 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose I'm concerned about your relatively narrow range of experience. In mainspace, almost all of your edits are proofreading, many of which should have been marked as minor--and even so, almost all are within one project. In user space, a great many of your edits are informing potential participants about that project. There's minimal participation in XfD, and none at all on WP talk about policy. There is some good vandal fighting, and I very much like your answer to Q.5. I hope to support your future RfA when you have a broader record here. DGG 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too soon after the AFD incident. Admins but be able to keep a cool head in much more challenging situations than that, and losing their cool can make situations much worse - so I have to err on the side of caution. TigerShark 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – I also do not feel the AfD incident was "too long" ago. While it may have devolved into petty fighting like you stated above, you were clearly the instigator and you should have backed down when you were challenged. Being bold does not always mean being right. My apologies -- otherwise you seem like an excellent candidate, and I will fully support the consensus of the contributors here, whether it be positive or negative. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Especially given prior episode of ill-temper, more project-space experience is needed to demonstrate candidate can handle the mop. Xoloz 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Xoloz -- Y not? 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins losing their heads when they get angry or frustrated creates big problems. I don't trust this user with the tools, given how stressful adminship is. Daniel 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose generally due to the 3RR and AFD issue and narrow focus. Suggest you branch out, diversify your experience, and try again later. --After Midnight 0001 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral but leaning toward support. The dispute referred to in Q3, while disturbing, is too long ago, and Clamster5 seems to have learned from it. I have no reason to believe she will misinterpret speedy deletion criteria. I am a little annoyed by the mistakes in spelling and grammar. Certainly I would support a second application if I'm still around in a couple of months. YechielMan 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. You seem to be opposing on the grounds of spelling and grammar, but then saying you'll support in a few months? Can you please explain your vote a bit more, I don't quite understand it. --Deskana (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I should have written that I was not quite ready to rely on the candidate's experience - though normally it would be enough for me - and that I would support with more experience even if the spelling errors persist. Overall I don't see any real problem. YechielMan 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. You seem to be opposing on the grounds of spelling and grammar, but then saying you'll support in a few months? Can you please explain your vote a bit more, I don't quite understand it. --Deskana (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm going to remain neutral because of your edit summary usage, normally if it was satisfactory I'd AGF and support but yours is less than 25%, I cant support that, you have been asked before to leave one and have not which makes it seem as if you are unwlling to comprimise, also why did you ask another editor to nominated you for adminship, I understand you may have been nervous but we dont bite, self nominations are accepted. The Sunshine Man 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Candidate has limited experience throughout the 'pedia. There has been some edit warring, and a little less calm than I like to see. If no further incidents occur, and candidate broadens her experience (and use edit summaries, please!) I will certainly reconsider the candidate in the future, with no prejudice. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I didn't say it in my answer to question 3, I would like to say that the dispute happened during November 2006. I was fairly new to Wikipedia then, and I would to reiterate that the edit war and talk page comments are now embarrassing for me. Now I would never allow myself to get that flustered over something that trivial. ***Clamster 00:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "AFD incident" is from six months ago, and there was some poor behavior on both sides. However, reading it doesn't hurt my eyes nearly as much as the day-glow green font (which is barely visible against an azure blue background), so really I am not too concerned about the "AFD incident", but more about what DGG has said above. But, do remember not to nominate articles for deletion if you actually feel they should be merged. — CharlotteWebb 02:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I did not nominate that article for deletion; the user involved did. One of the things that made me angry was that he listed on AFD instead of placing merge tags on it. ***Clamster 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point (oops). Changed to neutral. — CharlotteWebb 08:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not nominate that article for deletion; the user involved did. One of the things that made me angry was that he listed on AFD instead of placing merge tags on it. ***Clamster 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI noticed the fact that you asked someone else to nominate you. I nominated myself. It's nothing to be afraid of doing! =) My reasoning is that I'd fear that, possibly, you'd be afraid to take responsibility, which could affect you work as an admin. However, this is no policy, but simply my opinion. If you can prove that you're responsible, you could certainly have my support in the future, as you seem to be a great editor, and this was obviously done in good faith.hmwithtalk 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Can I ask how other users nominated by someone else were nominated if they didn't ask to be? (Sorry the wording is a little wierd) ***Clamster 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If your contributions really surprise someone, they think that you should be or deserve to be an admin. I've nominated someone, just because I noticed their hard work, time on the project, and responsible attitude. It makes it appear as if someone nominated you simple because he/she looked at you, and said to him/herself, "This user needs to be an admin." But that's not. You asked him. hmwithtalk 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask how other users nominated by someone else were nominated if they didn't ask to be? (Sorry the wording is a little wierd) ***Clamster 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Though I think you'd be ok for the job, I still don't feel like the AfD incident was all that long ago. I realize you're remorseful for it, but it still gives me an uneasy feeling. I'd probably support in a few months, but, right now, I just can't. --132 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Reedy Boy
Closed as successful by Cecropia 01:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC) at (47/0/0); Scheduled end time 22:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reedy Boy (talk · contribs) - Sam has been a Wikipedian since 25 September 2005 and from then to now has made thousands of positive contributions to various articles, especially related to aviation. He's also very active on the AWB pages - if he was an admin he could add approved users to the list. He's also kind and helpful, and a valued contributor here. Let's give him the mop! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 15:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thankyou Majorly, I Accept - Reedy Boy 21:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: As with everything I undertake, I like to try my hand at doing as many different things as possible, but of course, this wont be without reading up on policies and getting a better understanding of the processes. Vandalism, as we all know, is an unrelenting task that doesnt just go away. I like to occasionally help out with RC patrol, reverting edits, and warning users as appropriate. Currently, not being an administrator, I am unable to deal with vandals other than reporting them or asking other administrators to take the appropriate actions.
- The ability to edit protected pages will help greatly when working on AutoWikiBrowser to edit check pages for users and versions, a task that I currently have to ask other people to do.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am generally pleased with most of my Wikipedia edits. Obtaining bot approval on Reedy Bot for WikiProject Tagging using AutoWikiBrowser and Kingbotk's Plugin, has allowed me to help out various WikiProjects adding tags to new pages, aswell as categorising pages and updating tags. Reedy Bot has amassed around 45,000 edits.
- As I have used Wikipedia for research and information, I have updated pages and added facts and figures to pages. I have also updated page formatting, added new sections, improved the flow of text and fixed typos.
- I have done a large number of edits on Aviation related articles as well as other articles that fall into my knowledge range.
- 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: During my time at wikipedia, I havent been involved in any conflicts over edits. I try to Assume Good Faith as much as possible, and if I was involved in a conflict, I would try to assume good faith. I would try to understand the points of view of all the participants. I have observed other on-wiki disputes, and have learnt from these.
Optional questions from User:William Henry Harrison (now blocked as a sockpuppet)
- 4. If your account was infiltrated by a vandal and because of this you were banned from wikipedia and your talk page was protected making it impossible for you to ever be able to tell everyone that you were hijacked, how would you ever get the point across? How would you get the respect of the wikipedia community back? And what would you do to prevent this problem in the future?
- A:I hope this will never happen to me, but as we all know, very few things are impossible. I have recently changed my password on both of my accounts (ie this account and my bot account - Reedy Bot), to one meeting more of the generally reccommended 'secure password criteria' - ie greater than 8 characters, including numbers, uppercase letters and alike.
- As with the recent account admin accounts that have been comprimised, I would request a checkuser. As i have a static IP, and nearly all my edits take place from this IP, this should provide enough evidence to prove the edits were not preformed by myself.
- If my account was compromised, and my talk page protected, meaning I couldnt reply on the talk page to try and resolve the issue, I do have a few Wikipedians (All admins I believe) on my contact lists for MSN, and I am often active on various Wikipedia and other related IRC channels. These Wikipedians that i have on my MSN contact list, who i have spoken to many times in the past, would be able to help me verify my ID. So if the problem did arise, I would be able to request help from those people, and from some of the general Wikipedia Community who do hang around on IRC. This would allow me to try show that the actions weren't preformed by myself.
- 5. Have you ever used a sockpuppet?
- A: I have never used a sockpuppet account, however, as previously mentioned, I do have another account, User:Reedy Bot, who has been issued bot approval for 1 task, per the process at WP:BRFA. The Sockp Puppetry policy tells us that alternate accounts only used for certain purposes can be considered sockpuppets that are in violation of policy. Running a Bot is not listed as a Forbidden use of sock puppets. Reedy Boy 11:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Reedy Boy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Reedy Boy: Reedy Boy (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/Reedy Boy before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support per nom, a good user who could use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious support - good luck! Majorly (talk | meet) 21:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Majorly Support - a good user who will use the tools well. Plus, Majorly nom'ed him, so he must be good. (If this sounds bad, AGF please) :-) --tennisman sign here! 21:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will only use the tools for good. Martinp23 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Uh...obviously. Well-rounded user, and will do a great admin job around here. Jmlk17 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, go get 'em. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 22:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - He is very experienced and will use the tools well ...--Cometstyles 22:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good admin candidate. (aeropagitica) 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason to oppose. He'd best serve wikipedia with the tools--William Henry Harrison 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The AWB request page could use another maintainer. Requesters are forced to wait due that page's lack of attention far too often. Suggestion: a notice (to requesters) at the top of that page to contact you to let you know they are waiting, may help to speed things up. The Transhumanist 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Seems like user will use the tools properly. --Random Say it here! 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No signs that he will abuse the extra tools, and good contributions to the article namespace. --DarkFalls talk 01:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coming out of hibernation just to support this. A positive user if I ever saw one — Lost(talk) 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support, user has a great history and would make a terrific admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrooveDog (talk • contribs).
- Support per nom. PeaceNT 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent, experienced candidate who I'm sure will mop wisely. - KrakatoaKatie 05:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no concerns here, good candidate. —Anas talk? 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Default support. —AldeBaer 12:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The kind of user who I would trust with the mop and bucket. Good luck! The Sunshine Man 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly! He will be a great asset with the mop! MaxSem 14:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support The man is an editing machine who has also contributed greatly to many areas of Wikipedia life. So despite concerns about the low number of mainspace edits (just joking, since Reedy Boy has like a billion mainspace edits :-), this Alabamaboy is happy to support Reedy Boy!--Alabamaboy 15:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good user, no problems. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 15:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent user. Gutworth 22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Plenty of experience and will be an asset as an administrator. Will (aka Wimt) 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support agree with the above. Acalamari 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- --Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support so bad your head will spin! Definitely would make an amazing admin. ~EdBoy[c] 14:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have encountered this user at AWB and found him to be very helpful and a fine asset to the community. I thing his worked will flourish with the additional tools. JodyB talk 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong support. Sam pretty much lives Wikipedia. He really wants it to be the best tool it can be. His personal knowledge and dedication will be a valuable asset for the project.Jodyw1 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-Been here much longer than is needed to be a good admin. Tools will be good for AWB related things, and other admin jobs. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This support is appreciated, but can I ask what time length is needed to be a good admin? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For a good admin, I would say about 1 year. By about, I mean not set in stone, and there are exceptions (I just supported some who has been here for only 5 months.) The year allows candidates to learn about policy, experience conflicts that they'll need to know how to handle if they become an admin, and participate in the project (eg. contributing to articles, xFD, AIV, RFPP, 3rr, etc.) Someone here as long as Reedy Boy will know all the policies (possibly have them memorized :) ), and will be a good judge of consensus since he's probably seen many arguments about x and y. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This support is appreciated, but can I ask what time length is needed to be a good admin? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - hahnchen 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - LuciferMorgan 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like an honest, dependable editor. Just what we need as an admin. hmwithtalk 11:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the sentiment expressed above by hmwith. The candidate seems to me to be calm, polite, enthusiastic about contributing to the project, and has a good understanding of and plenty of experience with policy and processes. No concerns on my part. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good person to get the tools. Captain panda 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Certainly nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything looks good to me. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good honest, polite Wikipedian with a ton of experience under their belt. I think you'll do a fine job. --132 21:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hooray for anti-vandals! Great user, great cause. Imhungry talk here
- Support. Strong support because I know Sam is kind, keen and dedicated (we work together on my plugin and AWB, and chat on MSN). Support neutered just a little bit because despite what some of the above assert, Sam has had very little involvement in RFA, xFD, and other project space pages except for AWB, and last time we discussed it he didn't really know his way round the policy pages. The bottom line is I know he won't abuse the tools, and the rest can be learnt quickly - just make sure you read everything on the admin list Sam before getting started, and ask for advice or help if you're not sure about anything. Good luck. --kingboyk 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think its all been said. If you can get AWB to run on a Mac, I'll vote for you twice (shhhh...) —Gaff ταλκ 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Miranda 14:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Phenomenal user. —METS501 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: always helpful and kind. —Phil | Talk 18:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears to be a great candidate. --Cheers, Komdori 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support!!!! Anything that I could say has already been said, so I'll just leave it as a very strong support. Neranei 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support raise your hands to the sky and say AMEN! --Infrangible 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Superbfc
Closed as failed by Cecropia 01:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC) at (12/29/12); Scheduled end time 23:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superbfc (talk · contribs) - Attention Wikipedia community! Now I would like to present this excellent user Superbfc for adminship. Since 2006 he has been a prolific, tireless editor, with 3000+ mainspace edit. He has extensively copy-edited Wikipedia articles to improve their quality as well as adding substantial contents. This user has also participated in the improvement of various templates. I've also seen him around in project space discussions like deletion review. He is always civil and polite. He can be trusted with admin tools to use them justly and wisely. WooyiTalk to me? 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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: Like a policeman with a weapon, I actually hope not to have to use it too often. Curious as that may sound. As with every venture in life, learning bit by bit with an open mind is how I will approach administration, so I have no pre-determined aspirations at present, only that I hope to do the Wikipedia project justice. I've learned in life that you have to take things step by step so that is exactly what I will do. I will approach the task of administration in the same way as I have learned the ropes of Wikipedia - by observing others and making any improvements on their failings if necessary.
- See also (5) below.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Although I don't "own" the article, an article which gives me great pride is Holy Trinity, Sunderland which I have written from scratch, and which demonstrates how I have learned to use the Wikipedia language, how to write in an Encyclopedic style, and how to correctly reference and present articles. The images in the article are my contributions also.
- On the other hand, the articles Republika Srpska and André Milongo are examples of articles which I didn't start, but for some reason I got involved in their editing in an attempt to bring them up to Wikipedia standard, or improve the quality of the article. I believe that demonstrates my ability to work in subject areas I'm not immediately expert in, without adversely affecting the end product.
- 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, and I have always sought to both (1) use robust logic and (2) see it from the other person's perspective in order to gain a balanced view which benefits the project overall. I can think of three instances where after initially being in dispute with an editor, I have actually gone on to help them in the task to which I was initial hostile/sceptical.
Optional questions from Edwin Herdman
- 4. You characterized adminship partially as "a policeman with a weapon." Police departments have methods for preventing and responding to abuse of the tools of the trade. Could you provide a generalized summary of what you would do in the following circumstances:
- a.) A notable television personality makes a comment on his show and users start vandalizing Wikipedia. You notice that some of them were warned before.
- A: Thank you for engaging with me and asking challenging questions.
- I would semi-protect the article for about 1 week, and monitor the situation at the end of the protection period if the furore hasn't died down. If the users have been given a last warning, I would block them; if not, I would issue the relevant-level warning template
- Well, I did not mean to specify that the article itself was vandalized, merely providing Colbert as an example of a personality that instigated attacks on Wikipedia articles. The pattern of Colbert-inspired (and generally mass-media-inspired) vandalism, to my knowledge, is that there is a short, intense period of vandalism with a relative lack of vandalism later. Some of the vandalism in such attacks often comes from otherwise productive contributors. --Edwin Herdman 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'm not so clear what you are getting at. Do you mean to say that editors begin to add thinly-veiled criticism of the protagonist, e.g. like Ann Coulter, which has become a soapbox and where WP:NPOV is potentially compromised?
- Well, I did not mean to specify that the article itself was vandalized, merely providing Colbert as an example of a personality that instigated attacks on Wikipedia articles. The pattern of Colbert-inspired (and generally mass-media-inspired) vandalism, to my knowledge, is that there is a short, intense period of vandalism with a relative lack of vandalism later. Some of the vandalism in such attacks often comes from otherwise productive contributors. --Edwin Herdman 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would semi-protect the article for about 1 week, and monitor the situation at the end of the protection period if the furore hasn't died down. If the users have been given a last warning, I would block them; if not, I would issue the relevant-level warning template
- If they are productive contributors, I would WP:AGF and understand that the heat of the controversy might obscure their respect of encyclopedic neutrality. No one is an angel and we all get angry now and then.
- Apologies for the confusion (and especially the edit confusion just now; I can't blame Superbfc's signature for getting things so horribly wrong). When I said "I did not mean to specify that the article itself was vandalized" I meant the Stephen Colbert article - I was using Colbert as an example of a celebrity capable of instigating a spate of vandalism attacks. Again, sorry for the confusion. --Edwin Herdman 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are productive contributors, I would WP:AGF and understand that the heat of the controversy might obscure their respect of encyclopedic neutrality. No one is an angel and we all get angry now and then.
- b.) Two users are trying to outdo the other in an AfD with claims that the other party has violated WP:AGF.
- A: I would temporarily block them for 1 or 2 days to allow the discuss to proceed with other users' comments, and warn them about civility and good faith.
- This is also based on some recent experiences of mine. Would you not first take the step of reminding people that part of AGF is Assume the assumption of good faith and see if there was not a cooling-off? As written the question implies that things appear "out of hand" and disrupting the process, but I would ask the admin to still consider trying to implement a cool-off period. --Edwin Herdman 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, but if they are worked up by something, how likely is it that they will heed another's point of view any differently to their warring partner? Not being in the position to block anyone, I've not had to consider this kind of decision, so it's food for thought. Thanks for the pointers.
- This is also based on some recent experiences of mine. Would you not first take the step of reminding people that part of AGF is Assume the assumption of good faith and see if there was not a cooling-off? As written the question implies that things appear "out of hand" and disrupting the process, but I would ask the admin to still consider trying to implement a cool-off period. --Edwin Herdman 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I would temporarily block them for 1 or 2 days to allow the discuss to proceed with other users' comments, and warn them about civility and good faith.
- 5. In your current work as an editor, how would the admin tools help you be more productive?
- A: In answer to (1) above, I did neglect to mention my patrolling of recent changes and new pages. I would therefore be able to speedy delete obvious candidates, e.g. Patent Nonsense or Non-Notability, and also catch vandals on sprees. I have also had some input in watching users who upload images without correct tags, and I would also use admin tools to delete images which are eligible for removal.
Optional question from The Transhumanist
- 6. What does BFC stand for? The Transhumanist 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: BFC = Brentford Football Club. Although I'd made a few edits without an account, I'd signed up in order to write the article on Griffin Park, the club's stadium. Since then, my interest in football has waned and my participation in Wikipedia has much diversified, but the account name has stuck nevertheless.
- Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)
- 7. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48 ♠ ♣ 01:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I think, properly used, spoiler warnings are useful. However, there appears to be no real consistency in their use. Often, a page will have "start of plot spoiler" without a corresponding "end" tag. I would like the policy to be that all plot spoils should be correctly warned, with some kind of "hide" function before. Or, alternatively, the plot spoiler could be kept in a subpage, and transcluded with a "show" function.
General comments
- See Superbfc's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Superbfc: Superbfc (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/Superbfc before commenting.
Discussion
- Yey another RfA unlikely to pass because the candidate told a few people! :) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite a bit Majorly: [19] . --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. That's hardly any, considering the spam that gets sent out after failed RfAs :) Also, it doesn't show they'll abuse admin tools, so not a reason to oppose. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are continuing to sidestep the main issue here. It may not be reason to oppose, but why in God's name is canvassing for support votes necessary... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't sidestep the issue. Opposing someone for canvassing is one of the dumbest reasons I can think of. The nature of RfA has made candidacies almost identical to real life political campaigns. The candidate's every move is scrutinized. They have to have spent their entire Wiki career saying and doing all the right things, and not pissing any of the wrong people off. If I were running for adminship right now, someone would probably oppose me for making this very comment. What politician doesn't canvas? Wouldn't you rather it be transparent than having the candidate send emails to people, which probably happens on most RfA's anyway? --Spike Wilbury 07:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still pretty inexperienced here, but all the same, your comment seems to say more about the problems with the RfA process than anything else. Personally, I think certain kinds of canvassing(i.e simple spamming) should be avoided, but this particular case seems aboveboard. As for having to always say or do all the right things, I feel that an admin has to appear reliably trustworthy and levelheaded; unfortunately, with page histories, mistakes are probably too easily dredged up, but that's Wikipedia for you. Lindentree 07:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so it happens. This RFA will fail, if people do it, their RFAs will fail, but just to prove a point? Enough editors hate it, so trying to prove its worthiness is moot. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 18:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't sidestep the issue. Opposing someone for canvassing is one of the dumbest reasons I can think of. The nature of RfA has made candidacies almost identical to real life political campaigns. The candidate's every move is scrutinized. They have to have spent their entire Wiki career saying and doing all the right things, and not pissing any of the wrong people off. If I were running for adminship right now, someone would probably oppose me for making this very comment. What politician doesn't canvas? Wouldn't you rather it be transparent than having the candidate send emails to people, which probably happens on most RfA's anyway? --Spike Wilbury 07:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are continuing to sidestep the main issue here. It may not be reason to oppose, but why in God's name is canvassing for support votes necessary... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. That's hardly any, considering the spam that gets sent out after failed RfAs :) Also, it doesn't show they'll abuse admin tools, so not a reason to oppose. Majorly (talk | meet) 01:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite a bit Majorly: [19] . --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not have minding being canvasses to look at the afd, but I do think it intensifies the popularity test aspect to be asked to come here if "you wanted to support me"DGG 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Superbfc expanded on his reasons for wanting the admin tools in optional question #5. Many people are referencing question number 1 but number 5 provides extra context. --Edwin Herdman 23:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, none of the people who I "canvassed" has voted in favour of me, and in fact one has voted against and two voted as neutral. So much for the theory of skewing consensus.Question- I have a question regarding the candidate's answer to question #5. Is "Non-Notability" part of the criteria for speedy deletion? Thank you. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A7 reads:
“ | Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. | ” |
Yes, but Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria reads:
“ | Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. | ” |
- With respect, if I were to see any article which asserted notability, even if it were not notable and from my experience of New Page patrolling, I would not tag it for speedy deletion. As far as I'm concerned, the criterion you mention is a sub-set of CSD-A7, if you interpret "assertion of notability" as precluding it from CSD-A7
Support
- Support as nominator, don't forget to transclude when you finish the questions. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooyi (talk • contribs).
- Support Looks good. I encourage all candidates to canvass their rfa, nothing wrong with it in the slightest. It's just a guideline, and WP:GRFA is an essay... best of luck my friend :) Majorly (talk | meet) 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - When a bunch of people who don't understand policy/guidelines themselves... then you are obviously a good candidate. Really... who gives a damn you canvassed at the end of the day? But... you need to tone down a bit Supebfc and not argue. Matthew 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good candidate, terrible oppose reasons. Can we just forget the WP:CANVAS and other frivolous issues, here? Although I rarely ever use it myself, maybe it's time to bring out the IAR, since these are extremely minor little things. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Per Majorly.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pro. I discovered an admin blocked a user indefinitely for violating 3RR just once (and I noted that user seemed quite reasonable in the discussion I witnessed, as both sides were). Candidate's comments lead me to believe that they will block only as necessary, and if there are disputes candidate will listen to reason. All admins must undergo a learning curve, and while some will object that admins should be in perfect command of all rules at the beginning that doesn't make the need for more of them any less. This is the important thing I take out of the answers to my questions above. I blame myself for making things somewhat ambiguous. I do not particularly like the comment to ignore another user, however, because it either is combative or the user did not notice that the user had been unblocked. I do not want to set up a Catch 22 for this user since we all want the candidate to both appear nonplussed by the candidacy process, but also sufficiently interested to provide adequate reasoning on the hot issues. I feel that in the future I will start asking candidates this: How patient are you? How many rounds back-and-forth before a block? (If you answer with a number, you fail the question; you're supposed to ask another admin for assistance). :) --Edwin Herdman 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support. As per my comments in Tenebrae's recent RfA, I believe that canvassing for RfAs should be allowed. The people best qualified to evaluate an admin candidate are those who have worked and interacted with that candidate before, and informing them of an upcoming RfA is not harmful. However, my support is weakened by the fact that the candidate clearly isn't aware of the prohibition against canvassing, which suggests s/he may not be fully ready for adminship. WaltonAssistance! 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral support - has the makings for a future admin. Just needs to become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and understand why they are so important to uphold. Starting with WP:CANVAS. The Transhumanist 22:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing is neither a policy, nor is it important. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a policy, but the sentiment of many is that it is important. As canvassing, if unopposed, would tend to vote-stack, I'm not bothered that it results in quick opposition. Any RFA candidate who fails because of canvassing can always try another time. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Recent canvassing concerns is still there if you want to kick it into motion again. ··coelacan 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing is neither a policy, nor is it important. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per No big deal. TTalk to me 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support per Majorly and T —MrSomeone ( tlk • cntrb ) 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—sysopship is not a *big deal*, and I'm confident that super can be trusted with the janitor's trolley ~ Anthøny 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-Seems like a user everyone can trust but why are you opposing because he/she is canvassing, canvassing is not wrong. I don't see anything wrong with that, so we're saying that if you see a campaign ad you will most likey not vote for the that person eh?Arnon Chaffin Review me? Talk 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Sorry to be a splash of cold water, but spamming strangers' talk pages for an RfA is a sign of... perhaps a lack or experience? I looked at your edit count page etc., poor use of edit summaries. Many months with no edits; this is tireless? I haven't been voting in RfAs for a while and won't be around to vote next time you're nominated... but I say wait at least six months and contribute more regularly... Ling.Nut 23:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose-You weren't active for a few month before this March, and you've been canvassing user talk pages saying "if you're going to support me, say here". --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- This is a strong oppose. I object to your reference to police officers. Admins are not police officers they are not given weapons like guns, but are given tools like a contractor. You in no way should be an admin--William Henry Harrison 00:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose struck as user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. -- nae'blis 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this comment from a non-productive user ignored. The policeman comment was an analogy.- Since apologised to WHH. Saw that he/she was blocked and suspected trolling/maliciousness/foul play. We all make mistakes and we shouldn't hold people accountable for previous minor indiscretions. - SUPERBFC, 23:44 2007.05.26 (UTC)
- Ummm...I don't think that you get to have William Henry Harrison's vote be ignored. That isn't how this works as far as I know, but hey, I am still a bit inexperienced in voting on RfA. I do however think that calling somebody a non-productive user is a bit negative. —Gaff ταλκ 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm...? Where does that leave me now, given that a lot of people have voted against me on the strength of my criticism of someone who was, in fact, a troll/vandal/whatever??
Oppose Is canvassing seemingly random users for support. Says, and I quote "If you support me please indicate so", then includes a link here. Sorry, but that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth for me. Jmlk17 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]Also curious why a user who recently left Wikipedia would nominate...just wondering.Jmlk17 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- If I may, the "seemingly random" users are all users who have left a comment on my talk page, if you must. They are people who have obviously commented about my work on this project, or have had some other kind of contact with me on Wikipedia. Please be more circumspect before criticising me, after all, I didn't self-nominate, but thought I should give it a go as I was nominated.
- Oppose per WP:CANVAS vio. Admins should have a grasp of all major policies. A user who needs to canvas for votes doesn't deserve the tools yet. I suggest you withdraw and try again in a few months. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing is the only reason you oppose? That doesn't seem to be a very convincing reason. WooyiTalk to me? 00:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a handful of messages to users who have already talked to me constitutes canvassing. I don't want to enter into an argument, but I feel a little harshly treated here.
- Are you both going to attack every editor who opposes you for canvassing? Canvassing is a serious issue to me, as it skews consensus. It is a valid reason to oppose and RfA as an admin needs to be able to understand basic policies as well as consensus. We can't have an admin going around messing with consensus. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am merely attempting to stand up for myself where I am being harshly treated. I can accept criticism where justified and therefore fair.
- Please read WP:GRFA under what contributors hope not to see. Clearly written there is advertising your RfA. (BTW WP:GRFA is a recommended read before an RfA) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Before commenting on WP:CANVAS, maybe you'd better read it a bit more thoroughly. It's a guideline, not a policy, and it's not set in stone. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware it is a guideline, but it also says in that notice "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Just because it isn't set in stone doesn't mean editors shouldn't follow it. I wouldn't oppose for canvassing if it was an essay instead (As WP:GRFA is) but a guideline is another matter. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This RFA is going to fail because of it, so the specifics of its contents at this stage mean nothing. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Before commenting on WP:CANVAS, maybe you'd better read it a bit more thoroughly. It's a guideline, not a policy, and it's not set in stone. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:GRFA under what contributors hope not to see. Clearly written there is advertising your RfA. (BTW WP:GRFA is a recommended read before an RfA) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am merely attempting to stand up for myself where I am being harshly treated. I can accept criticism where justified and therefore fair.
- Canvassing is the only reason you oppose? That doesn't seem to be a very convincing reason. WooyiTalk to me? 00:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose We could always use some more administrators, but spamming others' talk pages is a sign of lack of editing experience. Just get some more editing practice. See if you can get a list of the most important Wikipedia policies. Don't give up! Go for it! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose- From the user's response to User:William Henry Harrison's comment, I can see he has some serious civility issues. The user is clearly not capable of accepting criticism. By the way, I agree with User:William Henry Harrison's comments. Thank you. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 00:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing per above. Also you don't get to state whether a oppose comment is ignored or not.
This is also pretty concerning, as it reflects a lack of understanding towards Wikipedia's policies.A little more experience in Wikipedia, and I'll probably support. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Oppose I would definitely support. Except for the fact of the canvassing. His userpage also in a since has canvassing on it. On the top, there is a bar that states I have been nominated to be an admin. If you support me, please indicate so on the RFA page. Thank you. Basically support me or don't vote. The user attitude concerns me as well. Especially concerning some of his responses to opposes. --Random Say it here! 00:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for three reasons. The answer to Question 1 doesn't really explain what you intend do if you become an admin, so I don't see any particular need for you to be one right at the moment. The canvassing is a secondary issue, and is certainly "bad form" even if nothing else. A third point is the incivility shown towards one of the other contributors here: RfA is a place where you'll be critiqued, and simply asking for a critique to be ignored isn't a great idea. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Per question one as well as incivilty on RFA. Seems like the candidate doesn't need the tools. Real96 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, the things your nom said you're good at (improving templates and copyediting) are things you can do without administrative privelages. Your answer to number one even said that you don't intend to use the tools. so I'm going to havfe to oppose. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a generic statement: Being good at and focussing on copyediting and improving templates does not necessarily mean that the user should not be an admin. Admin tools should be given based on competence, experience not necessarily because of the fact that the user prefers not to block editors or actively participate in AFD. Many high-profile templates are protected and it would require these priviledges to edit them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Per canvassing. The note on his user page is OK in my opinion, but the talk page spamming is not. --Mschel 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Here we go again. A candidate has advertised his/her RfA to users in their talk pages. This is something that I do not like to see in RfA candidates. I cannot support. Captain panda 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying "I would like this comment from a non-productive user ignored." in response to a (in my opinion-) valid oppose, and the canvassing, means this is a strong oppose. That, and you have an annoying signature which takes up four lines of code. Daniel 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, the fact that the candidate is completely oblivious of what is obviously a progressing hate for canvassing is nothing short of disappointing... -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The concerns above are putting me of supporting, your response to William Henry Harrisons's oppose shows a lack of being able to keep calm during disputes, the canvas issues are a little bit of a problem but I suggest withdrawing this because you say you feel harshly treated so I suggest withdrawal to prevent you from feeling upset, I suggest: i) Using and edit summary more and ii) Becoming a little more active if possible an Goodd iii) Re-wording the answer to Q1, admins have no higher authority than other users. Good luck! I also suggest removing the message about your RfA from your userpage. — The Sunshine Man 11:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the answers to Q4 and the responses to other opposes above. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, canvassing issues. Don't advertise your RFA on peoples' talk pages, and you need more time before running for RFA. You don't really need to have the tools to do such things. Terence 13:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A little of all of the above, but mostly, as per Daniel, because your responses to people on this page are concerning and do not bode well for how you would cope with admin stress. Sarah 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose All sorts of little things add up: canvassing shows that the user did not bother reading the guide to RfA, edit summary is still subpar, response to William Henry Harrison above is completely inappropriate, policeman analogy is awful, answer to optional question 4 is shaky at best and does not show a good understanding of the blocking or semi-protection policies, a month ago, Superbfc did not understand how proposed deletion worked [20], understanding of GFDL has also been questioned [21] [22], limited experience in XfD and this example (although ultimately, I do agree with the deletion) isn't exactly the kind of sound rationale we'd like to see in deletion debates. Heart is probably in the right place but not ready for adminship. Pascal.Tesson 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I do not approve of canvassing in RfAs. - 18:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Mailer Diablo, I know for a fact you have supported candidate who have canvassed in the past. Why the change of heart? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In this instance, candidate's canvassing statment suggests partisanship. ("If you support me please indicate so") I explained once in WT:RFA. There isn't any factor that in this candidate that positively outweight this concern. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeFor a lot of what is discussed above and for referring to User:William Henry Harrison as a non-productive user and asking that his vote be ignored.—Gaff ταλκ 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Mailer Diablo, I know for a fact you have supported candidate who have canvassed in the past. Why the change of heart? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Significant civility matters trump any reason I might have to support at this time. KrakatoaKatie 07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Poor handling of opposition on this page, and canvassing suggests a lack of understanding of the project's policies and guidelines. ShadowHalo 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose. —Encephalon 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Reason? WooyiTalk to me? 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the police analogy. Being an admin gives you extra tools that you can use to help out -- it doesn't give you a position of authority over the community. You haven't said how you plan to help out with admin work, so I'm wondering what you actually would do given the tools. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm concerned about people's negative interpretation of what was merely an analogy or metaphor. I do not view adminship as authority or antyhing else. And the irony that people are inferring that I think being an admin is seen as so is ironic, as the amount of scrutiny people face here makes me wonder even if Mother Theresa could have been an admin. What I meant by the analogy is that "power" is always better in the hands of people who would be reluctant to use it, not those who proactively seek it out. Like a lot of people have rightly indicated, my contributions do not appear to warrant having admin tools. But so what? I do not want to sit around here all day deleting pages and blocking users, but I would, if given the ability, do it from time to time.
- Oppose This RfA is likely doomed over the cavassing issue. I'm on record as not being necessarily swayed by it but it is clearly a huge issue which an admin should have been aware of. Regardless of how I or anybody else feels about canvassing it seems that there is a strong consensus against it. I sure don't think the banner is an issue on his own talk page. But the quick-draw response to User:William Henry Harrison is terribly concerning especially coupled with some of his comments about blocking (I would likely warn first then block). I believe he's just a little fast with the tools. Sorry. JodyB talk 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm big on civility and such, and an admin with a history of being uncivil is not preferred. hmwithtalk 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I keep following hmwith, so please don't think I'm stalking. Anyways, I have a wide tolerance for uncivil commentary, but this exceeds my upper limit. And what's with canvassing lately?Orangemarlin 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While I think the canvassing was just an unfortunate mistake on Superbfc's part (and hopefully a learning experience about what not to do in the future), the answers to questions 1 & 4 cause me to oppose here. Admins are not policemen with weapons, they are simple janitors with mops. We don't need more block happy admins.--Isotope23 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sad, because a block-happy op was exactly what I was not intenting to be. It seems you have misunderstood my policeman analogy, possibly being down to the more liberal policing I am used to in this country, rather than the heavy-handed approach of elsewhere. Ho hum, I am sorry that it has been misinterpreted that way. I've learnt a lot, and will be more careful in future how I express myself. Which makes me think, though, whatever happened to people AGF about what I say?
- Perhaps I did misunderstand what you intended with your analogy at #1, but I still see something of a disconnect between that answer and how you would deal with the situation enumerated at #4. It's not about failing to WP:AGF, I'm simply pointing out explicitly why I cannot support. Hopefully if this RFA does not succeed at least you are getting some valuable feedback for your next go at it... even if the criticism can seem to be a bit harsh.--Isotope23 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. I wasn't expecting such harsh criticism; but I'm ready for it now, and I'm not letting it put me off my Wikipedia editing. This is obviously going to fail, but I'm encouraged by a lot of the comments, even from those opposed to me; they really aren't big failings, just areas on which I need to work.
- Perhaps I did misunderstand what you intended with your analogy at #1, but I still see something of a disconnect between that answer and how you would deal with the situation enumerated at #4. It's not about failing to WP:AGF, I'm simply pointing out explicitly why I cannot support. Hopefully if this RFA does not succeed at least you are getting some valuable feedback for your next go at it... even if the criticism can seem to be a bit harsh.--Isotope23 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sad, because a block-happy op was exactly what I was not intenting to be. It seems you have misunderstood my policeman analogy, possibly being down to the more liberal policing I am used to in this country, rather than the heavy-handed approach of elsewhere. Ho hum, I am sorry that it has been misinterpreted that way. I've learnt a lot, and will be more careful in future how I express myself. Which makes me think, though, whatever happened to people AGF about what I say?
- Oppose per incivility (even here on this RfA!) and canvassing. The analogy in your answer to question one was a bit unsettling as well. Like Isotope said, admins are more like janitors than policemen. --132 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. Honestly, a lot of editors are going to find it hard to support you with the canvassing thing. I didn't really consider that in this opinion, however. Your answers to the questions leave me a little confused about what you intend to do with the admin tools. #1 is really the issue here. Could you possibly give answers that are a little less...philosophical? alphachimp 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. You've done a lot of good work, but I think an admin needs to be able to handle disputes and criticism better. Lindentree 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have supported, but the fact that you half of my edit count this month (and I am in no way prolific) bothers me. Canvassing isn't an issue, I just don't like the lack of activity. Oh, and PLEASE use edit summaries. G1ggy! 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I have to say that I didn't find the the canvassing objectable. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I didn't know that we could vote for adminships. Im in agreement that your responsing to the critisms does show a lack of maturity. However this doesn't effect your skill level. You have promise as an adminship once you get some more experience; then I will gladly support you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahunta07 (talk • contribs)
- Neutral, to avoid pile-on oppose !votes. Sorry, just not admin-material. —Anas talk? 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. You do good editing work, but I can't see much evidence that you'll use the tools very much, so it's hard to identify whether you'd be fully trustworthy with them. I do believe admins should be consistently active in some kind of administrative pursuit. The canvassing approach also concerns me slightly but not enough to merit an oppose vote. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 10:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - the things that the RfA says you do do not need adminship to complete. That could be a reason to oppose, but hey, Adminship is no big deal. My main worry, like so many others have said, is the canvassing. Canvassing is never a good thing, obviously. If you continue to edit well and do not canvass, you will pass next time you run for adminship. --tennisman sign here! 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Changed from oppose, due to issues surrounding his canvassing. I'm still sticking with neutral, as I do still have reasons not to support. Jmlk17 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Q4b may have been a bit vague, but I'm concerned that you went first to the presumption that blocking would be necessary. ··coelacan 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per the canvassing. Whether or not people actually came and supported is not all that relevant IMO. While WP:CANVASS may not be policy, that doesn't mean it has no effect. It's still a guideline and "is considered a standard that all users should follow." Knowledge of and adherence to Wikipedia's ruleset is absolutely necessary for me to support a candidate; I consider most guidelines to be part of the rules. If you had kept the message a little more neutral, I might have overlooked it, but you asked only for support. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral to avoid pile-on. Answer to Q1 is really unhelpful, and further answer in Q5 still doesn't indicate any general knowledge on the policies. On the canvassing issue, I don't think it was the canvassing that bothered other editors, but the wording. "If you support me please indicate so" gives a very negative impression. Aquarius • talk 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I made some comments above. I think there are civility issues, that can easily be worked on to allow a successful RfA down the road. About the canvassing issue: a lot of wikipedia editors hang out in IRC chat rooms and I presume blab about their thoughts for RfA. I think that too much is made over the issue of "canvassing" here. Telling people that you are up for RfA should not be a punishable offense. Becoming an admin has got to be a big deal, even though the catch phrase is "no big deal." If somebody is excited about moving to another level of involvement with Wikipedia, how is that a bad thing?—Gaff ταλκ 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
WilyD
Final: (40/4/1); ended 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
WilyD (talk · contribs) - WilyD (talk · contribs) began editing here on Wikipedia September 2005. I first encountered WilyD on AfD and I quickly noticed that while he invariably had the opposite opinion I had, his opinions were always well reasoned and supported, which impressed me. Looking over WilyD's edit contributions, there is a good mix of vandal-fighting, article improvement (adding references, etc.), and talkpage discussions. WilyD understands the policies and guidelines here and I think he would use the mop and bucket responsibly to improve the project. In short, I think WilyD will be an asset as an administrator.Isotope23 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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: Well, closing WP:XfDs and dealing with requests at WP:RFPP. As with anything, I plan to start with the easiest and most straightforward stuff to test the water, and move up to harder stuff as I get more comfortable. The biggest reason I'd like the Mop & Pail is that I find myself from time to time with some free time I could spend editing, but not necessarily enough time to do the research I need to do to write. So being able to work on backlogs and requests would be nice, and valuable to the project. I would like access to Special:Unwatched Pages as a list of articles to pay attention to - as an editor, I know that's the best place to find likely vandalism or just articles in need of love. WilyD
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: As an editor, I think my best skill is clearly my sourcing of articles. Scott Tremaine and Alar Toomre are two articles I've essentially written alone, and Peter Goldreich was unsourced when I found it for instance. Here I am adding citations to AU Mic Here I am sourcing Armenian Genocide and so on. This style of my editing has increased with time, but you can see it pretty early on too - the more recent examples are just clearer - in June 2006 I was already trying to solve editing dispute by looking for sources. In the end, I really believe the best dispute resolution isn't found at WP:RD, but at WP:V. It enhances the reputation of the project when everything is sourced and verifiable. It makes it more viable as a resource for schoolkids (though I will say when I mark assignments, I see a lot of sourcing from Wikipedia). And it makes it more useful as a starting place for research. Plus, I like the way it looks. WilyD
- 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 only ever recall a single incident that made me really stressed - I ended up taking about five days off from editing and abandoning the dispute and article in question. It wasn't really an editing dispute that stressed me but an admin threatening to use his tools inappropriate in a content dispute (as I recall - it was a long time ago, and I'm sure there was plenty of blame to go around). I get into edit conflicts fairly often as I let myself get into contraversial articles. But there's a threefold path to resolution in most cases. Always explain yourself clearly in a conflict. When someone disagrees with you, if they're forced to guess what you're up to, they're likely to guess wrong, and often in an unproductive direction. Always listen to other editors, and make it clear you're listening. Even if they're just hammering away on the same wrong points, or being disruptive or uncivil or whatever, people are much nicer when they feel they're being heard (and vice versa). Three: Source - as I've said above, sourcing is the easiest way to resolve disputes - it'll tell me if I'm off-base, and show other editors where they're off-base as well. The best illustration of this is probably my involvement in the dispute about using images in the Muhammad article, where my "four point" solution became more or less the consensus and remains so today. Even though I disagreed with ALM scientist about almost everything, his attitude towards me went from this to this because I listened to what he had to say and picked out one good point I thought he was making - in the end, what I concluded was very different from what he wanted, but he at least felt he was being heard and we were able to get along.
- If I've learnt anything, it's that edit conflicts are unavoidable. Every article, from Bathtub to Jihad, from Coriolis force to Dirt is contraversial. The key is just to be civil, intellectually honest and source things - and if something gets to you too much, stay away or take a break. WilyD 15:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from User:William Henry Harrison
- 4. Lets say a user vandalizes a site as his first edit then experiments with talk pages by writing outrageous statements but then shows a small amount of intent to make good edits, how would you deal with that?
- Okay, I'll admit I'm a little flummoxed by the vague nature of the question - there are lots of degress on vandalism and outrageousness. A user who's moved onto the talk page shows some willingness to be productive already. The short answer is: Engage - Ignore - Block. The best place to talk to new users about what is or isn't appropriate is their talk page. Beyond that, really inflamatory (or libelous or legal threats or what have you) on talk pages can always just be deleted. Best, I think, is to engage the user in dialogue on their talk. But ultimately being persistantly disruptive on a talk is no better than being persistantly disruptive on an article. The standards of behaviour are (obviously) higher on an article than on a talk page, though. WilyD 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)
- 6. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48 ♠ ♣ 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I've ever used a spoiler template while reading or writing an article - I don't ususally do much popular culture/literature type stuff. I've never inserted or removed a spoiler template, to the best of my recollection. I definitely appreciate the concern that it can make it hard to write articles, if you're always straightjacketed with a spoiler warning - and sometimes using spoilers and sometimes not is probably "worst of all for not spoiling". If people get used to having them there, they're a much ruder shock than if there's no such expectation. Ultimately they don't have much "encyclopaedic value", I guess. They're probably unnecessary and they may be a bad precendent with respect to one-click hiding images and other mild censorship. Personally, I'd rather do away with them a guess, but this is not really something I've been involved with, so I might be wrong. WilyD
General comments
- See WilyD's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for WilyD: WilyD (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Okay, since I've received a lot of complaints, I've switched my preferences to Prompt if edit summary blank. WilyD 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/WilyD before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support as nominator.--Isotope23 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as I don't see anything within the user's contributions which might indicate a problem. Answers to the questions more than satisfactory. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice answers, plenty of experience, it would be nicer to see a higher edit sumamry usage but I'll not be picky. Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the nominator. I'd trust this user with the tools. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like what I see here. Good answers, excellent article work, and a pretty civil and level-headed user. We need admins and this here is a good candidate. All the best, Anas talk? 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good edit count, good usage of edit summaries. All contributions seem to be productive, and this editor seems trustworthy. My one concern however is that you are interested in closing AfD discussions, but after checking your contributions, I noticed that you are not currently active in participating in discussions. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A very good Editor and experienced too and the answers to the questions..mind blowing :P...--Cometstyles 19:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - shows a good record of being able to get along with other editors, especially in some controversial areas, and has good answers to questions too. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - whilst i disagree very strongly with WilyD that consensus was ever reached in the Muhammad dispute, i find the nominator's comments quite accurate. from what i have seen, the user is thoughtful, sensible, considerate, and appears to be well-suited for the tools. ITAQALLAH 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I tried to find something that I didn't like, and I couldn't. Given the fact that the nominee
never went ballisticstayed calm and neutral in some fairly controversial articles, definitely a good candidate. Orangemarlin 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support: User has plenty of experience and seems to have quality edits and shows civility. Edit summary usage however is quite low, may I suggest changing it to forced in your preferences if you hadn't already? Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per good answers to questions and candidate's strong overall record. Please consider configuring the "prompt for edit summary" preference to bring your summary rate even higher. I have considered the opposer's rationale and find it completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I know that this is a cliche but already thought you were a admin --St.daniel Talk 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this guy seems to know his stuff, I am impressed by his knowledge and handling of conflict, I'd like to have this guy as an admin--William Henry Harrison 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was on the fence, however, I like the user's honesty about the stress leave. It is much harder to walk away from a stressful situation than it is to stay and engage in fruitless debate. I applaud that honesty, and feel that shows transparency. the_undertow talk 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good person to have the tools. Captain panda 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor with no reason to oppose Lmc169 09:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets all usual criteria for adminship, and the opposers' reasons (with respect) seem somewhat pedantic. WaltonAssistance! 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good mainspace contribs, seems he will be a mature administrator. daveh4h 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think WilyD is fit to be an admin, and then some. The Transhumanist 21:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No offense to Giggy, but I liked his answer to Q3. He was being threatened, and instead of going into personal attacks, he dropped the issue. Of course, he could have gone through the RfC and related processes (which may end up getting him in trouble with the admin in question, but I'm rambling here), but what he did was way better than going through a violation of policy. I'd personally would like to have an admin walk away from a stressful issue than flying off the handle and blocking the other party (if those were the only two choices). Plus, even admins need a break now and then. God knows we definitely have enough (but there's always room for more). --Whsitchy 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Works for me. --Random Say it here! 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 09:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I recently had a conversation where I intially disagreed with something he had stated, but he provided excellent reasoning and I ended up agreeing with his position. Should make a good admin. ChazBeckett 12:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seen edits and conversations on talk pages, and seems to be very receptive and fair. --Hojimachongtalk 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 09:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Garion96 (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This editor has been swimming in some pretty rough waters. His work is among some of the most controversial articles we have. Emotions run high and yet he has been controlled and productive. I believe he will do just fine. I have seen not the first reason to reject. JodyB talk 13:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Makes informed choices and asks for information. Doesn't go off half cocked. jbolden1517Talk 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this trustworthy person to become an administrator. Yamaguchi先生 04:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to know which end is up. older ≠ wiser 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very experienced user. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My impression of WilyD is of one who speaks his mind, but he does so politely without any antagonism. Well experienced, and knowledgable in policy. Good fit for the admin ranks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think you will make a fine admin. I am particularly impressed with your response to question 3 and how you've handled yourself at Talk:Muhammad and its archives. I just hope you'll not let janitorial tasks get in the way of your most noble endeavour ... sourcing. ;) Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Bucketsofg 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think you'll do fine. You seem to be pretty level-headed and, despite the oppose vote below, I think the fact that you took time off when you got your feathers ruffled shows immense maturity on your part. --132 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually find this user's approach to stressful situations to be one of the best I have seen, and find the opposition below strange. A look at WP:DR even suggests this candidate's approach (step away for a while). Support for being a good, level-headed, experienced and decidated user. Daniel 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all of the positive comments above. Steveo2 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Changing from "Neutral to weak support" to oppose per this. Anyone who honestly sees admin tools as a promotion is not fit to be an admin and does not understand that it's no big deal.. Sorry. Pedro | Chat 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's negligible and it's just one's comprehension of the word. The candidate has more than proven they are up for the task. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like an argument over semantics. "Not a demotion" doesn't mean the same as "promotion", and "not a promotion" doesn't mean "demotion". I wasn't promoted at work today, but that doesn't mean I was demoted, either. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument over semantics. The question is Is it a big deal? I personally think not and have come to the conclussion this editor thinks it is. We have too many admins who seem to think that they are a cut above we mere mortal editors, and we can well live without any more of that opinion - this retracted and recent RfA being a case in point. I'm not being nasty here, and I wish this editor every success, but I peronally can't support an editor questing for adminship for it's own sake. Sorry.Pedro | Chat 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you to certain extent. The RfA you mentioned really was a messy situation; I felt it should have succeeded. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedro, I'm hoping that I am mistaken here. Please tell me you did not just take a shot at the candidate in the RfA you mentioned. I'm quite sure your oppose could have been made without it. In fact, if that is true, it is really in poor taste, and precedence is not going to help with a consensus. the_undertow talk 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys please, calm down. Pedro is entitled to his opinion, and don't cut him down for it (though I shouldn't be talking, if you look at what I said). Personally, I think this issue is getting out of hand. --Whsitchy 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone was getting out of hand. RfA is about consensus. However, I feel this was a personal attack. I agree that Pedro is entitled to his opinions, and have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with taking a jab at a former candidate outside of his RfA. That is completely outside of the scope of consensus, as we are to be civil, and full-well having the knowledge that even if I am to assume good faith, that this opinion has no bearing on a consensus-building effort and belongs solely back at the aforementioned RfA. Precedent is never a reason to opine a !vote. I welcome all opinions, as I have demonstrated utmost civility my entire duration with the project. In this case, the oppose is simply offensive. the_undertow talk 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the delay in replying - busy in RL. I have replied to this on your talk page, copied to The Transhumanist. I reject your assertaions of incivility and personal attacks. I merely referenced a previous discussion, something we all do a lot here across RfA, Main Space, Talk etc etc. I find "taking a jab" to be a personal attack at me actually. I have a view and it's pretty straight forward. In what way are your allegations at me helping this RfA and the 'pedia as a whole?Pedro | Chat 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone was getting out of hand. RfA is about consensus. However, I feel this was a personal attack. I agree that Pedro is entitled to his opinions, and have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with taking a jab at a former candidate outside of his RfA. That is completely outside of the scope of consensus, as we are to be civil, and full-well having the knowledge that even if I am to assume good faith, that this opinion has no bearing on a consensus-building effort and belongs solely back at the aforementioned RfA. Precedent is never a reason to opine a !vote. I welcome all opinions, as I have demonstrated utmost civility my entire duration with the project. In this case, the oppose is simply offensive. the_undertow talk 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys please, calm down. Pedro is entitled to his opinion, and don't cut him down for it (though I shouldn't be talking, if you look at what I said). Personally, I think this issue is getting out of hand. --Whsitchy 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedro, I'm hoping that I am mistaken here. Please tell me you did not just take a shot at the candidate in the RfA you mentioned. I'm quite sure your oppose could have been made without it. In fact, if that is true, it is really in poor taste, and precedence is not going to help with a consensus. the_undertow talk 22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you to certain extent. The RfA you mentioned really was a messy situation; I felt it should have succeeded. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument over semantics. The question is Is it a big deal? I personally think not and have come to the conclussion this editor thinks it is. We have too many admins who seem to think that they are a cut above we mere mortal editors, and we can well live without any more of that opinion - this retracted and recent RfA being a case in point. I'm not being nasty here, and I wish this editor every success, but I peronally can't support an editor questing for adminship for it's own sake. Sorry.Pedro | Chat 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Q3 answer. An admin can't just take 5 days off because of a stressful incident. G1ggy! 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd much rather see an admin cool down than act when 'unsettled' for 5 days. What do you consider a reasonable amount of stress leave? the_undertow talk 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per WilyD's actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Up a White Kid Day and subsequent DRV and second AfD/ WilyD does not believe that an article needs reliable sources in order to stay on Wikipedia, but is willing to put up with arm waving and unsubstantiated claims. Corvus cornix 02:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit I do consider the Miami Herald, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Washington Times and the New Orleans Times Picayune reliable sources - if this means I'm out of touch, so be it. But I think it's unfair to judge me based off the DRV and second AfD as I didn't participate in either ... [23] [24]
- We have had this discussion before. The only link to the Miami Herald is to an opinion piece. There are no links to actual Plain Dealer, Times or Times Picayune articles, merely to the Wikipedia articles on the newspapers. And the Plain Dealer's online archives do not come up with any sources to verify the claims. Corvus cornix 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's your contention that sources need to be linked to rather than merely exist and be verifiable then you're right to say that we disagree about WP:V and WP:RS. I cite from books from time to time, as do many other editors. Myself and a few other editors found the articles in the Plain Dealer's online archives, and were able to confirm that the Plain Dealer's articles verified the claims - which is why the article ended up being kept in both AfDs. I certainly didn't result in them being kept on my own, especially in the second AfD I wasn't involved in - the article was kept because the claim that it wasn't reliably sourced was shown to be false. I really don't mind you opposing my RfA for legitimate reasons, spurious reasons or no reasons at all, for that matter, but I have to object to you opposing for demonstratably false reasons. WilyD 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny that you and those others never made any of those links from the archives available during the AfD discussion. But there's no point in continuing this discussion. I have made my position clear. My reasoning is far from false. Corvus cornix 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - I just want to ask anyone who's considering judging me based on this to look at the AfD discussion, where several of those links to the archive are presented. WilyD 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny that you and those others never made any of those links from the archives available during the AfD discussion. But there's no point in continuing this discussion. I have made my position clear. My reasoning is far from false. Corvus cornix 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's your contention that sources need to be linked to rather than merely exist and be verifiable then you're right to say that we disagree about WP:V and WP:RS. I cite from books from time to time, as do many other editors. Myself and a few other editors found the articles in the Plain Dealer's online archives, and were able to confirm that the Plain Dealer's articles verified the claims - which is why the article ended up being kept in both AfDs. I certainly didn't result in them being kept on my own, especially in the second AfD I wasn't involved in - the article was kept because the claim that it wasn't reliably sourced was shown to be false. I really don't mind you opposing my RfA for legitimate reasons, spurious reasons or no reasons at all, for that matter, but I have to object to you opposing for demonstratably false reasons. WilyD 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have had this discussion before. The only link to the Miami Herald is to an opinion piece. There are no links to actual Plain Dealer, Times or Times Picayune articles, merely to the Wikipedia articles on the newspapers. And the Plain Dealer's online archives do not come up with any sources to verify the claims. Corvus cornix 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit I do consider the Miami Herald, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Washington Times and the New Orleans Times Picayune reliable sources - if this means I'm out of touch, so be it. But I think it's unfair to judge me based off the DRV and second AfD as I didn't participate in either ... [23] [24]
- Oppose I feel that taking five days off because of a stressful incident shows WilyD lacks dedication. I understand that knowing when you need a break could be a good thing, but if his main goal is to help eliminate backlog, this would be hard to accomplish if he needs time off to handle stress. Black Harry 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't make a habit of commenting other editors !votes and you are free to oppose for any reason you see fit, but it should be pointed out that nearly every admin takes wikibreaks. People have lives and it is better to take some cool down time than edit under stress.--Isotope23 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that people have lives and such. But being an admin who wants to close deletion debates, I think he'll run into more stress b/c of the decisions he'll have to make. And this stress could result in him taking more time off, and he wouldn't be able to accomplish his goal of fighting backlog. Black Harry 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral towards weak support Poor edit summary use (contrary to Nenyedi - I'm looking at a good 10% missing and given how easy it is that's not so hot) and some swearing in the edit summaries that do exist. However some good vandal fighting (although I also worry about the lack of associated warning). Excellent answers to the questions, but anyone can create good answers. RfA is more about past history that wowing us with intentions. There's nothing as such wrong in the past - I just can't really put a handle on this, but there's not a lot here that cries out for the tools and demotion. Sorry.Pedro | Chat 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I wonder a little about the (first) AfD for Beat Up a White Kid Day Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beat_Up_a_White_Kid_Day --after showing very effectively why it was notable, you asked the nom. to withdraw the nomination & then started arguing back and forth about it, which seems like overkill--and even perhaps looking for an unnecessary fight. DGG 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Vassyana
Closed as successful by Cecropia 16:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC) at (75/12/3); Scheduled end time 09:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana has also been hard at work working on some of our religion topics. see Eastern_religion. He has also brough Taoic_religion to good article status. He has also participated in good article reviews at Talk:Lingbao_School, Talk:1976_Tehran_UFO_incident, and others if you care to dig through his contribs history. This indicates a knowledge of how to write a good encyclopedia.
Vassyana is also taken an active role in mediation. He is an active mediator for the mediation cabal As a mediator he has negotiated a stable version for Techniques_of_Knowledge#Descriptions. You may see some of his work at Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends#Example_merge and Talk:Fellowship_of_Friends#Criticism. Also see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06_Steven_Alan_Hassan for another example.
He has experience on Wikipedia with serveral areas, and I believe he will make an excellent admin. —— Eagle101Need help? 05:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thank you for the vote of confidence. Vassyana 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 will generally continue my focus on dispute resolution. The sysop bit would give me a few extra tools to use towards that end, such as page protection and preventing editors from disrupting the wiki. I would keep an eye on places like arbitration enforcement that seem to need more sysop attention. I intend to help with the CSD and PROD backlogs as needed. I will watch XfD discussions, with an eye towards making sure "overdue" cases are closed out. In general, I will help out with other admin backlogs as I feel comfortable, based on my knowledge and experience.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I believe my contributions to Taoic religion and Eastern religion are very good. They cover some basic overview material and fit in the scheme of general encyclopedia articles. It is important that basic and general topics possess quality articles. Taoic religion is a good article, and I feel Eastern religion is well on its way to the same achievement. My assistance in mediation, providing reviews and giving outside opinions are also important contributions. By helping editors move past conflicts and build better articles, Wikipedia is improved.
- 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 number of conflicts, because of my willingness to dive into controversial articles, though I cannot recall anything but brief and minor conflicts to which I have been a party. There have been times in the past when I've been quick to revert, though I have not violated 3RR. Despite the non-violation, it is not helpful to the cause of building an encyclopedia, instead tending to escalate the situation. I am sure I have let a snarky comment out on rare occasion, when I should have been more civil, though I cannot recall any particular incident. I have learned through experience and the example of better editors that pressing discussion, refusing bait and building well-referenced material more often leads to the desired result. It is often better to walk away from a particular article and work on the endless other tasks Wikipedia offers, than to be drawn into an edit war.
- Optional question from Seed 2.0
- 4. I have looked through the list of your contributions and I like that your comments tend to be to the point, yet always civil and polite. You have indicated that you would like to help close XfD discussions and clear the CSD and PROD backlogs. If you don't mind, could you please answer these two questions?
- Could you provide some specific examples of when you found not having admin tools frustrating or inconvenient and how you would have used them?
- To be honest, I cannot say I've found the lack of tools frustrating or inconvenient. There are probably plenty of tools and pages available to me as a regular user I have yet to use. While they would be convenient, and allow me to help with some additional tasks, the lack of mop and bucket is not an impediment to my activity on Wikipedia. If you would like some examples of how I would use the tools available, I would be happy to answer any further questions. Vassyana 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagine you are about to close an AfD. Three established users have expressed that they feel the subject of the article under discussion is not notable. The nomination read "doesn't meet WP:N". Shortly before the debate is scheduled to close, a new editor registers his disapproval and provides a non-trivial source that may establish the notability of the subject. What do you do? --Seed 2.0 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would notify the other editors of potential new evidence showing notability. I would ask the new user if s/he would provide additional sources. I would probably extend the AfD by a couple days to allow discussion of the new source and time for the new user to provide multiple non-trivial references. A bit of extra discussion generally won't hurt. Vassyana 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)
- 5. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very aware of the debate. I believe that some people want to make the standard too broad, and others too narrow and natural dialectic will work out the difference between them. ArbCom cases reveal some fairly clear guidelines of what is right out (here and here). I strongly agree with banning sites that engage in stalking, privacy invasion and similar forms of harassment. If you have any further questions, please ask. Vassyana 20:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from Proabivouac (talk · contribs)
- 6. Vassyana, while I don't for one moment doubt your good faith, I am nonetheless distressed at the overall thrust of your comments to this thread:WP:ANI#More WP:BLP drama involving DRV Is there anything you would add to this for our purposes here?Proabivouac 08:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I firmly believe in the premise of WP:BLP and removing libel or other information that would be harmful to the project. I simply believe that existing policy and process, if enforced, is sufficient in protecting innocent people from harm. Poorly-referenced negative information can already be removed instantly upon coming upon it. In fact, policy demands that we remove such information immediately. My objections in that discussion are based in my objection to sysops taking action outside of policy, outside of process, without on-wiki discussion and against consensus when there are remaining avenues to resolution. My objection is not founded in a slavish devotion to process, but rather a belief that such actions are against the spirit of Wikipedia and disruptive to the project. I believe my responses on ANI and my proposed compromise on WT:BLP elaborate my position.[25][26] If you have further questions or would like further clarification, I would be happy to respond. Vassyana 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Poorly-referenced negative information may also be - and often is - restored immediately, regardless of policy. At that point, process is what - edit-warring? filing an RfC? AfD? None of which solve the immediate problem that we are hosting potentially libelous attacks against living people. I hold that, where there is a conflict between BLP concerns and process, the former must, at least in the short term, trump the latter, even if and when this requires "out of process" deletions and oversights. If there is something that, upon discussion, we feel confident should be restored, then we can restore it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are saying the opposite.Proabivouac 09:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not saying the opposite. If such information is being restored, the page can be edit protected. There is a wide amount of discretion in enforcing BLP, including such edits not counting towards a 3RR violation. If the entire article is nothing but poorly sourced claims, by all means delete it immediately per BLP. Such immediate and unilateral action is specifically sanctioned by policy. At the other end of the article spectrum, it is not at all the place of any sysop to take it upon themselves to act alone in the case of well-referenced articles based on multiple non-trivial reliable sources. I would have far less objection if the BLP watchers at WP:BLP/N and/or fellow sysops at WP:AN were consulted. Unilateral actions on the latter end of the spectrum are not permitted nor encouraged by the letter or spirit of the rules. On the contrary, I believe it to be against the spirit of Wikipedia and expressly harmful to the atmosphere of the project. I hope this clarifies and I will gladly answer any further questions. Vassyana 10:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Poorly-referenced negative information may also be - and often is - restored immediately, regardless of policy. At that point, process is what - edit-warring? filing an RfC? AfD? None of which solve the immediate problem that we are hosting potentially libelous attacks against living people. I hold that, where there is a conflict between BLP concerns and process, the former must, at least in the short term, trump the latter, even if and when this requires "out of process" deletions and oversights. If there is something that, upon discussion, we feel confident should be restored, then we can restore it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are saying the opposite.Proabivouac 09:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I firmly believe in the premise of WP:BLP and removing libel or other information that would be harmful to the project. I simply believe that existing policy and process, if enforced, is sufficient in protecting innocent people from harm. Poorly-referenced negative information can already be removed instantly upon coming upon it. In fact, policy demands that we remove such information immediately. My objections in that discussion are based in my objection to sysops taking action outside of policy, outside of process, without on-wiki discussion and against consensus when there are remaining avenues to resolution. My objection is not founded in a slavish devotion to process, but rather a belief that such actions are against the spirit of Wikipedia and disruptive to the project. I believe my responses on ANI and my proposed compromise on WT:BLP elaborate my position.[25][26] If you have further questions or would like further clarification, I would be happy to respond. Vassyana 09:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of personal views on this, I would not think it right to object to this AfD because of differing on this--it is very much an unsettled question, and the views were defended very appropriately (I do agree with the view above myself, but I'd say that even if the candidate thought the opposite.)DGG 04:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)
- 7. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48 ♠ ♣ 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure there are some cases that require a few spoilers to be discussed in order to effectively discuss the work of fiction. However, I do not believe it is necessary in most cases. Articles about works of fiction do not require complete plot summaries. Memento is a good case in point. The unusual narrative, filming style and movie basis could be discussed without providing spoilers. We should discuss these works, their general content, their style and their notable aspects, but there's no need to turn these articles into a version of Cliff Notes. The templates were a solution to complete plot summaries. However, the real solution is simply staying focused on encyclopedic content not including Cliff-like summaries, rather than an additional template and guideline. Vassyana 11:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional question from Simply south (talk · contribs)
- 8. Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? If so, why? Simply south 16:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Yes, there are and I think everyone probably has a few, until they get over the learning curve of the place. For example, I made edits to Buffalo, NY that were far more appropriate for a travel guide when I first started visiting and editing.[27] Someone was kind enough to take the time to explain what was wrong with my edits and welcome me to the wiki.[28] I'm not proud of it because while it was good writing, it was poor Wikipedia editing. In the end, I caused someone the additional work of cleaning up my acute error. Another example from my early this year would be at Talk:Rush Limbaugh.[29] I advocated for the inclusion of his drug scandal, juxtaposed with his previous harsh comments about drug users. I feel now that was a poor position to take, since it was actively encouraging original research to present a POV. If you have any further questions, please ask. Vassyana 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
- See Vassyana's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Vassyana: Vassyana (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- I have previously had an editor review. Vassyana 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Vassyana before commenting.
Discussion
- Consensus not numbers: Vassyana's recent controversial statements against some straightforward implementations of the Biographies of living persons policy suggest that he's not yet acculturated to Wikipedia and has been misled by the "anything goes" culture that prevails amongst some newcomers. I don't think he's ready yet. --Tony Sidaway 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he'll handle it well. It's more important for admins to be able to listen and learn than it is to do everything perfectly right off the bat. :-) --Kim Bruning 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point. I withdraw my opposition. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he'll handle it well. It's more important for admins to be able to listen and learn than it is to do everything perfectly right off the bat. :-) --Kim Bruning 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT
- Support. As nom —— Eagle101Need help? 09:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Glad I saw this. A very civil and helpful user. ElinorD (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extreme support, with a specific invite to bless our ranks over at WP:MC with a nomination some time...I, for one, would love you to join us over there :) But this is about adminship, and I believe that Vassyana has shown everything I could want in an admin candidate. The ability to interact, be analytical, experience in disputes, and longevity. Daniel 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- O:-) --Kim Bruning 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - A very good editor and deserving :)...----Cometstyles 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Change to support from neutral. Any editor that can respond (see strucken out neutral below) in such a civil and efficent fashion will use the tools well. Best Wishes and good luck.Pedro | Chat 12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)::[reply]
- Support. Candidate seems competent, and we need more admins (as the atrocious backlogs at CAT:CSD attest). Waltonalternate account 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very civil, confident, and level-headed. I see no reason why he wouldn't do well with the tools. —Anas talk? 12:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support demonstrates the right qualities badly needed around Wikipedia. Manderiko 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. First time I ever used the strong in an RfA, and this time I had a good reason. I have interacted with this editor over the last couple of months and found his concern for the project to be most appealing, lending a hand in content disputes in a manner that actually helps, while working to make our encyclopedia better by creating great content. It is not always that I come across a well-rounded Wikipedian, and it will be an honor to have him as a fellow admin. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - echoing the comments above. WjBscribe 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Though his edit count may not be the highest, I feel he will properly use the tools. --Random Say it here! 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a good, solid candidate with no major issues. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good work for MEDCAB shows that he will do well in resolving some of the disputes that admins get into. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hmm...I thought this user was already an administrator. Anyway, all seems fine here. Acalamari 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with Pedro: Though the edit count is rather low, the incredible civility and efficiency shows that the candidate has the capability neeeded in that area. As such, I support. --tennisman sign here! 16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for good communication skills, dedication, and (as per Jossi) devotion to the improvement of the encyclopedia. JavaTenor 17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: While I would like to see this user have a bit more experience, the edits this user has made are of a good quality. I do not think this user would abuse the tools. Orfen User Talk | Contribs 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good choice. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vassyana handled a contentious mediation case I was involved with and did so expertly: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Looking for Alaska. If he's always as calm and patient as he was in that mediation he'll make a great admin. In my opinion his relatively low edit count primarily reflects the exceptional level of thought that goes into his edits. --JayHenry 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Everything looks ok. —AldeBaer 18:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Candidate's edits show maturity and I am very pleased with the level-headed answers the standard Qs and to my question. I am sure he will make a great addition to the admin team. -- Seed 2.0 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Tireless contributor, and trustworthy user. Also as nomintator. --eskimospy (talk • contribs • review me) 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like the way the candidate has answered the questions. Possibly a bit soon but displays so much level headedness that its hard to see them loosing their cool.. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - excellent mediator. Addhoc 22:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - admin material all the way. Has done some important work in their time here. --Edwin Herdman 00:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Why not? I have seen this user more than once around here, and would make a good asset as an admin. Sr13 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears to be a very civil editor with good intentions. Gutworth 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As usual, I place a great deal of confidence in users who have experience with dispute resolution. The article writing is also a plus. YechielMan 04:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I must admit, I wrestled with this for a bit, but the user's quality of editing is exceedingly good for their lesser experience in the project. Good luck! Jmlk17 05:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pssh, editcounters. Full support for this editor and their high quality contributions to Wikipedia. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Since I don't have any arbitrary criteria and the user will make a great admin. Yonatan talk 10:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--MONGO 10:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I give very high marks to anyone who displays the kind of coolness and kindness seen here. Add to the fact that participation in MEDCAB demonstrates the ability to tackle tough issues and prickly editors with coolness. Civility is an absolute necessity for an administrator. He'll learn the knobs and buttons but already has what it takes to succeed. JodyB talk 12:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportSeems like a good nom. I support! •Felix• T 13:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm not Mailer Diablo but I still approve this message! AW 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportThere are no concerns on my part and the candidate's behaviour during this RfA has been simply exceptional. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support ^demon[omg plz] 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Age?020 (?T • ?C) 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The experience of this editor might be a bit low, but he has demonstrated excellent civility, good faith and dispute resolution among other things, so there isn't much to worry about. Great candidate for adminship... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 02:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good admin. Captain panda 03:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure, I would love to have the user make 1,000 mainspace edits before this RfA. However, I respectively view that as a sort of editcountitis. The spread of edits and the quality of contributions surely make up for the low numbers in places. The user shows knowledge and practice, as well as time well spent. I believe that the user has adequate use for the tools and is trustworthy of the mop and keys. I still only have around 8,000 edits total in a year and a half. But I have several thousand deletions as well as all the other button uses in my logs that don't show up as edits, or are rollbacks. It's about the use of the time, and Vassyana uses it well. Teketalk 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, impressed by work on WT:NPOV and elsewhere. The AN-BLP discussion does show a disturbing concern for process over action, but we all have our imperfections; I see nothing to suggest that the candidate would act inappropriately or against WM interests. -- Visviva 09:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Whats a edit count to do with it? Lmc169 09:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Terence 13:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I was very impressed with Vassyana's points in a recent discussion on the WP:NPOV Talk page. He's obviously thought deeply and clearly about how Wikipedia can be improved. TimidGuy 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
and I'm frankly disappointed at the trivialness of the opposes below.More recent Opposes provide very valid comments regarding BLP and though unilateral action is often needed to resolve BLP issues, especially amongst those of us with OTRS access but admitting such on an RFA is going to lead to failure, there's just no way you can say "I'll take unilateral action to remove BLP concerns ignoring policy" on an RfA, even though that is often necessary. Nick 15:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support. I've no doubt this reasonable an editor will handle admin tasks well. --Fire Star ?? 15:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per WP:ANI#More WP:BLP drama involving DRV. I think that sometimes (oftentimes?) admins are completely overzealous in enforcing this policy, to the point where I think "wow, I'm glad I don't write biographies." I think the candidate's opinions even if they really do violate policy (which I am definitely not saying) are the types of well-reasoned, generally calmer opinions that would make me comfortable in tursting this candidate to be an admin. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 16:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This candidate is already doing tasks requiring more responsibility. --Kim Bruning 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definitely PeaceNT 17:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong support Excellent support as mediator of Fellowship of Friends page. Patiently tried to guide editors to see what he was talking about, and when the arguments continued, he spent what was probably hours creating a sandbox page as an example. Since his involvement, the editors with two very opposite views are treating each other politely most of the time for the first time. He gently leads us to see what needs to be done with no hint of his own POV. We had a previous mediator who did not have the skill needed to mediate an article of this type, nor the consistency to stick with us. Vassyana stays in the background until he's needed (he must check in often to know just when to jump in) and responds quickly to a request for help. He shows discretion and respect at all times. There is nothing I would change. I hope these are some of the traits you are looking for from a mediator.--Moon Rising 19:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen Vassyana work under very difficult circumstances and agree with Moon Rising's comments. Vassyana is perceptive, neutral and polite.Momento 20:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Competent and trustworthy. An excellent combination. The Transhumanist 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vassyana lent support to me when I was being unfairly blocked. He brought up important ideals of Wikipedia in support and seemed to take these to heart, therefore I support this nomination for adminship. Limin8tor 07:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, clearly gets it in regard to major policy issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user. Reasons for opposition are ridiculous. --- RockMFR 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as I see no reason to validate the claims that the candidate does not understand WP:BLP. --Spike Wilbury 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thoughtful answers, including Q6 and the follow up discussion in the oppose section. I understand and I do not dismiss the opposers' concerns, but I think Vassyana has been most reasonable in reply. I see a constructive and deliberative editor, who may be right or wrong but either way is open to discussion. No worries. ··coelacan 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While my experience of Vassyana is limited to one article (Prem Rawat) he has been a source of great support for the project progressing to GA status. It can not have been easy, as feelings run high. I am too new to WP to grasp all the procedural implications, but Vassyana clearly understands the human dimension, and that, in the long run, is surely what it is all about. I am as sure as I can be that he will prove a great admin. Rumiton 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support . Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I am impressed by how well he has answered during this discussion--I think this shows that relatively low edit counts do not indicate a problem. .DGG 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support appears to have a good grasp of what BLP is about, unlike those who are opposing. All round good candidate. Eloquent, thoughtful. ViridaeTalk 01:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Vassyana's mediation on the Fellowship of Friends page was impeccable. The combination of common sense, familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and knowledge of human nature will make Vassyana a wonderful Admin. Mario Fantoni 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. --MichaelLinnear 03:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Reasons pretty well summarized above, and we need more admins like Vass. Aeuio 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. - Most dissentions below concern V's lack of mainspace edits relative to some admins and concern over what is perceived as a less than sufficiently zealous application of WP:BLP. Having seen several instances of unreflected, unbalanced, even peremptory decisions by administrators with much more impressive stats, I am disinclined to believe quantity implies quality. Vassyana's edits seem consistently to be well-founded, well-considered, grounded in WP policies, restrained, balanced and leavened with common sense approaches to conflict resolution. Nixwisser 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Stance on BLP is not the same as mine, but isn't, well, completely misguided. Good hard worker in all areas, should do fine with a few extra knobs and twiddly bits. Riana ⁂ 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The conception of BLP imputed to the candidate by those opposing is, I think it is fair to say, pace Doc, et al., that for which a consensus of the community exists, and so even as Vassyana avers that his understanding of BLP is not dissimilar from that favored by some, I am greatly heartened by his expressions relative to BLP because they evidence the deliberative and measured demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious. Even without reference to the BLP issue, I think it clear that the candidate is possessed of good judgment and a cordial demeanor is acquainted relatively well with, such that I think that one can conclude with a good deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of Vassyana's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Vassyana is a mediator on the Fellowship of Friends page, and he showed being smart, efficient and neutral. His edits are clear and well written. Baby Dove 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent candidate; opposition thoroughly unconvincing. Xoloz 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support This is someone who truly understands the value of saying nice doggy instead of grabbing the nearest convenient stick. These skills at mediation and inclusion among all Wikipedians are what will help make this project great. Low mainspace edits are more than offset by tireless dispute resolution and my desire to head off an outbreak of Editcountitis. Overall, I think how a Wikipedian feels about this or that particular hot-button issue is all-but-irrelevant to their request for adminship. I am glad, however, that Vassyana seems to understand the issues surrounding recent changes to BLP. When a subjective test (harm) is added to policy on biographies, it becomes less clear-cut and uncontestable, so community input becomes more necessary. In my view, the changed BLP is a much less easily administered policy because of the added ambiguity. I look forward to having an unflappable and product-driven administrator like Vassyana available to deal with present or future controversies. --Ssbohio 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE
Oppose. I hate to oppose b/c Vassyana seems like a really good editor, but only 757 mainspace edits [30] is too low for me. When this is combined with Vassyana only being active since the start of 2007, I'm inclined to oppose. But if Vassyana keeps up the great work for a few more months, I'd definitely support. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Note: I am changing my oppose to neutral. While I still believe that Vassyana needs more experience and should make more edits to the meat and potatoes of Wikipedia, the debate around my opinion is distracting from this RfA and may give people the opinion that I have a grudge against Vassyana. (which I don't). As such, I am removing my oppose. However, doing so doesn't change my views of Vassyana needing more experience before becoming an admin.--Alabamaboy 01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange. At the time of your RfA, you had fairly similar amounts of experience. Did you think you were not trustworthy enough to have the additional buttons? Is there anything in Vassyana's edits that gives you pause regarding this candidate other than pure edit counting? Vassyana now has 774 mainspace edits. Is that enough? Would 798 do? What about 1400? 712,363,124,123? --Durin 15:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Durin, though I do not agree with Alabamaboy's reasoning, sarcasm is slightly less than helpful ... oh, wait, was that sarcastic? Sorry. I also want to note that Alabamaboy's RfA was in 2005. Having 750 edits when the average is 250 is different from having 750 when the average is 500. In case you're wondering, those numbers are completely made-up. Over time, the average number of edits made by regular/active editors has increased. I personally don't think that has any meaning – an edit is an edit, no matter when it was made – but that's just my personal viewpoint. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to discussion page. --Durin 19:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2,000 edits is the rough number considered to be enough to judge a person's admin qualifications. I think the distribution of edits is good in this regard, and shows us performance across the spectrum and not just in one namespace. I would have been worried if there were no discussion edits, because then we wouldn't be able to see how this user handles herself. The Transhumanist 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As others have said, standards have risen in the last two years. If I'd come up for an RfA today with the level of experience I had in 2005, I doubt I'd be approved. I believe this rising of standards is due to the fact that Wikipedia grows in complexity every year. Just as an article which would have been a featured article in 2005 might not even qualify as a good article today, so too have the standards people judge admins by changed. As I stated, I'm also concerned that Vassyana has only been actively editing for a few months. Still, Vassyana seems like a good editor and I'd support in a few more months. --Alabamaboy 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response Alabamaboy. However, you've maintained your position with respect to Vassyana's edit counts, and have still not provided any evidence that Vassyana can not be trusted with the tools. Is there anything in this nominee's editing history that gives you pause? Could you please provide diffs? Anything? Vassyana now has 778 mainspace edits. Is this enough? What is the magic number for you, and more importantly...why? What is it about "Magic Number" that would make Vassyana acceptable, but "Magic Number - 1" not acceptable? --Durin 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a "magic number." The numbers I gave were just to illustrate that I believe Vassyana doesn't yet have the experience needed to be an admin, especially considering how little time he's spent actually building the encyclopedia (as opposed to editing talk pages and mediating disputes, activities which are also important but, to me, not as important as actually creating content). The issue isn't the number--it's that less than a quarter of Vassyana's edits have been to mainspace. This means Vassyana spends more time at Wikipedia in discussions and other secondary affairs than actually creating content. That troubles me.--Alabamaboy 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have I done something wrong by saying Vassyana needs a little more experience? Others here (including Tony Sidaway) have stated the same thing, but I don't see them being endlessly questioned about their opinion. I am extremely tired of repeating myself here. I think Vassyana is a good editor who needs more experience and I'd support him for admin in a few months.--Alabamaboy 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I can not reconcile is that you claim he is a good editor, are seemingly incapable of generating any diffs to show that this nominee can not be trusted with the tools...yet the tools should not be granted. This is non-sensical. I'm trying to evoke something out of you that supports this seeming significant contradiction. That, plus the fact this editor has similar experience to you when you went up for admin, and the only response is standards have changed...rather than actually looking at this editor's abilities and performance. It just doesn't make any sense. All I can conclude is that you are absorbed with editcountitis and refuse to look at this editor's contributions. --Durin 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Among the diffs which made me question Vassyana's experience are [31], where Vassyana says "Editcountitis, "as per user X", no reasons given and similar "shallow" !votes simply should not count" with regards to RfAs (there is nothing shallow about agreeing with a previous editor's comment in an RfA), and most disturbingly, Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Criticism_and_controversy_sections, where Vassyana says "Are criticism and controversy sections in articles in harmony with the principles of NPOV? Isn't it a form of undue weight to highlight negative views of the subject? It is my opinion that the answer to both questions is a resounding 'Yes'. The fact that Vassyana has so little understanding of NPOV concerns me. While the vigorous debate that followed Vassyana's comment on that talk page did eventually reach a consensus, that doesn't remove my concerns about Vassyana's views on NPOV (a concern other editors in that discussion also raised). That said, I believe this issue (like the BLP issues other editors raised) arises from Vassyana's inexperience, not from any deep-rooted issues. So as I've said before, Vassyana simply needs more experience. Also, please see my note above (just under my original comment).--Alabamaboy 00:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I was inclined to support until I noticed the very low mainspace edits. Encyclopaedia-building is central to any administrator in my mind, whatever "specialty" they may decide upon. I appreciate the user's work in MedCab and believe that it is often an excellent qualification for an effective administrator, and I hope to see Vassyana back in a few months. TewfikTalk 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't mind me asking, how is this going to make Vassyana a poor administrator? Is there any evidence to show that the user doesn't understand policy? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Short of knowing the user myself, I can only issue judgement based on certain diagnostic criteria. Generally speaking, such a minimal involvement in the encyclopaedia "part" of WP [the free encyclopaedia, which everything else only serves] raises major questions about the user's experience and ability to deal with mainspace issues as an admin. Again, more involvement would change my mind. TewfikTalk 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't get me wrong, I do understand what your saying, and normally it may be a problem, but with all Vassyana's work for MEDCAB, I think it shows that he(?) would clearly be able to handle mainspace issues. The mediation work that he does gives clear evidence that he can step into some of the most complex article problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look past numbers or what? Vassyana has done plenty of work on articles relating to religion, both in terms of writing and discussion. Clearly if you'd looked past number count you'd have noticed this - and the amount Vassyana has isn't even low... Majorly (talk | meet) 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally when I vote "not enough editing in mainspace", it's because I believe administrators need to know how to handle disputes that arise around mainspace articles. I respectfully submit that Vassyana's fantastic and prolific work mediating article disputes alleviates this concern. Daniel 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose per WP:ANI#More WP:BLP drama involving DRV. Nothing personal, but protecting innocent people from harm by Wikipedia comes first. Per above, the relative dearth of mainspace edits is also a problem.Proabivouac 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you may have misunderstood my position. I fully support protecting innocent people from libel and harm, I simply feel there is no need to circumvent both consensus and policy to do so.[32][33] However, I accept the possibility my position may be untenable to you and I respect that, even if we disagree. Vassyana 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no personal disrespect here at all. However, I do find your position inadequate: inappropriate material about innocent private citizens must be deleted today - as in immediately - not a week from today. If someone then wishes to discuss whether or not to restore it, that's fine, but defaulting to publish while the issue is being decided, and in the absence of consensus, is unacceptable: when in doubt, we must refrain from the possibility that we are harming innocent people. Your stance, while I don't doubt its sincerity, suggests to me that Wikipedia process is more salient to you.Proabivouac 09:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This shows a deep misunderstanding of the BLP policy. If you feel that removing such material immediately is not per the letter and intent of WP:BLP, you grossly misunderstand it - David Gerard 09:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you may have misunderstood my position. I fully support protecting innocent people from libel and harm, I simply feel there is no need to circumvent both consensus and policy to do so.[32][33] However, I accept the possibility my position may be untenable to you and I respect that, even if we disagree. Vassyana 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Removed {{fact}} statement without supplying sources and without apology or admission of mistake. [34] Also made a understandable but very misguided complaint about me without apologizing after explanations. The two arbcom members who commented rejected his complaint. [35] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_from_user:Andries_reg._Sathya_Sai_BabaAndries 16:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose seems to think BLP is simply a matter of preventing libel [36].--Docg 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Doc - that's extremely worrying and not at all the level of comprehension an admin needs. It's a fairly simple matter but an important one - David Gerard 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Doc, David. I know this editor pretty well and I can say with conviction that you may have misinterpreted his comments at BLP. I invite you to explore these issues with the user. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His replies in this oppose section to others give me little hope of this - if he honestly thinks defaulting to removing stuff about living persons is in any way against policy (c.f. WP:BLP), or that a claim of WP:CONSENSUS can override it, he does not understand the living bio policy well enough. I understand you and Kim consider him highly clue-attracting otherwise, but I'm not seeing it on this matter - David Gerard 09:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Doc, David. I know this editor pretty well and I can say with conviction that you may have misinterpreted his comments at BLP. I invite you to explore these issues with the user. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, sorry. Nice person, but Q6 is the clincher. BLP is so not about libel. Defamation applies to all articles, BLP is about the real and immense effect WP can have on real people's lives. We are bigger than big, we are probably not going away, and this is the single biggest issue facing Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe my position on BLP may have been misunderstood, and that I may have communicated poorly in that regard. I do not believe that BLP is exclusively about libel, but I believe defamation is a large and central concern of BLP. Certainly, if I were the subject of a Wikipedia article that would be my own primary concern regarding the content. I would certainly care a world more about a false claim that I was arrested for male prostitution and meth possession than if the article said I had four dogs, instead of four cats. So to me, concerns of libel, defamation and related issues are of top priority regarding BLP, because those issues will cause the greatest harm to the subject and the greatest harm to the project. My two examples are the extremes, but I do appreciate how more "subtle" bias can be harmful to a subject. The best summary of my position was given in my answer to Q6: "I simply believe that existing policy and process, if enforced, is sufficient in protecting innocent people from harm." If anyone has questions that could help evaluate my understanding of BLP, or clarify my position, feel free to ask. Vassyana 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The biggest problem is not libel, it's damage to people's lives. Having a Wikipedia article created about you is frequently a curse. Furthermore, your statements on BLP at WP:ANI suggest that WP:BLP is susceptible to being outvoted by WP:CONSENSUS, which is evidently something different to actual "consensus" as the word is used by the rest of the world - David Gerard 09:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe my position on BLP may have been misunderstood, and that I may have communicated poorly in that regard. I do not believe that BLP is exclusively about libel, but I believe defamation is a large and central concern of BLP. Certainly, if I were the subject of a Wikipedia article that would be my own primary concern regarding the content. I would certainly care a world more about a false claim that I was arrested for male prostitution and meth possession than if the article said I had four dogs, instead of four cats. So to me, concerns of libel, defamation and related issues are of top priority regarding BLP, because those issues will cause the greatest harm to the subject and the greatest harm to the project. My two examples are the extremes, but I do appreciate how more "subtle" bias can be harmful to a subject. The best summary of my position was given in my answer to Q6: "I simply believe that existing policy and process, if enforced, is sufficient in protecting innocent people from harm." If anyone has questions that could help evaluate my understanding of BLP, or clarify my position, feel free to ask. Vassyana 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Alabamaboy. Quadzilla99 23:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually checked the mainspace contribs that Vassyana has made? You'll be surprised at the quality of them. Also - have you checked the MEDCAB works that he does showing a firm ability to resolve disputes - which essentially your saying he wouldn't be able to do by having few mainspace edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as Doc. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Doc and David. Phil Sandifer 18:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per concerns related to BLP. --After Midnight 0001 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for gross conceptual errors regarding BLP ➥the Epopt 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per edit count and because of the WP:BLP errors. WP:BLP is Wikipedia's main liability IMHO. If administrators don't fully comprehend WP:BLP as well as policies relating to libel, then the project will be in serious trouble AND reliability will suffer as a result of this fallacy. Real96 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NEUTRAL
Neutral for now. I'm really sorry to mention edit counter here, but it is a touch low, and more importantly seems to have been made up of a sudden bust of activity. Is four months editing really enough to have a firm grasp of the policies and culture? Everything else looks great, and the answers to Q1 are model, but the experience level troubles me.Pedro | Chat 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. This might be a temporary stance. I'm concerned that Vassyana just started editing three or four months ago. That, in itself, is not a reason to oppose, but if you have a chance, could you address this point? Orangemarlin 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - This may be one of these cases in which quality trumps quantity, Orangemarlin. I have seen many editors with tens of thousands of edits that do not show the maturity that this user has demonstrated, and the understanding of the principles upon which this project is based. ˜ jossi ˜ (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people "get it" in a short period, while others have been around a while and still don't quite "get it". If you have questions that would help you make a determination, I would be happy to answer them. Vassyana 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Orangemarlin, I agreed (past tense) exactly with your worries, hence my initial neutral. However the level headed responses and contributions, and the genuinely pleasent and thoughtful conduct in the RfA so far, makes me feel the Vassyana deserves our trust. If he believes this demotion will help then good on him IMHO.Pedro | Chat 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm going to remain neutral, even though I agree with the three points above. First, quality definitely trumps quantity by a huge margin. And I agree that Vassyana has shown lots of quality. But sometimes it takes a lot of edits before trends start to appear, both positive or negative. However, the level-headed responses are big plus. I'm 85% sure Vassyana will make a great admin. The other 15% results from time, meaning maybe a circumstance could crop up to cause someone to go ballistic online--it has happened! I'm new at this, and I want to make sure my votes are well-considered. Orangemarlin 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Orangemarlin, I agreed (past tense) exactly with your worries, hence my initial neutral. However the level headed responses and contributions, and the genuinely pleasent and thoughtful conduct in the RfA so far, makes me feel the Vassyana deserves our trust. If he believes this demotion will help then good on him IMHO.Pedro | Chat 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - While I do think Vassyana has good potential, and for the most part is a polite and respectful editor, I do have to also agree with those that brought up the few number of mainspace edits issues, as well as the valid points brought up above by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs), and David Gerard (talk · contribs), in their "Oppose" comments. Smee 04:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Neutral The concerns I expressed in the oppose section are still valid. But the continual debate over my opinion was both irritating and distracting from this RfA.--Alabamaboy 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related requests
- Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
- A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.