User:Tango/RFA test

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

[edit] Phaedriel

Final(271/6/5) Ended 03:36, 2006-08-04 (UTC)

Nominations

Nomination by Johntex

Why am I pleased to co-nominate Phaedriel (talk • contribs • count) (Sharon)? Let’s see:

• Active editor: 5,168 edits, nicely distributed across namespaces.
• Quality editor: From her very first edit as a logged in user [1] has used helpful edit summaries to complement her well-written contributions including substantial enhancements, [2], housekeeping tasks [3], [4], minor improvements (which she diligently tags as minor) [5], new articles [6], and in reverting vandalism.[7].
• Leader: Active role (and/or founder) of Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America, Portal:Oklahoma and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America.
• Role model: Offering mentorship [8], and recognizing the good work of others. [9].
• Room for improvement?: Yes – she would be better if she edited twice as much!
• To Sharon: I appreciate your willingness to take this step. Admins sometimes take undeserved abuse. We sometimes make mistakes, too. We need a kind spirit such as yourself to help guide us in what is right, and to help cheer us up when things go wrong. You help create a stronger community that not only helps our project succeed, it helps our project to be more worthy of success.
• Conclusion: let’s do ourselves and our readers a favor by voting her in right now. - Johntex\^talk 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination by Blnguyen

Phaedriel hails from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States, and has contributed large amounts of work to Oklahoma and Native American topics. On the wiki-chore facets, she contributes to AfD discussions and fights vandalism. Aside from this, and probably what sets her aside from all other candidates is that she is the foremost propagator of wiki-love on WP, and would set a brilliant example for other wikipedians, as it is clear that one of the most notable things that an administrator can do is to affect the morale of contributors to this great project through their dealings with other users.

For more detail, see my supporting remarks

I am honoured, humbled and embarrassed to be selected to nominate Phaedriel for administrator status. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination by Lar

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Phaedriel for adminship. Johntex gave the checklist. Blnguyen gave the detailed quantitative analysis. I'm here to close this nom with the philosophical... once in a great while, you get a candidate that's so awesomely right that it's amazing. Phaedriel is that candidate. She may well change how admins get things done. For more on why, see my supporting remarks

It is way past time to make Phaedriel an admin and I hope you will join me in supporting her candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nominations after acceptance

co-nomination by Samir:

Phaedriel will make a caring and wise administrator; these are traits that are hard to find in anyone. I've met no other that has brought her degree of compassion to the project to complement a solid history of editorial contributions. I'm honoured to add a co-nomination (but I suspect that there will be a few more co-noms under this one soon). -- Samir धर्म 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

co-nomination by 1ne:

I had offered to nominate Phaedriel for adminship as SushiGeek a while back. She politely declined, but thanked me for the offer. She is a nice and caring person, and is a great contributor. She deserves it. 1ne 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC) removed as unauthorized 1ne 21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that this co-nom IS perfectly welcome, and I hope it gets unstricken... 1ne misunderstood me. But it's his perogative to do as he likes. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

co-nomination by Sceptre:

I had proposed a co-nom by everyone on her talk page a few weeks back, because Phaedriel is a perfect editor and she'll do very well with the tools. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 09:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Ding Xiang

Sharon here is the friendliest user you could ever have. She has the spirit and has what it takes to be a great administrator.--Tdxiang 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

co-nomination by Merovingian

Sharon has the patience, knowledge, experience, and common sense to be a truly great admin. She's one in a million. --Merovingian - Talk 08:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

co-nomination by Tony the Marine:

"Sharon is wonderful, she is the type of person that makes you realize that there are better days ahead of us. There's no other like Sharon. Tony the Marine 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Co-co-co-co-co-co-co-nomination by User:Messedrocker

I wanted to nominate her earlier, but apparently someone beat me and she unfortunately had to turn it down due to some situations that arised. Now I'm taking the opportunity to be her eight nominator (is this a record?). Phaedrial is the nicest Wikipedian ever. Not only that, but she takes WikiLove to heart and stands strong despite prejudice and even a death threat. I first saw her at Talk:Daniel Brandt where she gave a very powerful open letter to Mr. Brandt, and I just had to reward her for it. I didn't want Daniel Brandt to chase after me, so I e-mailed her a nice asterisk barnstar. Her response was exuberant and definitely unexpected. I cannot ask for anyone better to be an administrator, and I would not be able to handle this RFA failing. She is the perfect example of how administrators, as well as all Wikipedians, should behave. Not to mention that she is very experienced! —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored by the kind words of Johntex, Blnguyen and Lar, and proud to accept. Phaedriel 03:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A record of a previous nomination, which I declined, can be found here.

Support

1. Strong support. Oh my, yes! Per nomination. "More candidates like this one, please!^TM" ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support. Back from illness and sorry for being late. I haven't been sulking. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I have said before and I will say it again "There is no one I would rather support for administrator than Phaedriel". Johntex\^talk 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Hell yeah --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support Yes, please. Yanksox 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Edit Conflict Eternal Support does she even need an RfA? Nope.--Andeh 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support times infinity -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
8. That's hot. Sharon is quite possibly the nicest, most genuine, most ready-to-help person I've ever come across. We need more people like her! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Hell Yes Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
10. This is a record for me. Booted out with edit conflicts six times Support -- Lost 03:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Strongest support By FAR the best adminship candidate in Wikipedia's history. — Deckiller 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Titanium Plated Support. You damn bet I'm supporting :D ShaunES 03:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC).
13. Wicked, wicked, wicked strong support: —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, even though I just know I'm going to get yet another edit conflict. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Strongest possible support. Not only does she pass my criteria with flying colors, Sharon is without a doubt a blessing to this encyclopedia. Her diligence, dedication, and kindness are near-legendary. I don't know what else to say...she'll make an amazing administrator. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Huge Support- Darthgriz98 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Enormous Support - Definitely Wikipedia's finest editor PerfectStorm ^{(Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!)} 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Too many nominators, but what the heek ;) pschemp | talk 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong support - Phaedriel is kind, intelligent, knowledgeable, and a great editor. She will make an awesome admin. --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose :D - I wouldn't want to condem an AMAZING well suited for adminship reader never to edit again -- Tawker 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Is this to be counted as a positive vote or a negative vote? Editor88 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Of course it's a support, thanks for catching it though :) -- Tawker 04:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    I was confused also, but then again, I'm usually confused -- Samir धर्म 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

21. James Hetfield says— YEAH! --Nearly Headless Nick 04:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Support--cj | talk 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
23. That's an awfully wordy nomination for someone who doesn't need to do much more convincing, guys. :-) Support a consistently kind, productive, considerate, and diligent user. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Fully Support great user who will undoubtedly make a great administrator hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
25. How the heck is Sharon not already a sysop?! --Merovingian - Talk 04:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Overwhelming support! Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. How can one not, with such history and such detailed nominations? This will be a pile-on for sure. Ifnord 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Is this necessary? Hasn't anyone read WP:SNOW? :-) --Allen 04:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Hip, hip , hooray! support Phaedriel is the best of the best. FloNight ^talk 04:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
30. Cliché support, my dislike of co-nominations wasn't enough to overcome my liking of Phaedriel's good qualities. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
31. support because the RfA clique said so (set your sarcasm detectors to stun) --W.marsh 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
32. Support of course. Simply a wonderful editor and leaver of the kindest and most pleasant messages. Been waiting for this for a while - Peripitus (Talk) 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, really great candidate. This seems very inevitable and that my vote isn't necessary, but here it is. This week, Today's Star shines on Phaedriel. DVD+ R/W 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
34. Support; would that they were all this obvious. Superb user, likely to be a superb admin. Antandrus (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
35. Support(duh?) This nom was sort of obvious. αChimp ^laudare 04:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Should have been adminned a long time ago. Editor88 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per all above.. and below. G.He 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
38. Natural Support a wonderful person. I'm not sure but I remember reading something about her being a police officer(??), in which case it is only natural to accord her the badge and cuffs here. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Support A positive force. Tyrenius 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
40. Could we have WP:300 here? -- Samir धर्म 04:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    I hope so! — Deckiller 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

41. Bandwagon. There really should be a CRLF between support and oppose. --Golbez 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    Oh god, coding in Windows. ~ PseudoSudo 06:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

42. Strongest support ever. Obviously. 1ne 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. The most qualified candidate I have seen in many months. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
44. Yes. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
45. Unconditional full-blown 100% support. Oh, complete with you weren't one already? Mo0[talk] 05:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
46. Strong support looooooooong overdue! :p —Khoikhoi 05:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
47. Double edit conflict Support An excellent candidate for adminship and a great role model for admins-to-come.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
48. of course I support! Phaedriel's already an admin, she just needs us to give her the buttons. You can't ask for a nicer, more competent person as an admin, and quite frankly she's as nice a person as you're ever going to find. I'm predicting a little snow to fall on this discussion. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. ~ PseudoSudo 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
50. Suppport outstanding candidate. MLA 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
51. Saw this on RC Patrol and stopped dropped everything I was doing to support RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
52. Super Support Impossible not to... you'll do great :) --MasterEagle 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
53. Total and utter support - wouldn't have it any other way. Birthday in a matter of hours too! If the RfA is still unanimous tommorrow, we could end it and give her adminship for her birthday :) --Draicone ^(talk) 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
54. Strongest possible support (might have to do battle with some nominators for that title though) Wonderful user, kind to others, excellent editor, more like her please. She knows exactly what to do and how to do it. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 07:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)}
55. Support, definitely. --JoanneB 07:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
56. Support Excellent nomination. Nothing to say that hasn't already been said, and likely said better. Agent 86 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
57. ABSOLUTELY ^{2 edit conflicts later} Phaedriel is a shining beacon of light on the project, support without a milli, micro, nanoseconds thought - Glen 07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
58. Strong Support. Voice-of-All 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
59. Support: While help talk and image talk edits are low, portal talk edits are high enough to compensate. — Philwelch t 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
60. Support: candidate is exceptional. Stephen B Streater 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
61. Quickly support to avoid snowball support edit conflicts. DarthVader 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
62. Very strong support. Sharon is both a great editor as well as good natured and incredibly tolerant towards others. Not the least shred of doubt here. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
63. Support! I support you this much: |<------------>|. Isn't that a lot? :) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 08:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
64. Strongest Support I Can Ever Give Phaedriel is my idea of the perfect editor. Not only is she kind beyond compare, and have such a compasity for helping the community, her cotributions to this encyclopdia can not be over looked. The ammount of not only Native American and Oklahoman subjects she has given to us is amazing, as is Phaedriel as a person. She is one of our greatest. Thε Halo ^Θ 08:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
65. Strong support without question. Kind, intelligent, caring, and has integrity. She'll make a great admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
66. Strongest of supports Active editor, but also very active in the community and is pretty much the person that makes us all feel warm and fuzzy. Master of Puppets ^{Giant Enemy Crab!} 08:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
67. Kusma (討論) 08:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Lectonar 09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
69. Strong Support. I totlay support thiguy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterwats (talk • contribs).

    User's 5th edit. DarthVader 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

70. Support - Phaedriel is the totally perfect editor. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 09:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
71. Support longtime editor, nice to see the work on portal namespace. feydey 09:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
72. Support.  Grue  09:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
73. Well, duh. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
74. Strong Support per all above; I've seen nothing but great things from Phaedriel. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
75. All the novel strong supports are taken, so just strong support Wonderful in all senses of the wiki. If she's even half as good an admin as she is a friend, we're a very lucky community to have her on board. Sergeant Snopake 10:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
76. Support :) -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
77. This is ridiculous. Add me to the queue. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
78. Support Phaedriel is a natural admin candidate who will do nothing but improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
79. Support. Yeah :) Petros471 10:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
80. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:03, 28 July '06}
81. Strong support. Avenue 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
82. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
83. Gifted and spirited. No hesitation. El_C 11:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
84. Pepsidrinka supports. 11:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
85. Support for all your hard work and the comments you left on my talk page. Mostly Rainy 12:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
86. Strong support - per all of the above - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
87. A regular gal with a helluva resumé. Strong support. And her "Soundtrack of Wikipedians" idea is just awesome. JackLumber. 12:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
88. Indeed Support I'm num 86 yay. KOS | talk 12:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
89. Robert 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
90. Strong There isn't any cliches left Support Between the time I clicked on to this site and now, three people added their name to this list Jrcoga! 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
91. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-28 12:57Z
92. Support. I don't wish to appear to be bandwagon-hopping, but she really deserves adminship (90 supports in 10 hours is unbelievable by the way). Rje 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
93. Wow, excellent strong support.' A support from a fellow ex-Oklahoman (I lived in OKC for 8 years)--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
94. Strongest Possible Support This user is perhaps the most universally respected non-admin currently editing. She is consistently helpful and wise in her wikipedia activity. --rogerd 13:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
95. Strongest Possible Support per Rogerd. --Guinnog 13:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
96. Support - A pleasant user. Iolakana|^T 13:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
97. Support; with this much community involvement I'm rather surprised that we haven't interacted but hey, not everyone hangs out at FAC. An important member of the community and a strong proponent of Wikilove, which is key part of being an administrator. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
98. Support - Support - Support & Support...: It has come as news to me that she was not an administrator. I found her always caring for the Project, as also to the fellow-wikipedians. I am sure that she shall have an active role as an administrator. --Bhadani 13:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
99. Strong support. A very kind user. Will be a great admin. AnnH ♫ 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
100. Support. Seriously, how many users get this many noms? Dammit, I'm only number 99. Roy A.A. 14:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
101. Support per all the nice remarks above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
102. Emphatically support. Phaedriel is passionate about building and improving Wikipedia, and she is unfailingly kind in her dealings with other users. In terms of her technical skills, I'm sure that she will learn whatever she needs to know. Far harder to learn, in my opinion, are the people skills and overall good judgement that she already possesses in spades. --Tachikoma 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

     Let me add that I'm not questioning her technical knowledge, but the issue had been raised, and I was trying to address that in my vote. --Tachikoma 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

103. Super Strong Support Editor has the inside track for being the kindest Wikipedian ever! :) This will set the RfA record, and it should, because someone so sweet deserves recognition! Xoloz 15:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
104. Sublime Support for this sublime user. Hell yeah! --Alf ^melmac 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
105. Support, Wikilove notwithstanding, Phædrial represent all of what a good wikipedian should be. Technically savvy (see the plethora of userpages), well-versed in both articlespace and wikispace, and perhaps the single most delightful person with whom to interact herein wikipedia. Not to mention being endowed with an above average helping of common sense. She truly exhibits the traits we want in an administrator, not just a friend and a great person overall. -- Avi 15:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
106. Double plus good support The nicest Wikipedian I know; responsible, level-headed, great contributions, good answers to questions below. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
107. Oppose - too popular. Strong support - kind, considerate, lovely, civil, useful, beautiful user. Give her the mop already. —Celestianpower ^háblame 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
108. OKC Metro-Support Guettarda 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
109. Absolutely. Not that you need the support, but I thought I'd register mine. We haven't interacted directly much, but I've been very impressed with your work, attitude, and the respect others have in you. Keep it up! Triple edit conflicted support by the way. - Taxman ^Talk 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
110. Complete Support, many more like her please. Phaedriel has given many editors reasons to be proud of themselves, and now it is our turn to give her many reasons of being proud of herself. It is her understanding of other users that has made her so helpful to the project--I believe that there is at least a handful of users that decided to stay on wikipedia because of her encouragement. Phaedriel is the role model of civility and wikilove. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
111. Support - Uhh, she wasn't one already? Really? I could have sworn... Well typically if I have been going on the assumption that an editor was an admin already, they get a support vote. Syrthiss 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
112. Support. —freak(talk) 16:00, Jul. 28, 2006 (UTC)
113. Multiple-edit-conflict total support. You've never met an editor who you can trust more with the extra buttons. Sharon is a perfect Wikipedian on every level, needs and would make good use of the buttons and would be an excellent addition to The Cabal. And, it's about time she was was given they keys to the janitor's closet - we need her! ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
114. Strong Support Goes way beyond my standards. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
115. edit-conflict Support - wait, what? She's not already?! Wow. Excellent and positive editor, from the many times I've seen her in various arenas, should be a fine addition to the admin ranks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
116. Support sur roues !!!!!!!!! La meilleuse wikipedienne. And I know my french sucks. xD ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
117. SUPPORT WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE If there is a nicer Wikipedia less likely to abuse the tools I challenge anyone to find them. She's also super-kawaii! >^____^< - FrancisTyers · 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
118. Support model Wikipedian.--Dakota ~ 16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
119. Strongest Possible Support I Can Give. Wow, where to start. First off I'm shocked I haven't seen this already, but, well wow, she accepted! Phaedriel has to be, without a doubt, the nicest Wikipedian I've ever come across, and while niceness is not the #1 admin criteria, I believe it is a very important one. A kind, friendly, and helpful admin can only be a benefit to the encyclopedia, for sure. Secondly, Phaedriel is also competant, excellent with html (look at some of her userpages, mine among them), plenty of well-spaced edits, active Wikiproject participation and founding, and much more. Ok, I'm done. :) Support this brilliant candidate. -- Banes 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
120. Support He isn't one already? Total support! Viva La Vie Boheme 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

     Phaedriel's a she :) — Deckiller 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

121. Very Strong Support. Enough said. (↑ I thought this user was she?) -- Jared A. Hunt 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
122. Teke adds to the avalanche 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
123. Support with best wishes. Although I was saving this comment for my 3000th edit...instead I ended up welcoming John Hill6633 (talk • contribs • count) with it. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
124. Support. Highly respected and helpful user, with quite a large collection of barnstars and awards. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
125. Support no brainer. Joelito (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
126. Very strong Support highly helpful, polite, informed and experienced. JPotter 17:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
127. Support of course, fantastic editor, very surprised that she wasn't an sysop! - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
128. Support I don't usually vote in obvious landslides but this is someone who deserves to be in WP:200. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
129. (edit conflict) Strong support. I was not only sure that she was an admin, I was sure she was a good one, too. That is completely the truth. I postponed my wikibreak to support this user.Picaroon9288|ta co 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
130. Support, of course, per Thatcher, and inasmuch as I'm waiving by no admins from states below the Mason-Dixon line policy. Joe 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
131. Duh. — Vildricianus 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
132. Support - Really impressed with what the user has done. An amazing effect of spreading the wikilove. —Mirlen 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
133. Support wholeheartedly. I could go on with superlatives, but it is not needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
134. Support very strongly. Does great work AND goes out of her way to treat others with kindness. A role model for all of us -- even, or perhaps especially, those of us who have been here for a long time. — Catherine\^talk 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
135. Support Nothing to add that hasn't been covered above. TigerShark 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
136. Support --Jay(Reply) 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
137. Support An outstanding user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
138. Support Per the 136 supporters before me :) Thistheman 19:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
139. supportive gesture. DS 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
140. Support We need more people as nice as her on this planet. :-) bogdan 19:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
141. Support Even if only from distance, I'm still watching still the same pattern. Absolutelly kind and helpfull person. I only hope that the adminship will not affect her good mood. Good luck! Reo ^ON | +++ 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
142. Omg-she-wasn't-an-admin-already support Great user that you just bump into everywhere. Fredil Yupigo 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
143. Support how can I oppose the most civil user on the entire English Wikjipedia? -- Where 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
144. Support. Great portal work (and thanks again for my user page!).--ragesoss 21:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
145. Support Good user and editor. (although I do think one nomination per RFA should be enough)Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
146. Support Excellent contributer who makes the wiki a better place for all, and is a welcoming presence for those with questions, as admins are supposed to be. -M^ask 22:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
147. Support per all said above :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
148. Support--MONGO 22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
149. Strongest support imaginable. If there were only one single admin, it should be Sharon. —Nightstallion (?) 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
150. Strong support. At first I merely thought Phaedriel wrote well. Then I thought she was nice. Then I thought she was incredibly kind. Now I have grave suspicions that she is not human, since no one can be so pleasant, and yet get things done. In her private life she must secretly pinch babies or kick puppies or something to make up for it. Anyway, as so many wrote above, I have not yet met anyone that I would like better as an admin. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
151. Strong Support very active, very civil, and very good contributions.--Jersey Devil 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
152. ~ Encephalon 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
153. Great Wikipedian. Jkelly 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Change to oppose over image issues. Jkelly 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
154. Strong support, just about the only instance where pile-on voting is warranted. Kuru ^talk 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
155. Well, this one looks close, guys, so I'd better get my support in there to make sure it passes. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
156. Support, of course. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
157. Support. I'm not sure if you need admin tools, but you certainly deserve them. Great work, keep it up! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
158. Strong Support, its way overdue. Good editor and will make an excellent administrator. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
159. A sick Tdxiang support!- I'm sick. but I'll support Sharon. Now time to take a rest...--Tdxiang 04:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
160. Enthusiatic Support - I've been a Phaedriel Fan since before I even registered on WP. Being able to support her for Admin gives me a warm fuzzy glow. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
161. I guess support... ;) -- I thought I'd leave Phaedriel hang before she knew if I'd support or not. I'm only supporting anyway cause she's a cop & I want some "favours"... ;). Plus I want her to get to 200 votes.... Spawn Man 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
162. Strongest support possible and then some: Phaedriel is without a doubt one of the kindest and most level-headed editors here on wikipedia. We need more administrators who really care about the editors here, and Phaedriel will be one of them. I've been waiting for this nomination for a while now. The Ungovernable Force 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
163. No question from my mind, support. I need more people like her on the admin team. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
164. Incredibly strong support - an amazing editor Michael 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
165. Strong support. While most of what I could say has already been said, I have to reply to Ligulem's comment. While the technical side of Wikipedia's administration is clearly important (as I'm beginning to pick up PHP so I can actually code some bugs out of existence and not be limited to reporting them), it is not the only thing that requires attention, and not working on it should not be something that should be held against a particular nominee. There's much more to adminship than a few buttons: remember that you're becoming one of the public faces of a Top-20 website, and your actions may be the examples new users look upon. Certainly, Phaedriel here is one of the editors who I would certainly look at as how the ideal comminity user should be, and adminship would just make her spotless behavior more prominent as the ideal example I mentioned. Even in this case, she has demonstrated quite good grasp of the technical side of Wiki, so I can't hold that against her. In a way, she is precluded from working on the MediaWiki namespace, where her design abilities would be most beneficial, because she still doesn't have the mop and the flamethrower; either way, I would trust her with both. Add one to the tally from here. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
166. Jump on the bandwagon Support per the >hundred people above me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs).
167. A jar of iguanas Support -- Simply positively stupendous. Greatly jaw-dropping double-thumbs-up doubleplusgood. Absolutely terrific completely and totally delicious. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
168. Support, definitely overdue. Leithp 09:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
169. Support a role model. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

     Support a role model indeed. :) Dlohcierekim 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

     Reluctant switch to neutral per User:Kevin Breitenstein

170. Strong support. I can't think of a better candidate for adminship than Sharon. Sango123 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
171. Strong Support — Probably as deserving as any candidate has yet been. Though I've never personally had... well, any discussion with this user, I've observed a good deal of kindness and friendliness on her part, as well as an eagerness to help out others. She certainly meets all possible criteria for the position. Do the encyclopedia a favor and make it official. Ryu Kaze 17:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
172. Strongest Support. Angel Lion King 17:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
173. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
174. Complete support without qualm, hesitation, or extra adjective: The good part of not checking RFA often is not getting into more arguments. The bad side is missing when someone thoroughly pleasant, judicious, careful, and thoughtful like Phaedriel gets nominated. I'm sorry I'm so late. Geogre 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
175. Support. http://www.wikipedia–watch.org/hive2.html#299 (don't click, it seems to be on our spam blacklist so I had to improvise...how lame is that?) —thought she was already... Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
176. Support JoshuaZ 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
177. My Strongest Support ever, Sharon is living proof that Angels do walk among us. Sharon is wonderful, she is the type of person that makes you realize that there are better days ahead of us. There's no other like Sharon. Tony the Marine 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
178. Strongest possible support per Geogre. She is the nicest person I have met here, bar none; and I've seen her around a lot. I am really surprised that she is not an admin yet. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
179. Support The co-nominations are excessive, no doubt, but I see no logical reason find an aversion to "wikilove", unless it has shown an inability to deal with vandals, which it has not. Seems like a very intelligent and talented editor. Congratulations. AdamBiswanger1 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
180. Complete Support 100% cannot be changed no matter what Great member who is very sweet and nice, and really deserves this honor! Karrmann 02:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
181. Support. Seems like a competent, friendly person and an ideal admin (and possibly future arbitrator).--Eloquence* 03:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
182. Overwhelming support. Nightstallion said it: if Wikipedia had only one admin, it would need to be Sharon. (Now here's for bureaucratship!) ;) The one and only Cliff 03:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
183. Support; an exemplar of a Wikipedia editor. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
184. Support - Sometime back, When I landed on her talkpage to make an offer about nomming her for rfa, I saw many users already do so. --Gurubrahma 06:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
185. Support No additional commentary is needed other than to say that Phaedriel is an outstanding editor and one of the kindest, caring people here. I wish her well with the mop and bucket. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
186. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
187. Support never have I seen so many nominations for one RfA!! Seivad 12:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
188. Support per the gushing but true praise of Tony the Marine. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
189. Support with a big smile, she is such a lovely contributor. -- Natalya 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
190. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 16:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
191. Support with absolutely no hesitation whatsoever. I know it's a cliche, but how come Phaedriel is not an admin already?!?! Just zis Guy you know? 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
192. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
193. Support She's a cutie pie. :-) Attic Owl 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
194. Support. Not really necessary according to the overwhelming count, but since I'm here... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
195. Strong support per all of the above. You just need 5 4 more supports and Welcome to WP:200 hope you make it there —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 20:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

     This would be only the second RfA to meet WP:200. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

     Duplicate vote...Minun already supported at #170. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

     Oops, I didn't notice —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

     I have removed my old comment, so this should be the one that counts, cheers —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

196. Strong support. A class act: mature and elegant. Bucketsofg✐ 21:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
197. Support. The force is strong in this one. bd2412 T 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
198. Support. I've never seen this user before in my two and a half years of editing, but she's got 197 supports, and she's pretty, so what the hell. Oh yeah, and I just looked at her edits and they're really really really good. Seriously, I did. Consensus rules! BillyH 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
199. Support for a candidate with eight nominators and a ninth attempted and the start of a new page, WP:200, and possibly the best record I have seen on RfA. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

     Apologies to Can't sleep, clown will eat me, this is the second RfA on WP:200.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

200. WP:200 Cleared for adminship :) Congratulations Sharon, there is no one more deserving of this than you. No sense in repeating what has been said above, but your interactions with the Wikipedia community before your membership here is now paying off. Best of luck to you, you are an inspiration to us all. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
201. Support! Would you please help me finish this bottle of champagne? 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
202. This page is nearly 100kb long support!! Well deserved. --james^(talk) 05:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
203. Support - Richardcavell 05:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
204. Support - Bharatveer 10:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
205. Support - How is she not already? I understand the reasons behind Ligulem's 'neutral' vote, but I think we need admins who can deal with conflict without being nasty even more than we need admins who understand the technical side of things. I've been on the other side of disagreements with Phaedriel a few times (similar to the situation 'Shannon' describes - though I'm unfamiliar with that one), but never found her to be anything but pleasant. Would it be better if she could also do PHP programming and complicated template work, always considered and attempted to address not just the mistakes of angry new users but also the mistakes of admins she respects, knew every facet of copyright law and image tagging by heart, and could walk on water? Yes, but perhaps we are then setting our standards a bit too high. --CBD 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
206. Support. Oops, I knew you guys would get the 200 spot while I was sleeping! This is one of my biggest cliches ever. I see that admins on the tech side are good for wikipedia, but an admin that is sensible and kind could do a lot for the community (yes, specifically for the community and it's numerous conflicts). fetofs ^Hello! 12:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
207. Support. I'd feel silly if I didnt slap my signature to this. Congrats on the adminship! SynergeticMaggot 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
208. Next stop, WP:300. Misza13 ^{T C} 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
209. Strong Support Nicest and most friendly person on Wikipedia. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
210. Absolutely. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
211. Is It Too Late To Co-Co Nominate? Support! Besides being a great editor, combines good judgement and good humor with an uncanny ability to spread Wikilove and good will. In short, just what the Cabal is in dire need of now-A good cop who is also a community builder.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
212. Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Support - I'm great supporter of the truth, and I don't like women in socks. --Eliade 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
213. Hell. You're not an admin already? How did I miss that? Enjoy the mop, and may you avoid the despair and frustration it too often brings. Dragons flight 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
214. Support of course. LotLE×talk 19:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
215. Support, without any reservations. Accurizer 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
216. Support. --TantalumTelluride 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
217. Support We need more admins such as Phaedriel. Deli nk 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
218. She is the very model of a modern wikipedian. --Zoz (t) 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
219. Support - this is the sort of guys we need.--Aldux 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

     Or, in this case, girls... ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

220. Strong Support I thought she already was an admin.  :-) Eluchil404 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
221. Support. All the metrics I might mention have already been covered above, so I'll just say that her user page is an oasis. - BT 00:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
222. I'd normally oppose someone who already does this much good work for adminship. But I do love a bandwagon. Beautiful editor, warm and comapssionate and has demonstrated that she's got stones, too. Great with the wiki-markup, not afraid to say what she feels... but if her non-admin efforts suffer for having the mop, I'll raise and RfC quick as a rat up a drain pipe. - brenneman ^{L} 01:32, 1 August 2006
223. Support from me also. I only hope that sysop responsibilities don't take the edge off her wikilove campaign. -- I@n 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
224. 225th Strong support... This is unbelievable... Grandmasterka 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
225. Support. As I said in my rant (which I removed from the neutral section, you can read it on the talk page if you want, somone else copied it there): It has nothing to do with Phaedriel. It's true. I was proving a point by abusing this landslide election as a platform for my rant. I'm an idiot. Apologies. Seeing how she behaves during this election session is truely impressive. --Ligulem 07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
226. Strong Support. A little late, this one. Sharon had asked me to conom, but it went live without me. Then I was holding out for #200 but missed it. Sharon has done great work with her WikiProject and portal. She's also done more than probably anyone to foster a sense of community here. I have absolutely no hesitation at all in handing her the mop. --kingboyk 11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
227. Support. Best answers I've read in a long time. Haukur 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
228. Support. Wonderful Wikipedian Weird Bird 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
229. Strong Support with pleasure. probably one of the best noms wikipedia has ever seen. Stubbleboy 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
230. Support My pleasure. Blinking Spirit 17:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
231. Strongest Support Here I first came across her looking at the recent changes and came across her Wiki Soundtrack, and I LOVED THE IDEA. I have watched her super quality edits, she is so nice that I added her to User:Kitia/Friends. Of that list, Mangojuice is already an admin, Computerjoe rejecte, and I will probably put Abdullah Geelah up in the future. I don't care wheather she is a sock of a banned user, she deserves my support. I would rather have her an admin than myself. --Kitia

     Kitia, I think you misunderstand. It isn't Phaedriel that is accused of being a sockpuppet, it is one of the oppose votes below --rogerd 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

232. Support. I know it's a pileon at this point, but seems eminently suited for adminship. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
233. Support. --CharlotteWebb 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
234. Support, wonderful user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
235. Support Even though the support column reads in part like some users mistook it for Wikipedia:Requests for a Date, but reading the responses by the nominee it seems like she is very aware of her limitations and will use the tools judiciously. ~ trialsanderrors 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

     Someone redirected that to Lar's userpage, mwa ha ha. — Deckiller 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

     Yes, some wanker certainly did, but I've redirected it to a more appropriate place. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

236. Support - Whoever has such wide support from such an intelligent community, deserves my vote. I've seen your work, keep it up! --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
237. Of Course Supporting this user is a no brainer. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
238. Support Glad I got here in time! - Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
     
239. The reminder... (yes, this is a support :p) Sharon, please try to improve on your situation under oppose and you shall no doubt be a truely great administrator. But even with your situation below, I can't help but to support. I don't have a doubt in my mind that Sharon would be a great admin. I'll even go out on a limb and say she is the most deserving person on Wikipedia for adminship. Sharon is a great contributor, excellent friend, and she has the time and dedication that goes along the responsibilities of being an administrator. She will absolutly not abuse the administrator tools and I think we can establish that she made her presence felt in the community by the number of voters at her RFA. I believe she's the greatest practitioner of WP:LOVE of all time, she's always been there for me and she was the reason I came back to Wikipedia in June. ♥ Sharon, you are a truely amazing human being, a great friend and a general, all-around saint. I sincerely hope you enjoy your time with your new tools. Now, shoot for WP:300. Your friend forever — Moe Epsilon 05:35 August 02 '06
240. Support - Strong positive contributor on many levels, highly valuable to WP. Georgewilliamherbert 06:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
241. Of course. This support is merely a drop in the bucket, and normally I wouldn't bother, but Phaedriel certainly has my support and confidence. She is definitely among those I admire for strength and courage (and overall kindness :]) and I think she'd handle adminship exceptionally well. Best of luck! --Keitei (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
242. Support Of course. Carmelapple 14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
243. Support User is very kind. Grassland T/ C
244. Support Will make a very good sysop. RainbowSwirl

     User only has three edits Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

     And as such is eligible to participate. You can comment on a vote, but please don't strike one out unless you have evidence of sockpuppetry. - Taxman ^Talk 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

245. Strong Support Don't know this user. Just looked over her contributions and talkpages and userpages. She is very kind. VanM
246. Strong Support User is very kind, knowledgeable, uses good edit summaries etc. She will make a very good admin. QuarterZ | *t* | *c 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
247. Very Strong Support I am going to nominate her for Bureaucrat if she wants it. If we had 1000 Phaedriels on this planet, there would be world peace. I am honored to know her and vote for her. Karmafist 18:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
248. We just beat CSCWEM Support. Kind, courteous, etc. per everyone else. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

     And that's it-Phaedriel now has the record. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

249. Dammit Support I was shooting to be the record breaker, which is why this is such a late pile-on. Thought she was one and all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

     Phaedriel is emphatically (and gloriously, vive le difference!) a she. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

     Vive la difference, if you please! :) --Guinnog 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

250. Support per nom. above. Great Wikipedia editor! -- ADNghiem501 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
251. not just pile on Support, everything looks fantastic here. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
252. Support Fantastic editor. She would be the model administrator. --DavidHOzAu 02:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
253. Support. Phaedriel is one of a rare breed of Wikipedia editor who is capable of being both affable and practical in terms of ensuring a better editing environment, and carrying on our principal goal of writing an encyclopaedia. I have always seen her to be extremely helpful and considerate in dialogue, and to have excellent judgement on matters relating to encyclopaedia editing. As such, I believe that Phaedriel, without a doubt, shall be an ideal admin. Keep up the excellent work, Phaedriel! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
254. Extreme HyperLesbian With Three Cherries On Top NPOV WP:OFFICE Verifiability NOR The Jimmy The Danny and the Holy Erik Moeller Support On Wheels Is Communism Squidward and every other prolific vandal you can think of I Won't Take No For An Answer!!!!! - See my nomination above. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

     Why did I have lesbian pile-ons for my RfA? Life is so unfair for us men sometimes... ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

255. Very Strong Support, Phaedriel, in my opinion is one of the absolute best Wikipedians of all time. There are only a small handful of other Wikipedians that are comparable to her. Though she may have only ~5150 edits, she is kind and hardworking and definetly deserves the "mop." --Evan Robidoux 03:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
256. Support based on her user page's self-portrait alone. Anomo 05:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
257. Support clean record, extensive history with wikipedia, and judging from the other support votes, already extensive community support -- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
258. Support per bandwagon. Besides, this nomination comes with impeccable credentials in every way. Metamagician3000 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
259. Very strong support. No reason to explain- the nom, answers to questions, and other votes say it all. --Gray Porpoise 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
260. Support --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
261. Support Good character, seems very dedicated to the project. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
262. Support (another edit conflict!) - Phaedriel is a kind user (though we've never actually chatted, she said some very nice things about me to my boyfriend) and although I do worry that she may be unable to be "mean" enough to block a user and share a smidgen of the concerns below, I do think she'll make a good admin. Srose (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
263. Support truly deserves adminship.--Húsönd 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
264. Support per noms, and the fact that I was about to tell Tango how his bot was clearly counting wrong... BryanG^(talk) 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
265. Support. August 4th support, the eighth and final day. It feels like the end of an era. NoSeptember 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
266. Support. I just read your user page on Wikilove, and am already eminently convinced that you are exactly the sort of person who deserves unfettered access to the technical innards of our encyclopedia. Hopefully this will be just enough to push you over the edge.--BigCow 00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
267. Support (Not that it was needed.) I might be the only person on WP who has never dealt with this user; with that said, I'm not just incredibly impressed with her editing prowess, expertise, and answers to the questions posed, but I'm really quite touched by the outpouring of support for her by the many co-nominators. -- Kicking222 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
268. Support No Kicking222, I've never dealt with her either. But even after just a brief look at her contributions page, it seems quite clear that she has made some awesome contributions and that she deserves administrator status. --Nebular110 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
269. Support!!! O my God. How could I not have known? I wanted to co-co-co-co-co-nominate too :( Words cannot express Phaedriel's qualities, so I won't even try. Love u, you make Wikipedia worthwhile, and you'll make an exceptional admin. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
270. Support Meets --Wisden17 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC) my criteria.
271. Support. Every time I've crossed her path has been a positive experience. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose (struck comment, this user is an obvious sock of indefintely band banned User:Thewolfstar and has been blocked. We don't consider comments from banned users whose presence is not desired here. See this AN/I thread and others on WP:AN/I for more detail. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate the effort but I can't honestly say that I approve of the answers. Your answer to my first question included this "I'd try to talk one on one with that newcomer to understand what the concerns are, and try to mediate in order to canalize the energies that would otherwise be wasted in a dispute into a positive result." That sounds okay except for one thing.

• That statement assumes that the newcomer is the one that needs talking to. From what I've seen it's frequently the other way round. A group of more seasoned editors harass a newcomer, or anyone who dissents the opinion of a group of editors at an article, an admin steps in, does not review the situation thoroughly, and then proceeds to put a block on the newcomer or just threatens the newcomer or continue the harassment of the seasoned editors.
• I see that much more often than not. I see that because that's what's there. This discouraging of editing, to put it mildly, of newcomers, and those who often try to round out an artilcle to make it more neutral, clearly goes against Wikipedia's Policy and Guidelines: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and in most groups it's considered rude and unkind. Kindness and civility includes much more than just a superficial display of it. It also goes against the Wikipedia:Harassment policy.

I also find this statement, "In the end, and sadly, it was impossible to turn any of these newcomers into Wikipedians; but at least, I know I tried my best.", objectionable as hell. They already were Wikipedians and they had some legitimate defenses of keeping this article. Did I care for the topic personally? No. But I find this just as sickening, personally SCUM Manifesto. The reason for deleting it based on lack of notablility didn't cut it either as per the number of insignificant articles there are on Wikipedia and other generally dumb articles in existence..plenty.

The example you gave of talking to a newcomer was this:

Delete, per nom and Merovingian's research. Re. your questions, Osmod, I believe that any sort of independent, non-related mention is in order here, and in reasonable quantity as to establish notability enough to warrant the existence of this article. Side note: attacking users and posting his picture at the site in question is definetely out of place. I strongly urge the person(s) responsible for this webpage to remove it immediately, please. Thank you. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any policy concerning posting a picture of a Wikipedian on another non-Wikipedian website. Can you point me to this policy? Thanks. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page. Also, one vote by an anon moved to comments. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason my comments and responses to them were moved to the talk page. I still would like an answer to my question:

A general question is still where is this policy concerning off-the-wiki text or pictures or whatever? I was pointed to a couple of brief references to this topic but can someone point me to the actual vote and consensus that was reached concerning this issue? Thanks. Shannon^{duck talk} 23:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved your comments because the talk page is where in depth discussions belong. I'm not sure to exactly what you referring, but general policy questions can be asked at the Village Pump. Someone there should be able to help you out. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that User:Lingeron (the actual username of the user who commented) is currently strongly suspected of being a sock of banned user Thewolfwtar (talk • contribs • count) Should this be confirmed the comment will be stricken. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Lingeron has been indefblocked for aforementioned sockpuppetry. Strike pls? 207.145.133.34 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Struck. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Phaedriel's open letter to Brandt is mushy and wacky, and shows no familiarity whatsoever with the ethical standards expected from professional journalists such as Katefan0. Moreover, it was posted on the Talk page of Brandt's biography, which was inappropriate. Clearly it was an effort to influence his biography in a hostile direction. And even on this page, Phaedriel is pumping it for sympathy. This may sound like Wikilove to Phaedriel's supporters, but it looks like POV-pushing and manipulation to me. Talleyho 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of striking this vote due to consent that it is from a banned editor...see comments at AN/I--MONGO 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User's 9th edit, and first in two weeks. All edits to Brandt-related articles. Username is "talleyho", a mockery of a common phrase used on RfAs. I recommend this vote be stricken to avoid making this RfA look tainted. — Deckiller 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Phaedriel is obviously an extraordinary editor and person and that is actually why I am opposing. I do not doubt her competence or trustworthiness at all (I'd be crazy to), but I do wonder how becoming an admin will compromise those traits that have made her, rightfully, the only Wikipedian that has her own fan club. The fact that she is using a reduced version of her lovely signature on this page (so as not to disturb the signature police, maybe?) somewhat worries me in this regard. Phaedriel has demonstrated herself as being capable of so much, both from an editing standpoint with her portals and wikiproject she has started, to her incredible interpersonal skills. I just think, with all that, why bog her down with the tedious and menial tasks of adminship that will occupy her attention and divert her from the truly great things she can offer the project? I really believe that if a user like Phaedriel is going to contribute to the "greater good" here at Wikipedia, it's not going to have much to do with her protecting pages, deleting vanity pages, and applying blocks to vandals -- she has advanced far beyond that. Furthermore half of "adminship" is really about the elevated status you receive. Phaedriel, as an ordinary editor, has achieved a level of community acceptance and respect that far surpasses what the "admin" label affords, so it's not as though the passing of this RfA will change anything in that regard. Besides, it's always really nice, especially as a non-admin and probably for new users as well, to see that a non-admin can carry just the same "weight" around here (if not more) that an admin does. Finally, before I get a barrage of angry comments, obviously this preceding comment is made with the full recognition that this RfA will pass by a record-setting landslide and my intention is not to hinder that with this vote - just adding my two cents as the process permits and encourages. — GT 10:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   A barrage of angry comments? You asked for it buddy! You're such a....just kidding ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 10:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   Grr! Mad reply! Terse comment! ...you're sure that's an oppose, right? 207.145.133.34 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (User:Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Image issues. Kotepho 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   A terse comment indeed!! -- Lost^(talk) 19:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   Kotepho, could you please expand on what you mean? Thε Halo ^Θ 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   A number of her image uploads have obviously wrong licensing tags, lack sources, etc. Kotepho 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you for your reply. I thought for a second that it might be that you didn't like the way she did her hair or something ;) Is it possible to change you mind? Thε Halo ^Θ 23:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   (after edit conflict) Could you please be more specific? I've taken the liberty of going through the relevant upload log [10], and I find no reason for alarm. The images generally *do* list their sources and their copyright tags look ok. Many images simply fall into PD-old due to their age, and others fall into PD due to their date of first publication. A few images (colour samples) are tagged as GFDL and based on an Cc-by-2.0 image [11], but the original author is properly attributed, so I believe that is ok as well. I've found a few problems back in the uploads from December / January; two images (Billy the Kid [12] and a US politician ([13] lacking sources, but both are clearly PD as they are photos of persons who died around 1880. I did find an image of Josef Mengele [14] incorrectly tagged as PD but to me these examples look like a few mistakes made by a beginner. I think quite a lot of us could plead guilty to having made few of those, one way or the other. :) Valentinian ^(talk) 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   • Image:Blue-star.gif tagged CopyrightedFreeUse, but the license from the site only mentioned reproduction and requires attribution. Probably should be CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|Attribution and no dervis, and is thus unfree. We can't find someone to draw a picture of a star that is actually free? Not used in an article.
   • Image:Kevrichardson.jpg Tagged as a promo photo, but it looks like a scan of a magazine or something. Source is a blog?
   • Image:Twogunhart.gif Source is a random website, source says it was taken in the '20s, but the description says 1920. Doesn't say who the photographer is, when/if it was published, when the photographer died, etc. The claim of PD-US seems to just be a guess.
   • Image:Unclesamwantyou2.jpg Listed as PD-USGov-Mil, but AFIAK Flagg wasn't a US gov employee. Likely published before 1923, so PD-US would be fine probably. Commons also has this as PD-USGov-Mil, if someone does figure out what it really is.
   • Image:Meeker.jpg Had no source, still really doesn't. We have a source that says it is from LoC, but LoC has things that are copyrighted still. Likely public domain, but cannot be certain. The subjects's age is only of tagential relevance.
   • The Langs_N derivs are arguably gfdl because the author uploaded it, but that they are also cc-by-2.0 so that people know they can reuse it without the horrible monster that is the gfdl
   • Image:Mengeleold.jpg Was listed as PD, says it is the subject in 1971. No reason to believe it is public domain.
   • Image:Shffbadge.jpg No source, just PD.
   • Image:OklahomaCityPolice.jpg PD-USGov, but why would the federal government be designing patches for a city police department?
   • ...

   Kotepho 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Also note that photographs become public domain under {{PD-old}} when the photographer (the "author") died before 1906, not the subject. Kimchi.sg 09:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   According to {{PD-US}}, materials published in the United States before 1 January 1923 are normally PD under U.S. juristiction (and definitely if published before 1909), see Wikipedia:Public_domain#Footnotes. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   (resetting indent) You did say "two images... are clearly PD as they are photos of persons who died around 1880", implying if the subject died in 1880, any photographs of them would become automatically PD. That cannot be assumed. The photograph might have been taken before 1880, but published after 1923. Kimchi.sg 11:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   That is indeed possible, but it seems unlikely. Billy the Kid was a very public figure and the photo is listed as the only photo of him, so the original would have been very valuable back then. Furthermore the article about him states that this photo is the reason for a common belief that he was left handed, and Paulita Maxwell who died in 1929 critizised the image [15][16] The incident in which Meeker was killed caused an outrage in Colorado, so it would seem logical that the editor of at least 1 newspaper would chose to print his picture, but information on the latter image is more sketchy than on the former. Valentinian ^(talk) 12:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Kotepho. Improperly tagged images indicate lack of understanding of copyright policy. Although Image:OklahomaCityPolice.jpg, Image:Shffbadge.jpg, Image:Mengeleold.jpg, Image:Meeker.jpg, Image:Unclesamwantyou2.jpg, Image:Twogunhart.gif, and Image:Kevrichardson.jpg were uploaded in the period from December 2005 to February 2006, Image:Blue-star.gif was uploaded last month (June 14), so I cannot excuse this as newbie ignorance. Kimchi.sg 09:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose due to image issues above, with regret. Jkelly 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I'm comfortable with the commitment to brushing up on image policy. Jkelly 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   Please, if you don't mind, I'd wish to address these concerns. Like Valentinian and Kimchi have correctly expressed, almost the entirety of the images mentioned by Kotepho (out of around 100) were uploaded by me at the beginning of my wiki-life. You may have noticed that I've always tried to provide a source, and never left the tag space empty; I swear, I've never taken the matter lightly. The only recent image where I obviously messed up was with the Star one, which I never intended to use in articles, but in my "Today Star" campaign to award and cheer up other editors. I've contacted both Kimchi and Jkelly and I have compromised with them, as I commit myself here, not to take a single step in that direction without consulting with them first. I don't intend to participate in image-related chores, at least not until I learn more, so I apologize for that mistake, and I promise to be ultra super careful in the future. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 22:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

4. 1FA :-S -- Миборовский 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   1 FA isn't a reason to oppose anyone, and she does meet it anyways with her featured portals Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   How is it not a reason? That's your own opinion. With 211/5/4 this RFA is a foregone conclusion.

   Anyway. One. Featured. Article. :) I have my own standards, different from Mailer diablo's. But to borrow what he said: Please do not take it personally I have opposed you under this criterion, especially if it turns out to be that odd vote in the RfA. This is done in good faith, and Mailer Diablo wishes all the best to all RfA candidates regardless of outcome. Sorry, my oppose vote remains. -- Миборовский 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

   • Further discussion moved to talk page. (it was getting a little long ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 12:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Phaedriel's comment above. Phaedriel says she never intended to use the star image in articles; only in userspace. That's completely the opposite approach. Userspace should be held to an even higher image standard. A great user otherwise, and I know your adminship will pass, but it's important for admins to know image rules (at least to some degree). Ral315 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Do you think she won't learn them, and soon? I do. She's said she would which is good enough for me. Holding future admins to a "must be perfect in advance" standard doesn't seem reasonable to me. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   I don't hold them to a "must be perfect" standard, but with a history of bad uploads, simply "I'll learn" doesn't do much. Ral315 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Per the (as of now) 257 supports, you mean? Wonder what you know that they don't? Or maybe... it's what THEY know that you haven't figured out yet... ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Questioning / joking about an oppose vote in a 257-6 RfA is not necessary. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Opposing a 257-6 RfA for basically no reason (by an inverterate opposer, so inverterate that many wonder if it's just WP:POINT-ism on his part) is what isn't necessary, in my view. But then, I'm biased. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   The exact same view could be applied to anyone who supported after the sixty or so support votes were already cast, so it's probably safe to say that most everyone who participated in this RfA had a valid reason for doing so hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Wwell, no, not exactly the exact same reasoning. And I agree that most participants have a valid reason for doing so. But that's not to say that I think all of them do. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   You all know how reluctant I am to comment Oppose and Neutral opinions on my own RfA, but I think must do so here. Dear Lar, I've said this at the talk page, and I'll repeat it here: everyone should voice the opinion they are inclined to, and I'm happy with that. If Masssiveego usually opposes most people's RfAs, I'm sure he must have his reasons, so I prefer to accept it and leave the matter be. Can we accept his position and leave him be... please? Phaedriel 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Well, while some could consider opposes to every RFA a violation of WP:POINT, at the same time, it's not arguing if this user is going to oppose every RfA anyway. — Deckiller 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. neutral per ligulem. Too much wiki love. Certainly i would not oppose based on this and love is great and all, but smooshing, hugs and kisses to an extreme start to get us a little off track from the goals here. Love the portals though. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   Readers can find my original rant on the talk page. I removed it from the neutral section and changed to support. See above. --Ligulem 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral Phaedriel seems like a very nice person. Six co-nominators and 148 supporters agree on that point. But there's a little too much "happy fluffy bunnies in meadows under rainbows" for me. (As an aside, I'm not sure Ligulem's technical point totally applies here - Phaedriel's very nicely designed portals suggest good knowledge of wiki-markup, at least - but in general, I agree 100%.) Also, a quite minor point, but the "dear so-and-so" affectation in writing just sounds odd to me.

   The above was me, I got distracted and forgot to sign. Opabinia regalis 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   Hmmm, I've seen reluctance in the past to support RfA's based on incivil behavior, but not for the candidate being excesively civil. LOL. :) Dlohcierekim

3. Neutral. Two things, and obviously neither is a very popular opinion. I'm not exactly sure why Phaedriel wants to have all co-nominations approved by her first, and I don't know why she might be picking and choosing among them. Considering there are six or so co-nominations, I can't see this nomination suffering from over-co-nomination simply due to the addition of one more; an explanation wouldn't hurt. Secondly, I love the nominee's userpage as much as a lot of users here do, but I have but one issue with it, and that's the section labelled "Being Indian Is ...". I'm slightly worried about POV pushing, or even the appearance of POV pushing, on related topics, for much the same reason that a number of users here opposed a recent RfA candidate due to religious views expressed on his userpage. I'm eagerly looking forward to being able to move this to the support column. theProject 22:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   You say "I'm eagerly looking forward to being able to move this to the support column." Does this mean you are up for being convinced to support Pheadriel? Thε Halo ^Θ 23:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   Dear theProject, I solemnly swear that at no time I have requested that any co-noms were authorized by me, as everyone who has been so kind to co-nominate me can attest. You must of course be referring to 1ne's concern that his kind co-nom was somehow not authorized by me; I completely assure you this was but a small misunderstanding between him and Lar, that's all, and my message to 1ne is nothing but a light hearted comment in that sense. I am indescribably happy to be worthy of a co-nomination, and if I could, I'd like every wikipedian to throw in one, because such a measure of trust can only be a flattery to me. All this, I tell you from the heart.Phaedriel 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   I'd like to interject here... Phaedriel has had a LOT of people wanting to nominate her as many of you know. Knowing that people do sometimes ding, or even oppose, for it, some of us counseled her not to have too many. Johntex, Blnguyen and I were chosen but others could have been. In the flurry when it went live, other people started adding co-noms. This is a relatively recent thing, I think, I first saw it only a few nominations ago (although I could be misremembering). Rather than start removing them, I thought it better to make it clear which ones were added on after the nomination went live, in order to possibly reduce the number of people that have issues with the practice. My wording choice may not have been the best, which I regret. But the intent was to both adhere to the norm of not having a lot and yet, not suppress those who honestly just wanted to show their support in a way more than just commenting support. Blame it on me if you must, but please don't blame the candidate. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Regarding that section at my userpage: it is only meant to express the thoughts that, as a member of an ethnic minority, sometimes cross my mind due to real life difficulties and concerns. You may notice tho, that it's not a one sided view in any way. It alludes ideas regarding both White and Native American people, without speaking badly nor diminishing either group in general, but things that make me sad in my everyday life in my dealings with certain specific members of either group. As I say, this in no way is limited to interaction with White people, but with other Native Americans as well; for example, please see my opinion on this AfD debate and here. I understand your concerns regarding possible POV pushing, but I'd simply like to point at my contributions as means of putting your mind at rest. Last but not least, whenever I try to write something that could be even remotely controversial, like Indian wars, I always ask for input in order to be 100% sure I'm not inadvertently crossing the NPOV line. If you need any further clarification, I'd be more than happy to help. Warm regards, Phaedriel 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Neutral Because of aforementioned image copyright issues. I can see people making fair use mistakes, but I do not like PD and GFDL mistakes that are recent. Though I cannot oppose as this is a good candidate. Please better yourself with some research into copyrights on wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Reluctant switch to neutral per User:Kevin Breitenstein :) Dlohcierekim 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral, inclined to oppose. Unless we have working deadminship procedures and the issue of admin responsibility is not resolved, promotion of new admins poses a threat to hard-working editors. We need to sort out existing admins before recruiting new ones. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please leave the section breaks in this nomination, they are there for a reason, they make edit conflicts less of a problem on high traffic pages. (which this one is). note also that some of the co nominators who have chosen to add themselves (I've added a section break so it is clear which those are) were not approved by Phaedriel in advance. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think doing that has broken Dragon's Flight's RfA counting tool, not just for this nom but for all current noms. Its expecting to see one nomination section and can't parse the multiple sections. Gwernol 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Section_Breaks... at least one bot has been changed to handle it, but consensus there seems to be starting to shade towards this not being a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoopydink and I are changing them back. ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This RfA is currently the sixth most supported RfA of all time, at 148 support votes. It's currently just under 100 votes below the most supported RfA of all time, which was Can't sleep, clown will eat me's at 246 votes. Congratulations, Phaedriel! :) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 00:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: now the fifth most supported, and only two users short of fourth. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 04:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Who gets to add the 'RFA: Phaedriel beat your record :D' to CSCWEM's talk page :D --Draicone ^(talk) 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

      Update: Fourth most supported, only two supports from AmiDaniel's! --Draicone ^(talk) 10:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

      • This RfA is now the third most supported ever, equal with AmiDaniel. :O RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Does this have any bearing on whether someone should vote for or against? —Centrx→talk • 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't think it has much of any bearing on whether someone should support or oppose at all. (unless you like helping set records I guess?) But Randy clearly is enthused about it and wants to share his exuberance... mostly harmless I'd say. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I saw a bit of fun in keeping track of this RfA's success, as was done at CSCWEM's. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
              • #2 now, need 61 to tie CSCWEM. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (reset indent) Now 41 to go, at 205:246 (P:CSCWEM). --Draicone ^(talk) 11:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Currently tied with CSCWEM at 246 votes, with 2 more days left in the voting period. --Tachikoma 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • We've officially beaten CSCWEM's record! Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • "We"? I was under the impression that the candidate got credit for that. Or are you saying that you're part of a secret campaign team sending junkmail, working the phones, and spamming IRC channels to generate support for Phaedriel's adminship? I'd say sign me up, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't need it. ;-) --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Nah. The candidate's not even allowed to vote. Tyrenius 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm starting to have doubts as to whether this vote can reach 300 or not. There's only about 25 24 hours (and counting) left and we're 46 votes short of 300. Editor88 03:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• On a separate note, Theresa knott's 2004 ArbCom campaign earned 265 supporting votes while Mindspillage's 2005/06 ArbCom campaign earned 299. I wonder if either of these marks can be reached... Editor88 03:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• edit summary link

See Phaedriel's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC) using Interiot's tool:

Username Phaedriel
Total edits 5275
Distinct pages edited 3184
Average edits/page 1.657
First edit 06:20, December 7, 2005
 
(main) 1598
Talk 887
User 360
User talk 1465
Image 114
Image talk 6
Template 52
Template talk 16
Help 1
Category 32
Wikipedia 707
Wikipedia talk 37
Portal 285
Portal talk 51

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As I experienced the interest in process most Wikipedians go through as we become more familiar with the project, I've tried to participate and make myself familiar with as many aspects of the process as I could. Of all these, I find myself returning often to recent changes and recently created pages patrolling - fending off vandalism in its multiple forms is a task I find fulfilling, and one where I feel very comfortable. I remember reading, months ago, the ways of dealing with vandalism properly; from that day on, I've constantly tried to remain within these guidelines, and I consider placing the adequate Test template at the editor's Talk page as important as the reversion itself. Tagging articles that unequivocably qualify for speedy deletion has also taken most of my RC patrolling, and until I was sure I had learned by heart the exact meaning of every CSD, I always kept that page open while monitoring the logs - and I am happy to say that I've been wrong on very few occasions over nearly a thousand deleted edits. Many of you have experienced my requests for intervention at CAT:CSD and AIV; therefore, it will be my commitment to continue to take part in these important chores, with the ability to relieve other admins from taking action in those cases that I've been able to spot and detect.

I think it's important to point out that, nonetheless, it is also one of my main priorities to address edit disputes and incivility issues. As an admin, I feel I can be in a better position to intervene in such cases before they escalate in magnitude. In case it becomes evident at said situations that administrative intervention is the only way to proceed, I commit myself to use the abilities granted by the community with utmost responsibility, and with immediate report of any actions I take at AN/I.

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

A: I definitely feel that the creation and organization of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America, which I started as means of putting order and unified criteria into the overwhelming amount of information available on the subject. I am happy and proud to have seen it grow from a mere personal illusion that I once held into a thriving and active community of over 40 dedicated members which covers nearly 1,500 articles. The creation of Portal:Oklahoma and Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America are a close second; particularly the latter, which was for a long time a personal dream of mine into opening the beauties of Native American culture and history to the general community, which I currently maintain. It is going going through the process of attaining Featured status as we speak (hopefully!). I can also point out several articles I am pleased with; you can consult a list that Blnguyen has so kindly compiled here. As you can see, many of these articles deal with Native American topics, especially in relation to the Indian Wars. Since I am of Native American ancestry myself, it was a deep concern of mine to keep the articles truly NPOV, so I requested my work to be reviewed by more experienced editors; and I'm happy to say that I passed the test.

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

A: Leaving aside the usual bashing by assorted vandals, which many of us experience every now and then, I've been at the point where my communication abilities and will to compromise are tested. At all times I've tried to solve such disputes in the most civilized fashion I could, for (in my humble opinion) it is the only way in which peers who respect each other should behave in the first place. The only major dispute over my contributions that I recall involved User:Atlantahawk, and it motivated a post at AN/I - and sadly, dialog was not an option as this user chose to behave in a rude manner and closed himself to discussion.

Other than that, many of you may remember my name from the situation with Daniel Brandt that took place two months ago, after the forced departure of User:Katefan0; so, before being required to comment the matter, I'll simply sum it up for you myself. As you may or not remember, Katefan0 chose to leave the project after a dispute with Mr. Brandt in late May. Katefan, who had invested more than a year and a half of effort in WP, was also a friend of mine. I felt compelled to express my thoughts in an open letter to Mr. Brandt. Unfortunately, instead of the desired result (of reaching some sort of Détente), this simply led to increasing anonymous hostility towards me from a group of users of the Wikipedia Review forum, as well as some uncomfortable real life inconveniences. At no other point in my wiki-life I ever found myself truly stressed, for obvious reasons; but fortunately, and in great part due to the warm support that was kindly given to me, it is all in the past now. I'll gladly offer more details on the subject to those who inquire privately.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! -- Johntex\^talk 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A: When dealing with new users who may be simply experimenting or conducting small acts of mischievery, I personally prefer to use the Test group in ascending order, mainly to inform them that they conduct is inappropriate. Meanwhile, I've used {{bv}} when a clear will to disrupt in a malicious way can be observed behind the edits of a particular user. Although a great number of these cases appear every day, I have found them to be rarer, and on many occasions I chose not only to place this warning but to attempt a more personal approach by urging the editor to stop, and explaining why his/her behaviour is disruptive. As with everything, I firmly believe that every case must be appreciated by taking the surrounding circumstances into consideration, since new users can't simply be expected to know all our policies and guidelines the very minute they start editing.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A: Without question, the appropriate immediate action is to dialog with this user. As such an action is still within the limits permitted by our policies, a block under these circumstances is per se not warranted. This kind of behavior is usually the most evident sign that there is a dispute taking place, and therefore, helping to reach a consensus and acceptable compromise should be the top priority. However, as I mentioned in the previous question, every case must be appreciated according to the circumstances. If a user shows a pattern of conduct in this direction, he/she is clearly gaming the system and disrupting the work of others. At such cases, and again taking everything into account, further actions as described at WP:DR may be in order. If I ever encounter such a case, it is my firm belief that a previous consult at AN/I is needed before taking any sort of measures.

6. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

A: Quite a difficult one to answer indeed, and one that no matter what I say, can receive valid opinions against it. Frankly, I don't feel I can single out any aspect, just like this, out of the blue. There are many things we can improve; as the community steadily grows, new challenges and new needs arise. However, we have always faced difficulties, way longer than most of us even knew that Wikipedia existed; and yet, we have become a great project nonetheless. Magical solutions don't exist; simply changing something radically hardly proves itself useful. I'd rather look at our future with optimism and a will to share my ideas to improve the place when the needs arise, and hoping to hear others' with the same enthusiasm.

Optional question from Lar:

7.I've put this set of questions on several RfA's now.. I think it's stirred some thinking. You're welcome to address them all if you like... but I guess I'm also interested in what you think of the meta-question; that is, of asking it, and of the notion of people categories themselves... I know you're perhaps not as big a fan of putting categories on people as some folk are... please share why with the rest of us, it's pretty profound stuff... Note, there's no wrong answer, after all I conomed you! ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A: Hah :) Oh well, if there was one moment I feared of all this, it certainly was the one when I got to answer this question. Let's go step by step, shall we?
I definitely intend to add myself to Administrators open to recall; this is an initiative that I personally find admirable, and I have observed its development since Aaron Brenneman first informed me of it (tho it may need some further work to turn it into an actually functional process). Just as I have never, ever tried to hide my actions, I expect the community to demand me accountability for any mistakes I may make. Being an admin is not a fancy and shiny badge; it is both a privilege, because good people has chosen to trust you with tools that must be used with utmost consideration; and a responsibility, for which you must be ready to answer.
On to the rouge Admins category we go. I find it amusing; and more often than not, I find myself smiling, if not laughing openly with approval, at the words of some "Rouge" admins like JzG. Personally, tho, I'd never add myself to it, for personal reasons. The today famous criteria of Rouge admins is simply not my style. On a serious side, deep inside of me, I hold a spark of concern whether or not the Rouge myth may eventually generate rash actions on someone who aspires to be worthy of the title. I have not yet witnessed such an event, tho, and I prefer to be optimistic and trust the good judgement of my peers.
Last but not least, and on to the meta aspect of your question we move. By definition, you're asking for an entirely personal opinion, which may and certainly will not be shared by many. As you correctly guess, I'm not a big fan of putting categories to people basing on their beliefs. I am a Humanist from head to toes, and I believe that the beauty of places like Wikipedia stems from the sum of our many diverse personalities and our different ways of being and thinking. I'm not like you, nor like Bishonen, nor Sango123, nor anybody else here - none of us are the same, yet we manage to share big part of our time and learn from each other... I cannot think of a better reason why I enjoy being part of this project as much as I do. Categories based on the way we think seem somewhat unfair and limiting to me; yet I completely understand their sense and the reason why they exist, and their usefulness to many. For all this, beyond my own beliefs, I don't object them... but well, you asked me for my opinion! :) I guess that's all - sorry about the lengthy reply. Phaedriel

Sorry for the lengthy reply? Those of you that know me know I love lengthy replies... There's no wrong answer dear Phaedriel... but some answers are just righter than others!!! Remember how I said (above) that there's more to this candidate than mechanics? See what I'm talking about, guys and gals? What we have here is a very thoughtful candidate who is very possibly going to have a significant impact on how we get things done around here, just as I said in my nom... congrats on making WP:100 already, happy birthday, and all best wishes for your continued WP career. ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Shannon^{duck talk}: (User is banned as obvious sock of User:Thewolfstar ++Lar: t/c)

8.If you were asked to become involved in a situation that included many of your friends, that were harassing a newb or article dissenter at Wikipedia, would you blindly back up your friends accusations, etc, or would you carefully review the situation and make a decision based on the actual situation? (By this I mean reading the content of the dispute and coming to an unbiased decision.) Shannon^{duck talk} 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A: I understand your concern. My personal beliefs, which I've always tried to uphold, is that dialog and consensus are the only true way to build our project. A fight in which one side overcomes the other, usually doesn't bring out the best of people, and in the end it generates more bitterness and stress. At the hypothetical situation you present, I must definitely say that I'd try to talk one on one with that newcomer to understand what the concerns are, and try to mediate in order to canalize the energies that would otherwise be wasted in a dispute into a positive result. I can provide an example that resembles this situation at this AfD debate, where I was happy to meet Merovingian. Although we had not interacted much before, I hold him in the highest regard; and of course, I adhered to his position. An escalating hostility from these necomers towards Merovingian ensued; I tried my best to stop the arguments and head the agitated moods to a constructive effort instead, as you may see here. In the end, and sadly, it was impossible to turn any of these newcomers into Wikipedians; but at least, I know I tried my best.

Optional question 2 from Shannon^{duck talk}: (User is banned as obvious sock of User:Thewolfstar ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

9.Would you use your sysops powers sometimes to block a user who disagreed with your edits, or your friends edits? Shannon^{duck talk} 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A: I can categorically tell you now, and I ask you to mark my words, that never, under any circumstances I will consider such possibility. Our policies clearly rule such actions out, and I'm nobody to challenge them so blatantly. Furthermore, a mere disagreement over edit contents is not in itself worthy of a block - I've always been under the impression that Wikipedia is not censored, and performing an act like the one you describe certainly qualifies as such. Even if I find myself directly disagreeing with the conduct of a user (and not just the contents of his/her edits), and I find that a block could be in order as consequence of it, the proper course of action is to request further input at the proper project page, like AN/I or AN/3RR, and let other admins uninvolved in the dispute take the actions they deem necessary.

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.

[edit] HighwayCello

Final (14/27/14) Ended 11:16, July 29 2006 (UTC)

Note: Closed at the request of the nominee [17] TigerShark 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination

HighwayCello (talk • contribs) – HighwayCello is a Wikipedia editor who would be a great admin because he help users, write articles and refer to himself in the third person. ;) I'm Highway, and I've been a frequent (at some times incessant) contrbutor to Wikipedia, since the end of January 2006. I've wrote, and helped to write, several Good articles, including Golduck, Combusken, Princess Peach and Eevee, and in June, finally getting Torchic to featured article status. I also moved around various projects, which include the Pokémon Collaborative Project, Good article nominations and Did you know.

I have many friends in the project, and have a healthy amount of communication on user talk pages, and article talk. I have healthily spread edits across the template, article, image and WP namespaces, readily willing to help new users and verterans alike. With my admins tools, I would help other users and try to cut down on the backlogs that are now building up quickly, as well as trying to bust the admin urban legend (who am I kidding, we all know what the problem is).

Thank you for reading my introduction, and if you have any other further questions about anything I say here, or otherwise, please leave a note at this RfA's talk page, or my own talk page. Happy voting discussing, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior nomination

Acceptance

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. May I offer the first !vote to this fine user. Helpful, if a little hot-headed at times. He's worked hard consistently, showing commitment to the project and certainly deserves the powers. Good luck HighwayCello! —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Everything here has been addressed to my satisfaction. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Having seen this user all over the place I believe he would be a useful addition to the admin team. I can't see any evidence that he would abuse or misuse the tools. Kevin 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support meets my standards —Mets501 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   Support. Looks good and no big deal. Ifnord 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to oppose. Ifnord 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Support Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Most absolutely support, having often interacted with HighwayCello, I've seen him grow as a Wikipedia editor, both over time and from his last RfA. He has learned to handle conflicts well, and has certainly dealt with his share of them. He puts huge amounts of time into the encyclopedia, and contributes to many things in which having admin powers would allow him to contribute even more. Especially having him seen him request admins to do things that he cannot, I am delighted to suppport. -- Natalya 22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
7. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 22:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (edit conflicted) — The only thing that matters is whether this candidate would abuse the tools. The answer in this case is "no, they would not."
8. Support on the condition that you are civil in the future. DarthVader 23:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support I've found this editor to be only kind and a considerate user who wants to help the community. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Support ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
11. (moral) Consultant Support Imp/: while this one probably won't go through, I suspect you will be an administrator soon enough if you keep up your hard work here. Suggest/: that you reflect a bit on the opposes, as it seems like an easy enough to fix issue -- Samir धर्म 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:07, 28 July '06}
13. Moral support, judging by outcome. Please do not get too distressed by this, and take it as a learning experience. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
14. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 04:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose (may change to neutral) You're a good canidate, but as noted here, here, and here, you seem to run into stress on an unusually high basis. I'll remind you that adminship is no easy task, and often you will run into situations with problem users. If you have managed to stress yourself out those many times, I would worry what would happen during your adminship. I applaud you for your WP work, however. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   I appreciate your concerns PG, but my stress is based on both real life and' Wikipedia, but since RL has simplified recently, my stress should start to decline. If I did become an admin, I would apply the same questioning I use in conflicts as to the tools, "will this benefit me, or benefit the pedia?" Thank you anyway, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   If a person opens up on Esperanza about being stressed, I don't see that as a problem. Other users might be equally stressed but there aren't any diffs about it because they let it out somewhere else or aren't involved with Wikipedia communities. What matters is whether that stress results in inappropriate comments or other actions. A candidate should not be penalized for communicating with other Wikipedians about problems they might be having or letting off a little steam in a place specifically designed for that. —Centrx→talk • 23:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose. I have some severe reservations about HighwayCello being given the admin tools. To make this easier for myself, I'll bullet point it.

   • Civility: No. This was brought up in the past and little has changed since then. Edit summaries like i am not redudant mother fucker and kirby is not male for the fucking last time, with comments like you can bog off do not show good civility.
   • HighwayCello's attitude to Wikipedia in general is also not what I would expect from an admin, with comments like this, and his why bother? attitude towards discussing things with other people.
   • My experience of this user is that he does not respond to stressful situations well [18]. The thermometer thing on his userpage is regularly in the red section. HighwayCello will come under even more stressful situations as an admin and I don't think he would respond to them positively.
   • Three of the main areas of Wikipedia which require admins are vandal patrolling (inc. RC patrol}, articles/templates/etc for deletion and page protections. HighwayCello's activity in each of these is almost non existant. As far as I can see, he has never engaged in RC patrol, votes in a couple of xfDs a week, and has never requested a page protection.
   • HighwayCello has shown complete lack of knowledge of policy when he re-added a {{prod}} notice and actually gave the user both a blank1 and test1 warning for it [19]. The original page has since been deleted, but admins can check "Unknown Pokémon (Diff: 64506737). HighwayCello also has a habit of giving users both test1 and blatantvandal warnings for the same act of vandalism.
   • This edit which I think speaks for itself shows completely and utterly the wrong attitude an administrator should have. Registered users have no more authority than IPs over articles and I would worry if someone with this attitude was given the block button.

   So, in essence: Would HighwayCello misuse the admin tools? I would argue yes. -- Steel 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   I am sorry, but a lot of this is out of context. You have to look at surrounding edits. Someone called me a redundant mother fucker on my talk page for not noticing the info was there twice. The "bog off" comment was areply to the comment someone made against me, the reason I kept re-adding the prod template was because there was no reason provided, and I'm pretty sure the IP was a vandal. There are just somethings I know about than some editors, like Pokémon grammar, and there was an initial teething problem in implementing the correct grammar. I don't want to go through everything, but this is all taken out of context. I'm sorry, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   No, HighwayCello. Just because someone makes a personal attack (or whatever it was) towards you does not allow you to respond in a similarly incivil manner. As for the mother fucker comments, rather than using a normal, descriptive edit summary, you used one which was likely to escalate the conflict, rather than resolve it. The IP who removed the prod template removed only the prod template. If he'd removed a bunch of other content too, then fair enough. But he didn't. If I recall correctly you re-added the template two or three times. -- Steel 22:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   All of that may be true, but do you think your response was constructive? If a troll calls you a motherfucker, are you going to call them a motherfucker back and feed their trolling or are you going to respond in a level-headed manner? Also, the attitude that there are "some things that I know [more] about than some editors" doesn't sound like a healthy attitide - especially if it is used as part of a justification for swearing at them. If you know better, explain to them and convince them - don't just attack them. TigerShark 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, and as for being pretty sure the IP was a vandal, what happened to assume good faith? -- Steel 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose Judging by the diffs provided above, this user has serious problems with civility, making them unsuitable to act in an admin capacity. TigerShark 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose per Pilotguy and Steel. Emotional maturity and civility are key requirements. Sort those out first please. Your work as an editor is appreciated. Tyrenius 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Enough reasons already given. -- JamesTeterenko 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose per Steel and Pilotguy; it is not okay to meet incivility with incivility. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose per steel. Does not meet my requirement on civility and stress-handling (as seen here). --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 23:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose per Steel. 1ne 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Steel. Sorry, but I see stress-fueled actions and interactions that could become downright destructive if given admin tools. Your hard work is appreciated, but you need to build more trust here. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Incivility is unforgiveable, sorry. Ifnord 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Per all the reasons expressed above, civility is a key trait of admins, and there is simply no excuse for being incivil.--Wisden17 23:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Incivil incivility. Oh and check out all of those user edits. (Over 900) AdamBiswanger1 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Not this time. DS 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
14. I'm afraid I'll have to oppose at this point. You seem like an excellent editor and your dedication as seen through your number of edits is impressive, but I am turned off by your attitude, language, and temper, as other votes have noted. If you can eliminate these problems over the next few months, I'd be glad to support you then. Fabricationary 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong Oppose sorry, but I think it is absolutely essential that admins uphold high standards of civility. Eluchil404 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per incivility issues. Ral315 (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose - An admin being uncivil has the potential to scare off newbies -- Lost 03:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose - I really have reservations letting anyone using the kind of language Steel brought up assume the admin position. Mo0[talk] 05:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose: stress and confrontation can be infectious. Some people say Fight fire with fire, but I say Fight fire with water. A long period of consistent good humour will help a subsequent RfA. Stephen B Streater 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per civility concerns. Robert 13:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Steel. Roy A.A. 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose all too regretfully. Seemed like a good user whenever I saw his sig, but his constant use of the F-bomb (not allowed in WP edit summaries) worries me right now. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose The lack of civility shown by this user is a major concern for me. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose re issues raised by Steel. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
25. ~ Encephalon 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Strong Oppose per Steel. Although the points raised in the comments show the user to be reasonable at times, that raised by Steel overwhelms them. Viridae^Talk 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose I'm really sorry Highway Cello but looking through the discussion and your edits (and a edit summary directed at me) it seems you don't react to sitations well. Maybe in a few more months good luck Æon ^{Insane Ward} 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral sadly, I cannot support this user right now because of the numerous things Steel has pointed out above, even if I don't agree with the way they were presented. I strongly suggest the user withdraw their RfA.--Andeh 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   Just out of pure curiosity, what's wrong with the way they were presented? -- Steel 23:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   Well I felt you described the difs in a way which made the user appear to worse than they actually are. Not that I'm familiar with the user or anything. But I checked out every dif but couldn't see the user abusing admin. Anyway, it's better that it all comes out in one oppose vote than numerous ones pointing to the difs you already mentioned.--Andeh 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   I sympathize with your viewpoint, and I can almost see myself agreeing, but in the end we have to realize that this is a time to dredge up the worst about a candidate, to show them at their worst. If this user can become incivil in times of stress or anger, that should come out in the RfA process. Also, I mean if you have a great admin candidate, even one with 10,000 edits, there's no way that this much dirt would come out, so that in itself is worthy of thought. AdamBiswanger1 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Merovingian - Talk 01:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral I had hoped to be able to support HighwayCello this time around. Sadly some of what has been reported above concerns me. Added a question below and waiting for a response before moving away from a neutral recommendation. Gwernol 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral per Gwernol. --Guinnog 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral nothing personal, but right now I'm concerned with how you'll use the tools due to the points above. I hope you understand. ShaunES 03:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC).
6. Neutral There is no doubt that the candidate is both good and productive as an editor and an asset to Wikipedia. However, I feel that he currently lacks the extreme level-headedness necessary to be an administrator on such a large-scale project as Wikipedia. I would potentially support at a later date if the civility issues became a non-factor and if he were able to succesfully mediate some controversial issues via MedCab or a similar venue hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral per Gwernol Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral I saw him doing some nice work, but the opposers' concerns are not without merit.  Grue  09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral per opposers' concerns, especially incivility. I don't want to pile on oppose though.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral per the incisive neutrals of Hoopydink and Grue and inasmuch as, having been neutral relative to the last AfD, I don't see that anything significant has happened to exacerbate or allay my concerns. Joe 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Weak neutral use of third person in self-nom :D Computerjoe's talk 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral leaning toward support The whole Steel thing doesn't look too well, but I've seen Highway help new users get started, and Natalya brings up good examples of where he is thoughtful. I am willing to discount the negative incidents listed here in your next RFA....I will definately support you if nothing bad happens between now and you next RFA. FWIW, you have improved a lot. I know that Highway made a lot of these comments out of stress and not malicious intent, so to a point Highway is right to say they were taken out of context. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral leaning to oppose. Highway seems to be learning civility with the users he deals with regularly (as indicated in the examples given by Natalya in comments below). But he doesn't deal with little annoyances from strangers calmly enough to inspire confidence. In response to Q1, he says that he wants to use rollback to deal with obscure Pokemon pages, but his recent history indicates he'd use that ability poorly. He revert warred over an article and escalated the conflict into getting the other user blocked over violations of style guides. Even if his interpretation was "correct", disputes over style ought to be taken to talk. He's pretty harsh with the tags: silly vandalism followed by t1 and bv; profane and silly comments followed by another t1 and bv; and here he started with bv and then went up the line, eventually getting an admin to block for warring over verb number (is/are) in Pokemon articles. Still, he is a prolific contributor who could use the tools for some things like page moves and DYK. Hopefully, in a few months, with more admin coaching and experience...--Kchase T 07:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Neutral due to civility concerns, but I'm not harsh enough to tack on an oppose vote. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• There are an awful lot of oppose votes per Steel and/or Pilotguy, but Natalya made reference (support 6) to Highway handling conflicts well. Could anyone (perhaps Natalya, Fang Aili, the admin coach, or the candidate himself) provide instances where Highway responded well to incivil comments or resolved conflicts well? Some contrasting evidence, if you will?--Kchase T 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. While many negative examples have been provided, he deserves credit too. Having interacted with HighwayCello throughout his dealings with User:Minun, a user who he often conflicts with, I've seen how he has improved dealing with him and others. Things didn't start out well, but over time he's learned to recognize when he is getting angry and heated. Contrary to popular belief, he can accept that he is wrong, and apologize. During the second Torchic FAC, he was infinitely more polite in the first one, and worked well with all the dissenting editors. Perhaps it's just because I interact with him a lot, but I've seen him grow quite a bit. -- Natalya 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user HighwayCello (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 63 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 27, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 25, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.69% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 97.97 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 434 edits): Major article edits: 99.76% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 14 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.5% (25)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 5.8% (290)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 21.34% (1067)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 6.94%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 11 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1128 | Average edits per page: 4.43 | Edits on top: 6.86%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 83.84% (4192 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 2.8% (140 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 12.98% (649 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.38% (19 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 39.08% (1954) | Article talk: 8.74% (437)
User: 5.76% (288) | User talk: 16.54% (827)
Wikipedia: 14.68% (734) | Wikipedia talk: 4% (200)
Image: 7.12% (356)
Template: 1.76% (88)
Category: 0.06% (3)
Portal: 0.28% (14)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.98% (99)

• See HighwayCello's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  Edit summary usage for HighwayCello: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
• Edit count:

Username HighwayCello
Total edits 10256
Distinct pages edited 2008
Average edits/page 5.108
First edit 19:49, January 2, 2006
 
(main) 3992
Talk 746
User 921
User talk 1582
Image 465
Image talk 3
Template 151
Template talk 94
Category 5
Wikipedia 1489
Wikipedia talk 530
Portal 198
Portal talk 80

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I imagine my admin tasks would follow a similar path to my editing habits, since I've been a few times around that track, I would use all my tools in time, but use particular ones in various times of my Wiki-career. Initially, I see the rollback tool being used to help combat anti-Pokémon vandalism on the quieter pages most watchlists escape, and to help combat it on popular pages, such as Pokémon and Pikachu. I would also use my powers to assist WP:PCP in moves and other adminly tasks, including mediation, which isn't an admin task, in an attempt to help maintain a neutral plain. The other main use of my Admin Powers would be to update T:DYK, which can go for up to 22 hours without being updated, at which point I am forced to go to the Administrator's Noticeboard and ask a knowledgeable admin. DYK has faced new problems recently, being forced to turn down valid nominations because of lack of adminial help. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Well, my proudest work is in Pokémon articles, which I have tried to my hardest to elevate them to a standard of notability, credability and quality. The article I am the most proudest of Torchic, a featured article, which went through a much more...intense FAC trip compared to Bulbasaur, which I have also improved on, reference wise. I am also happy about the various GA articles, in Pokémon and Nintendo over all, since the goal WP:PCP is to promote every creature article to at least GA standards. I have also recently turned to article writing, of which YouthBank UK is quite good, and covers a contempary topic in today's youth culture. I have also helped image tagging and sourcing in Pokémon articles, with help from my various self created templates. If you would like to ask about any of my contribs, visit my talk page. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Nearly all editors will come across a fellow editor with a varied opinion of your own, it's what keeps like interesting, and I try to remain calm in these situations. A few months ago, I came across an editor who was trying to phase out a crucial reference in Pokémon articles, and replace it with his own website, which would result in mass advertising. I had long speculated about a possible sockpuppet circle among four users, and following a check user, it was revealed that the user in question was responsible for one of the sockpuppets (the other two were a seperate sockpuppet pair) and was appropriately dealt with. Unfortunately, the user took offence at me personally for discovering this, and soon began mouthing at me to my face, to other users and in other namespaces. The user was then blocked for copyright violations and incivility, for one week, which he evaded using scores of sockpuppets, causing an extension of his original block, and only ceased when his IP was blocked. Throughout and up-to his block, the user maintained that I was the one harassing him, and I was twisting the evidence, which he proclaimed at his own talk page, his user page, WP:AN and Jimbo's talk page. After a failed RfC, and more harassment an arbitration case was opened, and the user now likely faces a 13-year month block. Throughout this tiresome affair, I have learned not to back bite after someone has a go at you, and you feel like you're going to spring out and fight back, take a deep breath and say, "will what I say benefit me, others or the wiki?" Through this questioning and self reflection, I hope I have cut down on conflicts I may create, and calm heated situations. Cheers, 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions

4. A week ago, you wrote this. Why do you now believe you need the tools when you didn't then? Do you still stand by these comments? Gwernol 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Ambuj.Saxena

Final(110/40/12) Ended 16:50, 2006-08-04 (UTC)

Ambuj.Saxena (talk • contribs) – Ambuj Saxena has been a valued contributor here since February 2006. In that span, he has been a prolific editor to India related and other pages (most notably in bringing Indian Institutes of Technology to FA status) and has particpated avidly in Articles for deletion (where he has been thoughtful and has exhibited fine judgment; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSR Layout for example, where he took the time to build the article up after being alerted about it on AfD). He has contributed to Portal:India by selecting articles, pictures, and DYK's for the Portal's main page. He always has a cool temperament, even when attacked personally (see these diffs for brilliant displays of self-control and collegiality: [20], [21], [22]). He has also contributed to the spoken Wikipedia project and even fights vandalism. He is modest and has a level headed understanding of being an administrator: [23].
Of all these things, what has most impressed me is Ambuj's thoughtfulness in all that he does on-wiki. I think that quality is exactly what will make him an exceptional administrator -- Samir धर्म 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank Samir for showing confidence in me. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Extremely Strong Support No question about it. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 05:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. If you get vandalized as much as his userpage (and photo), you have to be doing something right. αChimp ^laudare 06:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Really annoying, long drawn-out insanely-praising lots of boldced words that everyone will have to look at all week support. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose + Strong Oppose = Powerful Support Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 06:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   So you are one of those guys who thinks that two wrongs make a right? I don't advise it on Wikipedia :) Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   Why are you "one of those guys" who has to be too literal? Relax and have fun. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 06:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   Bah! WP:ENJOY everyone! --Nearly Headless Nick 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Strong support as nominator -- Samir धर्म 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I agree with Samir that Ambuj's a knowledgeable and levelheaded editor with a good temperament. I'd support him for adminship anyday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sundar (talk • contribs).
8. Support as per all of the above! TruthCrusader 07:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. DarthVader 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Merovingian - Talk 08:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support Sameer has not mentioned about his helpfulness so let me vouch for that. Regular worker at the helpdesk -- Lost 08:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Super-duper strong support!! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Looking good to me. Mostly Rainy 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Seems to tick all the boxes ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Go for it. Yanksox 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support yes please - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Chg to Oppose. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

16. Strong support per nom - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Looks like an extremely strong candidate for adminship.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Strong Support I have to keep reminding myself that Ambuj is not an admin already. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

18. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
19. S-U-P-E-R S-T-R-O-N-G S-U-P-P-O-R-T -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per nom. Very impressive. :) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Has the right stuff AdamBiswanger1 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Not only does he meet my standards but he goes beyond them! --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 13:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A blessing for Wikipedia. --Incman|वार्ता 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
24. This was long due. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
25. Very Strong Support: I know him for long, almost from the time he chose to become a wikipedian. A real gem among us! --Bhadani 14:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Tintin (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Any enemy of the Vandals is a friend of mine and a welcome admin. --Vengeful Cynic 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
28. Undescribably strong support per this and this. This is just the kind of things that strengthen my faith in us. Dear Ambux, no matter what - never change, please. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Seems a very good candidate. --Guinnog 17:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
31. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support 172 | Talk 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

33. Support great user. —Khoikhoi 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Good luck, not that you will need it. 8-) -- Avi 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral
34. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-27 19:51Z
35. Support His name and picture were used by an IP to vandalize my user page. Vandals know of him; he appears to be doing the right things. Gimmetrow 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Almost 600 portal edits?! I've been searching for just 1 to make for a month now, just to have it on my list :P -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Support good editor. Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
38. Cleared for adminship, without any further doubt. Interactions with this user suggest this user is able to maintain a positive interaction with others, and is able to maintain a strong attitude (no pun intended), even through the toughest of times. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. A very good distribution of edits, and I see no sign of incivility in contribs. This user would've gotten my support a month ago. Picaroon9288|ta co 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
40. Wish-I-could've-beat-nom-Support Pleasure to deal with. Edits are well distributed. Cool under fire from vandals. Could use more time here, but a fine editor, enough to see my support too. Kevin_b_er 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Sound candidate. Tyrenius 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
42. Support excellent candidate per nom. Eluchil404 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
43. Support His promotion will have a positive result for Wikipedia. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
44. Hrm, I thought he was already an admin Support I suppose this might be a bit of piling on and I think that Wikipedia will do well to give Ambuj.Saxena the extra buttons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoopydink (talk • contribs) .
45. Full support. User's contribs look good, and I feel we need more admins knowledgeable on India-related topics.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Everything that was said in the nomination, along with your answers to the questions, show me you'd be a great administrator. Mo0[talk] 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
47. Strong support. Got to know him with respect to his edits on Indian Institutes of Technology, and didn't find anything wrong with him back then, and his contributions have widened since that time, which can only be a good thing. Hope you do a great job! Ansell 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:07, 28 July '06}
50. support per all of the above —Minun ^Spiderman 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
51. Support; hard worker and handles stress and criticism well. The IIT nomination was a grueling experience, but he did a great job of working with everyone on it. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
52. Support; everything looks good; I expect him to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
53. Oh yes, support of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
54. Suppport - Handles situations very well. Looks good. —Mirlen 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
55. Support good contributor, should be a good admin. -MrFizyx 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
56. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Support. How could I not support? Gimme a reason to not support. I don't want to know the reason anymore. I support. Viva La Vie Boheme 00:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
58. ~ Encephalon 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
59. Support seems solid. Viridae^Talk 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
60. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
61. Support per nom. Michael 06:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
62. 'Support You have my support, you would be great as a SYSOP! Good luck Æon ^{Insane Ward} 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Excellent contributor. The oppose vote is an example of where Ambuj did the right thing and the user didn't like it. Oh well, can't win em all. - Taxman ^Talk 17:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
64. Support, although I could've waited till early October. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
65. Pepsidrinka supports. 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
66. Support He has surprised me with his ability to remain diplomatic under the most pressing situations (where usually I am ready to become confrontational). Very much an admin material. --Blacksun 04:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
67. Support I've seen nothing to disuade me from endorsing this request, keep up the good work! ShaunES 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Good contributor with an excellent knowledge of the policies. And hey, wait a minute...he shares my birthday too! - Cribananda 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Hv been inactive for a while, else, i'd have nominated him for RfA myself. --Gurubrahma 06:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
70. Support. utcursch | talk 07:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Seivad 12:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Newyorkbrad 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
73. Extremely strong Support a very helpful wikipedian, would make an excellent admin.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
74. No reason not to. Support ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
75. Support: edits look sensible and I haven't seen any reason to suggest this candidate would be difficult to deal with as an Admin. Stephen B Streater 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
76. Support the compiling, into a venerable tome, of the many Good Words with which he has graced WP. Good admin material. ImpuMozhi 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
77. Support —WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
78. Support, without reservations. Sango123 03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, great contribuater to the CVU team. :) --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 08:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
80. Strong Support, and everyone goes :o whaaa!? lol, even though i disagreed with u on my RfA, your definetly A-Class Admin material. and I do believe i said (in ref to RfA) I'm sure i'll get there one day, and I hope you do too, I can't see it happening if i don't vote! Good on u Ambuj, I wish you luck ;). --Deon555|talk|e 10:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Ps. I just saw in ur nom the ref's to our convo's, and although I didn't think I was attacking you personally, I was out of line, and you dealed with the situation awesomely ;)
81. Support -Bharatveer 10:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
82. Strong support : deserves adminship. Has helped in PR and FAC of many articles, providing great judgement. --Ragib 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
83. Support. Someone should really close this, you're a shoe-in. SynergeticMaggot 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
84. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
85. Support will be good admin --rogerd 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
86. Strong Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
87. Strong Support per nom. That's a large number of portal edits. Grandmasterka 05:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
88. Support Stubbleboy 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
89. Support per nom. BryanG^(talk) 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
90. Support per nom and personal interaction. —Nightstallion (?) 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
91. One Article to write, One Article for peer review, One Article be made FA and the RFA shall bind him. -- Миборовский 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
92. Support per nom, et al. Joe 01:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
93. Support I'm jealous, IIT-KGP article is really good as per this chap's edits. Where are all the IITK alumni?Netaji 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
94. Support A valuable contributor. The objections raised by SlimVirgin are not valid in my opinion. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
95. Support per many votes above from many voters who generally use a fine toothed comb. He has my trust. Attic Owl 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
96. Support per lots of the above; a diligent and conscientious editor.--Runcorn 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
97. Support, seems to be a good candidate, opposing arguments do not convince me abakharev 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
98. Support, as I find the reasons for the opposition mildly interesting, and legitimate concerns though I may disagree with their meaning and importance, but wildly blown out of proportion by bandwagonning. There is no cause here great enough to deny this fine editor adminship in my opinion. Dmcdevit·t 05:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Is is your wording correct? Seems the opposite of your intended meaning. "There is cause here great enough to deny this fine editor adminship in my opinion." Hope you do not mind me questioning you language choice. I bring this up to point out to other users that editing mistakes are common among experienced admins. I do not consider myself part of the English language literacy police. In fact, I find the RFA comments about Ambuj.Saxena language troubling. I partly changed my "vote" to Neutral to counter these votes. Take care, --FloNight ^talk 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Hm, I do agree with you on the matter of lanaguage and you are right that Ambuj is by no means any more difficult to understand than average, (although in my case it was just a matter of an accidental omission of a word, which isn't really indicative of the kind of non-nativity they're getting at). I even consider myself pedantic, so what irritates me more are the garbled and grammarless netspeakers like, for example, Deon555, above. Dmcdevit·t 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Bandwagonning? And the Support !voters are all independent thinkers? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Of course not. RFA is broken, and the use of words like "!vote" rather than just calling them comments demonstrates the point. Of course, my point was that it was disproportionate to the merit. Dmcdevit·t 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

99. Support Had earlier opposed due to concerns raised by Slimvirgin, but upon further thought the matter does not look extreme enough to merit an oppose vote. Concerns about language skills seem overblown since AS's English seems to be more than adequate for the task. JoshuaZ 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Uh is it just me or did this close like an hour ago o.O --Deon555|talk|e 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    RfA's close when a 'crat decides to close it, often a few hours later than the listed time (especially if the correct closing time is late at night East Coast US time it seems). JoshuaZ 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

100. WP:100 Support - I don't think has been closed yet... Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
101. Support per nom. --ManiF 08:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
102. Support if not too late. Has made solid contributions to the project, and while he may have made some mistakes causing the oppose votes, the whole thing generally shows that he is willing to discuss and admit mistakes. JPD (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
103. Support, I think he shall learn from the comments and be sure to be flexible in the future. No suggestion that he will misuse the admin tools. NoSeptember 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
104. Support, edits don't seem to show any tendency to want to misuse the tools. Disagreement over the applicability of a particular footnoting style was valid, but the bandwagon opposes smack of some sort of non-native-speaker bias (I shouldn't feel that way, but there are a lot of names in there I don't recognize). (::edit:: And I just had to come back here to fix my own typo, and I'm a native speaker!) -- nae'blis 16:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
105. Support My judgement is that this editor will not abuse admin tools. --MONGO 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
106. Support I see nothing wrong with his English.--Poetlister 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
107. Support. The issue is whether the nominee has a use or need for the tools and if the nominee can be trusted with them. For this answer, I believe this editor could use the tools and can be trusted with them. If I had the ability to raise one eyebrow, the concerns raised by SlimVirgin would not cause me to do so. Agent 86 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
108. Support. i looked at the objections cited in the oppose section below and non seemed to be bad enough to warrant not supporting. While nitpicking to an extreme is a bad thing s/he did at least try and justify the position. A willingness to express ones opinion is a good thing. I disagree with some of AS's opinions but that is neither here nor there. I think I could work with this editor despite our differences. David D. (Talk) 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
109. Support. I do agree to an extent with both of the reasons for the opposing voters. However, I don't see anything indicating this user wouldn't be a good admin or would abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
110. Late support he nitpicked a FAC? Well, that never happens.... Strong contributions outweigh an occasional minor mistake. Opabinia regalis 03:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lacks judgement , balance and maturity .Example :in debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Kan Singh Parihar he considers a former judge and ALSO a former Vice Chanacellor of Jai Narain Vyas University not notable enough .Obiviously needs time to learn and develop .Shyamsunder 9:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   However the consensus in that discussion was to delete, so his judgement seems to be in line with the majority of the community. Kevin 07:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)

   That is not relevant here .What is relevant is Ambuj's comments therein .Ambuj did not consider a high court judge for about 10 years and who was appointed as a VC of a University after retirement and was also selected to head a panel to assess the excesses in the emergecy in 1975 notable enough. Ambuj's comments were remarkable in sense they provided insight into his thinking, understanding and objectivity . Look at various pages started/ edited by him on people associated with IIT for example page on Nitin Saxena.For Ambuj Nitin Saxena is notable Kan Singh is not.With his current sense of judgement and fairplay he would not be an ideal administrator as of now.The wikipedian community should not thrust administratoship on him .Instead Ambuj should be allowed some more time to develop.Shyamsunder 8:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   Please take your issues to WP:DRV. This is not an appropriate forum. Many other editors "voted" to delete that article also -- Samir धर्म 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   If anyone got interested, I have no connections with Nitin Saxena, and my judgement of his notability was based on his involvement in developing the AKS Primality Test. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   I can't see how a misjudgement of a persons notability (in your opinion) in one AfD is significant enough reason to oppose the users adminship. I also couldn't help notice you voted Keep in that AfD[24]. So I am led to believe that you are only opposing the candidate simply because of a disagreement in an AfD which didn't go your way.--Andeh 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   How are AfD votes (which were supported by the consensus) an objective reason to vote oppose. Take the process seriously, dont point out the obvious, ie. that he could make a mistake, admins are human too. Ansell 08:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   While I disagree with his vote, that is not a reason to deny him adminship. --Gurubrahma 06:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Given the numbers, this will end up as just as a protest vote, but I want to make it anyway. I recently encountered Ambuj for the first time during the nomination for a featured article I partially wrote, and I came away with a very negative impression of him; in fact, my first thought was: "I hope this guy never stands for adminship," then I saw this nomination. He opposed the FA nomination of a very carefully researched, 11,000-word article on the grounds that it didn't use citation templates, and didn't link dates the way he likes them to be linked. His comments are here, here, and here, and after it was awarded FA status, he changed his object to something called "strongly abstain," whatever that means. He then complained about me on the talk page, implying that, after his opposition, I had edited policy pages to make it easier for the nom to pass, even though it had already passed. I have rarely encountered such rigidity of thinking, small-mindedness, disrespect for other people's hard work, and such a fast presumption of bad faith. I want to stress that I'm not opposing because he voted against the nomination; it was the way he did it, the reasons he did it, his misunderstanding of policies and guidelines, his presumption of bad faith, the lack of coherence of his opposition (some of which I still don't understand); and, above all, his bizarre "complaint" about me afterwards. The worrying thing is that this was him during his adminship nomination, when you'd think he'd be on his best behavior. Clearly, he seems to think there's no need for best behavior, and that's a concern too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Opposes like this would require some clarification on my part. First of all, I encourage those assessing the claims to go through what happened before this oppose (by the diffs provided by SlimVirgin). In the FAC, I first made a suggestion (by saying "comment") to use citation templates. I made other suggestions for improvement to the article. SV replied that the citation templates are a nuisance. By the next time I replied, I also noticed other issues with the article, i.e. non-wikilinking of dates and not providing last access date for web references. I noted my views on the citation templates, and not to confuse that this is not something I oppose, I made a note that my objections are not because of them. In the third edit, I again confirmed that I am not opposing because of it. I also clarified some of the doubts raised by SV in her previous reply. Fast forward to next day when the article was promoted, but I didn't knew of (there are no templates at the top and bottom saying the discussion has ended). I find the edits to WP:MOSDATE made by SlimVirgin, that were against what was consensus. These edits were reverted by another editor. I went to other policy pages, only to see that she has edited them to say what she told in the FAC, something that didn't exist before. I also her edits to WP:LEAD. I noted these in the talk page (linked by her), and I accept that I was not happy with the way she changed them. I request those who read this to go through the actual conversations/discussion that happened, in the chronological sequence they did. I agree that my tone of "requesting" change to citation template was rigid. But I have noted in this diff that my oppose wasn't for that. If any "presumption of bad faith" (quoting SV) came, it was because of my unawareness that the article had passed FAC. So what I have learnt from this? In addition to what has been discussed above, I have learnt to be myself. Surprising? If this incident would have occured even a week later, way too may editors would have presumed that I have been "acting nice" just to get the tools. Now at least I am sure nobody would accuse me of that, whether this RfA passes or not. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment While I respect the opinion raised by SlimVirgin, I fail to see how this is a behavioural issue (or any systemic issue) with Ambuj. I view it as a disagreement with respect to decision making around one FA's candidacy. Ambuj has been a forceful contributor to WP:FAC, has brought IIT to FA, and has contributed significantly to many other FA's. I think he is more than aware of what is required for FA, and respects the amount of time and effort that editors put into making an article of FA calibre -- Samir धर्म 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Personally I don't think this is a threat to the wielding of the tools. Somehow I don't think Ambuj wold go and make unilateral decisions to delete articles which weren't referenced, etc, or block peoplewith unusual editorial styles....? Blnguyen | rant-line 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oddly enough, for someone who "respects the amount of time and effort that editors put into making an article of FA calibre" Ambuj didn't have any actual comments to make about the article itself or its content. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment The reasons for Ambuj's oppose vote was perfectly valid in my opinion. A featured article has to be as close to perfect as possible so nit-picking is not something that should be received negatively. I'm personally a strong supporter of cite templates and I will oppose a FAC if there is an inconsistent approach to referencing. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   The references in the article were not "inconsistent"; on the contrary, they all followed an identical format that conformed with policy. Ambuj opposed the FAC because he wanted some non-mandatory, non-recommended templates inserted into an article that didn't need them - a fetishistic makework project. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose for the reasons listed above. I realize this is also just a protest vote, but Ambuj's behavior in regards to the Featured Article (which I also did a fair bit of work on) shocked me. Ambuj seems to think that the purpose of Wikipedia is to promote conformity and rigid enforcement of template use, rather than the production of great encyclopedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I wouldn't make that sort of a sweeping generalization. Ambuj has an FA that he contributed to as a primary editor, and has bettered several FA's based on his constructive comments at FAC. He's participated in FAC discussions for the past 4 months and no one has ever questioned his motivation before. I'm certain that he believes that the purpose of Wikipedia is the production of great encyclopedia articles. His heart is in the right place. It's not fair to him to spill histrionics over one FA's candidacy to his RfA, as an admitted "protest" -- Samir धर्म 09:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose based on the immature and very non-admin-like behavior described and linked above. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - evidence is that he's a prolific editor with a helpful attitude, but we already have enough admins with vaguely deletionist tendencies and too much confidence in their own judgment. There are many good, and even great, editors who don't make good admins, and this is one of them. --Leifern 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per SV - not ready for adminship. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per SlimVirgin. I'm a perfectionist myself, and I understand this attitude, bur an admin must be able yo distinguish between what is critical and what is not. Many featured articles do not use citation templates, but that is not a sufficient reason for their being stripped of the featured status. Pecher ^Talk 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per SlimVirgin. I hope that these protest votes will help the user see that while formatting has an important place in the constructive article, it certainly shouldn't become an obstacle to the production of quality content. Tewfik^Talk 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per above. FeloniousMonk 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per slimvirgin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose because of concerns raised above. AnnH ♫ 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose While this person seems pretty good at being an editor, I think he would make an awful sysop. I have seen what happens when editors who show such intransigence and spitefullness become administrators. I feel that his response to Slimvirgin's vote proved exactly what she was saying- That he voted against featured status of a good article for unclear reasons that seemed to be based upon tiny perceived infractions of wikipedia policy, he has also shown a remarkable disdain for good faith. If this is the behavior of someone who is up for adminship then I don't want to imagine what might occur when he (as an administrator) is involved in a content dispute with an editor who does not have such privledges. However, I do not want to lose a potentially useful editor from the project, I just don't want to see him "succumb" to adminship.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Rather mild but stern oppose on the basis that from what I've seen, this otherwise relatively productive and useful editor's grasp of English is, in my judgment, insufficient to qualify for adminship on [[:en:]] at this time. I think the objections on the basis of his "odd" behavior on FAC are ... well, well-founded but probably not a sign that the guy's gonna turn into a vandal with a few extra tools. That said, I'm still going to have to respectfully oppose. Admins on [[:en:]] should have an excellent grasp of English, as well as good performance, and I see grammatical, syntax and spelling errors in practically every one of his edits. Tomer^talk 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Could you please cite diffs, Tom. One of the reasons why I nominated Ambuj was his exceptional use of English -- Samir धर्म 01:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I haven't bothered with an exhaustive search, but "usability of the article while interacting with machines" might be an example of what's being discussed. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I don't have time to do it tonight, Samir, but if you really want me to catalog all the problems, I can do so. Like I said tho, there are problems in every single [substantial] edit I viewed. Cheers, Tomer^talk 05:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not saying you're not entitled to oppose, but in my opinion, basing an oppose vote on the use of his English on discussion pages is not really sufficient cause. I say this because I'm a native speaker of English, but I know I often write crap on discussion pages. If everyone spent as much time checking what they've written on talk pages as they do an article pages, we'd be here forever!

    That being said, I have noticed that users from India tend to use excessive and often archaic verbiage. British or American readers may find this difficult to read, but this is not "incorrect English". It just merely highlights the anglo-centric nature of the English Wikipedia - one of the many systemic biases here ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    This comment's wanton display of assumption of bad faith is appalling. The poor grasp of English is evident on far more than discussion pages, but beyond that, the assertion that opposition to a candidacy for adminship on the basis of the user's crappy English as illegitimate, demonstrates a profound failure to recognize the purpose and rôle of administrators on Wikipedia. The fact that you [Sukh], as a native speaker of English "often write crap on discussion pages" as an excuse for dismissing the poor grasp of the language for others as a reason [as you appear to proclaim] in favor of adminship, is bizarre in the extreme. If, as you seem to imply, good edits are worthless, especially in favor of just wanton blatherskyte [and intelligible language be damned], then I can only surmise that you are what I would classify as a "worthless editor". You are free to rebut, but that's my take on your statement to the effect that taking care that one's edits to talk pages make sense, is a worthless venture. [To quote you, "If everyone spent as much time checking what they've written on talk pages as they do an article pages, we'd be here forever!" The ability to communicate succinctly and effectively is a critical concern when it comes to determining ones worthiness for adminship.

    That aside, the assertion that Indian users might tend toward excessive verbiage, some of which might be archaic, strengthens, rather than weakens my assertion that this user's grasp of English is imperfect. I have never said his English is "incorrect", just that his grasp thereof is imperfect. Any blithering about "anglo-centric nature of the English Wikipedia" is irrelevant drivel...what you've accomplished is, in fact, weakening your argument by insisting that the user's English is more than imperfect because it's indo-English-centric. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but you accomplished it marvelously. Kudos on oops. Tomer^talk 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    The fact that you saw bad faith in my general observation is your own business. I was objecting on the basis that impeccable English is not used on talk pages (which happens to be the only thing you provide a diff for) was not "in my opinion" good enough cause. You're perfectly entitled to vote as you wish, but as this is a consensus building exercise, I felt it was my duty to say that *I* found your objection to be "objectionable".

    Ambuj's English is far far better than some administrators I've seen on Wikipedia, and I don't find it a problem. Ambuj has a very good grasp of the English language - to a measure that far exceeds what I feel is required in an admin. I believe Ambug generally communicates "succinctly and effectively". There is always the option of asking for clarification if you are unable to determine what he is saying.

    Fortunately for us, your definition of perfect English is not shared by everyone. The fact that he may use archaic verbage in a western sense, does not mean it is archaic in India. Everyone's English is imperfect some of the time - it's something we have to get used to.

    I think many readers can judge for themselves that your vote has little basis. Incidentally, how can your oppose be both "Rather mild" but "stern"? Gasp! Is that a sign of imperfect English? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well, no. His English is more than adequate. There are regional varieties in English, and Ambuj's choice of vocabulary and sentence structure is in keeping with Indian English. As a Canadian, I've had no problems communicating with him whatsoever (and, despite my knowledge of Hindi, my English is very Canadian). I've checked his diffs as well, and I don't see any problems in mainspace (and I agree that most of us are lax about grammar and word choice in other spaces). Most of the "brilliant prose" in the FA Indian Institute of Technology is Ambuj's. -- Samir धर्म 09:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe next time you are being picky about someone else's grammar, you should make sure that your post does not have more than ten grammatical mistakes. Your reason for the vote is a joke and I hope it does not affect Ambuj's confidence in regards to contributing to Wikipedia. To Ambuj: Your English skills are more than sufficient for adminship and please do not listen to people suffering from delusions. Ahhh! Gotta love knowing that I am never going for the idiocy that is adminship and can speak my mind freely when people are being silly. --Blacksun 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe next time you insinuate that I have, in "being picky about someone else's [sic] grammar", have made "more than ten grammatical mistakes", you'll care to point out even one. Your insinuation, compounded by your assertion that the rationale for my vote is a joke, amounts to a personal attack in extreme bad faith. For what it's worth, your post contains at least two grammatical errors, at least one spelling error, and a number of punctuation errors... Specifically, on spelling, the genitive of "else" is "else'", not "else's". "in regards to" is a hypercorrective and grammatically incorrect form of "regarding", you meant "the reason for your vote", not "your reason for the vote". That said, if you are ever nominated for adminship, be sure to let me know, so I can register my strongest objections on the basis of your obscene failure to grasp such central concepts governing wikipedia as WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Thanks, Tomer^talk 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    You are entitled to your opinion. However, I would like the community to take a quick look at your talk page. It seems to me that you have a history of being inflexible and overly picky. It seems to me also that only person with a problem here is you. Regards, --Blacksun 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment - I'd have to say that I feel that the comment about his English is farcical. It's perfectly understandable and is of an excellent standard. Secondly, I feel that as long as one's English is good enough to make oneself understood, then that is good enough. We need more contributors from all parts of the world for global coverage, and it is poor form in my opinion to deny people adminship on the basis of unusual phrasings when the meaning of what they are saying is perfectly clear anyway.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    You apparently fail to understand that his English is not only often incomprehensible, but that it's also a perfectly reasonable grounds for opposition to his adminship. While you may find the bizarre wording and syntax perfectly understandable, all I can say is, "that's nice", but no native speaker of English can understand them. Excuse me for saying this, believe me, it's not meant as a personal attack when I say his grasp of English is obviously imperfect, but at the same time, I must say that yours is as well...as is made perfectly clear by your above statement. I'm not lashing out against non-native speakers of English, I am simply basing my opposition on the grounds that to be an administrator, excuse the caps for emphasis, YOU MUST KNOW ENGLISH...not 83%, or 86%, but 100%. Not only do you not, clearly, but far more importantly, Ambuj doesn't. Being able to understand (see passive fluency) is very different from active fluency. Tomer^talk 07:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Meh. That sucks, we don't have any coverage on active vs. passive fluency. In case there's any doubt, let me clarify...active fluency in a language means you are completely capable of expressing yourself in the language so that a native speaker has no trouble understanding you. Passive fluency means you can understand a language completely, even if you can't accurately express yourself in that language. Tomer^talk 07:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ya, you just resolved any doubts I had about your vote. I do not believe even 5% of the current crop of admins would pass your grammar test. --Blacksun 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose as per Tom. I hope I'm not being insensitive, but clear communication is an essential tool; an admin must have this at his disposal. IronDuke 00:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Communication is a two way street. Everything I said to Tom, applies to you too. --Blacksun 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Your argument is nonsensical. IronDuke 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Nice one liner. Please feel free to find where anyone who has been involved in a project with him have found his English skills to be inefficient. Only thing nonsensical here is your opinion. --Blacksun 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    You sure know how to sweet-talk a guy. NB: In your post above, you may wish to move the comma that comes after "Tom," placing it (gently but firmly) between the words "you" and "too." IronDuke 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    I am glad that instead of coming up with any sort of example to prove your (Tom's) case, you are resorting to picking on my comma placement on an online discussion board. This is not about me or you. --Blacksun 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    I could easily come up with a great example to support my case, on this very page. I don't want to do that, because I don't want to embarrass the nominee. I've reread the paragraph I have in mind four times, and am only now just getting a sense of what he might have meant. I'm not sure what you think you're gaining by trolling here -- certainly, you're not helping the nominee by lashing out at people who disagree with you. If AS's English improves, I am certainly willing to reconsider a future vote. But if I change my vote, it won't be because of ranting attacks; if it's not about you, stop badgering people. IronDuke 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ok, you are opposing his nomination because you find his English to be confusing and subpar. However, you are concerned that he will be embarassed if you point out specific examples to help others decide (and maybe even help him see what he needs to work on)? Interesting logic. Alright, I am out of this conversation. --Blacksun 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose per Tomer. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose per Slimvirgin. JoshuaZ 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support.

16. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per SlimVirgin and Tomer. Aren't I Obscure? 02:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Evolver of Borg 04:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Strongly Oppose his nomination for adminship not because he recently supported an article for deletion [25] (In debate on Wikipedia:Article for deletion/Justice Kan Singh Parihar), but due to his immature approach and lack of ability to judge the facts on its merit. Recently, he altered [26]list of notable people from Jodhpur [27] without having any knowledge of their notability. His act is revengeful and amounts to vandalism. It is apparent that he is doing this because I totally disagreed with his views on the above said article for deletion. A person for WP adminship should have an unbiased thinking and maturity. His adminship should not be solely based on the number of people supporting him. It might be misleading.(Jodmar 05:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

    [28]is the second link that you have provided. Could you please explain what is wrong with this edit ? The third link is just a pointer to a particular version. Why is that significant ? Tintin (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Um... He just removed their titles. I fail to see how this "amounts to vandalism". And why do you think he is doing this because of you? Grandmasterka 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    "His edit is wrong because these people are well known with their titles. Deleting titles may cause confusion because there may be many other people with same name.

    It is hard to understand his logic for deleting the titles. Is this a good editing practice? In my opinion it is vandalism because he did it purposefully just after discussion for article deletion ended on July 27th."(Jodmar 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

    It's completely correct. Look all over the place, be don't include honorary terms except in the formal statement of the person's name in their own biography.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose After reviewing the diffs provided per SV. Also concern that nom is not the right person to deal with ArbCom enforcement, a stated interest. --FloNight ^talk 10:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Change to Neutral FloNight ^talk 11:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose per SlimVirgin.--Aldux 11:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose as per SlimVirgin and Tomer.Ayinyud 13:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose per SlimVirgin. Xoloz 15:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Constructive comments are good; sinking FACs because of minor details is not. If an excellent article has a few silly formatting problems, then {{sofixit}}! That's the wiki way, which is something I rather think we want our admins to follow. -- SCZenz 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per SlimVirgin - this probably examplifies the "rigidity of mind" alluded to. Kimchi.sg 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose for now. Still quite fresh candidate (2006). Would like to see some polishing of communication and prioritising skills... -- Olve 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Rigidity needs relaxing; this should come with more experience. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Bibigon 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Change to Oppose per SlimVirgin. I am sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per SlimVirgin. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose not ready yet. I agree with Olve. gidonb 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose per above.--cj | talk 03:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Oppose per concerns expressed above. 6SJ7 04:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose per SV. That segment on FAC talk was unpromising. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose per SlimVirgin. --tickle me 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Oppose Per above. Please do not harrass me about explaining my vote. --Masssiveego 08:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Oppose -- Oppositions sound genuine. Some people with lack of maturity and depth may hurt wikipedia’s reputation. It appears that this guy is trying to control it with his own interest. Bureaucrats need to look in to this seriously.(ManhattanNY 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

    I have struck of this user's vote because this user has never contributed on Wikipedia apart from here. See contribs. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    ( Do not cross out my comment. If you do not agree you are free to write your view separately ).(ManhattanNY 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

    I've cleaned this up after checking policy. Any user with an account may vote, according to the RFA page, but the bureaucrat can discount it if he wishes. So I've removed the strikethrough. -- SCZenz 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    I wonder if you could be more specific about what this "interest" is. Tyrenius 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

37. Oppose per SlimVirgin. 172 | Talk 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Strong Oppose due to the reasons-cannot-be-given extension. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a candidate, adminship should not result from an artificially skewed RfA. EDIT: In any event, the candidate fails my standards through not having been on Wikipedia for at least 6 months prior to the nomination Cynical 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    You are assuming I extended this RfA so as to ensure that the candidate would be promoted. That is certainly not the case. I have no investment either way in this RfA. If I did, I would have joined whichever side that matched my opinion. The specific reasons are not given only so as not to influence the ongoing discussions. Please remember to assume good faith instead of being...well..so cynical as to assume that a Bureacurat was trying to ensure whichever outcome in a RfA. Thank you. Redux 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    If I had to guess, I'd say the extension is due to the recent substantial increase in opposes, based on SlimVirgin's comments, to allow the community to fully take the new information into account. (Just like AfDs are extended when more debate would be useful for establishing consensus!) If anything, I suspect the delay will most likely increase the chances of non-promotion, so you've got it call backwards, Cynical. This kind of judgement is exactly what we have bureaucrats for; I urge you to reconsider your opinion based on the merits of the candidate instead. -- SCZenz 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    If he had been biased towards promoting, he could have just done so. How does it help the community to vote against the candidate if you just don't like a bcrat's action? Please speak to the candidates merits or lack thereof to help develop consensus. - Taxman ^Talk 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Shouldn't the closing bureaucrat discount this oppose comment? It has got nothing to do with the candidate, his contributions, or his abilities whatsoever. AFAICT, Ambuj did not request this extension. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    If an extension may affect the result, it is clearly justified. That's exactly what the point of an extension is. The number of opinions expressed since the first deadline clearly show the extension was justified. Stephen B Streater 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I am sure that is true, but it misses the point of the thread, which is that Cynical is !voting not on the basis of the candidate's merits or lack thereof, but on the basis that he (Cynical) opposes a procedural matter, namely the extension. It was therefore suggested that this effectively invalidated his !vote. Tyrenius 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Saying the thread has a point is like saying that there are valid reasons for supporting / opposing in a RfA ;-) While some people say we should ignore the concerns of this editor, this is a bit confrontational in this context. I suggest we should engage the concerns expressed. Stephen B Streater 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    The point of RFA voting is not whether you think the person would be a good admin, but whether you think making this person an admin would be good for Wikipedia (there is a difference). Since the RFA process has been extended beyond its normal duration, in my opinion it would not be good for Wikipedia for this person to succeed - I am not arguing either way whether the extension was justified or not, I am just stating that an extension for which the bureaucrat states 'no reasons will be given until after the RFA' should not result in adminship. People may disagree with that opinion, but that is why everyone has a vote, not just me. If you disagree with my opinion, then vote Support rather than trying to say that it is 'not a vote' ('Who may vote: Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote, except for the candidate.' WP:RFA). In any event, when examined 'on merits' this candidate fails my standards anyway, through not having been on Wikipedia for 6 months prior to the nomination. I've amended my vote to reflect this, which makes it a moot point. Cynical 11:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Just because all Wikipedians are welcome to an opinion, does not mean all opinions are equally helpful in building an encyclopedia. Considering the user's first edit was 18:05, February 5, 2006 meaning he will have been here for six months as of tomorrow, I'm not sure how many people will view your updated reasoning as helpful. - Taxman ^Talk 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

39. Oppose per SlimVirgin and TShilo12. Ral315 (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose - per SlimVirgin. Zaxem 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I'd like to see a little more time on the 'pedia. 1ne 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per 1ne.--Jusjih 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per 1ne. Roy A.A. 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral per some concerns above. --CharlotteWebb 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral per concerns that were raised. I still think the user is a good editor, but adminiship requires diplomatic skills as well. -- Avi 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Falls 3 days short of my 6 month minimum for support. Themindset 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I've seen great things from Ambuj and I personally haven't run into any trouble with him, but SlimVirgin has a point, especially with that comment on the FAC talk page regarding her. That was not good at all. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Strongly Abstain (per SlimVirgin of course). Ahem. :-). AS seems to be a nitpicker, which is not a capital crime, and on FA would probably even be a good thing, but he's also not as gracious in reversing himself as I would like. Not an oppose, however, since he's actually right about criticising SV's actions on editing WP:DATE, which does take courage, as SV is a well known and active admin, and not so good at taking criticism herself. Would support if he were a bit more gracious in accepting criticism or being overruled when wrong. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Not sure if the exchange with SlimVirgin should mean admin status is withheld, but some WP:AGF would be an essential flavouring. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Change to Neutral per JFW, JoshuaZ and nom's response on RFA talk. Ambuj.Saxena please remember to WP:AGF in the future. FloNight ^talk 12:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral. Can't lean to support just yet. --kingboyk 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral per Kingboyk. I can't support or oppose based on everything together. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Ambuj.Saxena's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count using Interiot's Tool 2 αChimp ^laudare 07:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Username Ambuj.Saxena
Total edits 5787
Distinct pages edited 2754
Average edits/page 2.101
First edit 14:05, February 5, 2006
(main) 2739
Talk 379
User 314
User talk 830
Image 62
Image talk 11
MediaWiki talk 3
Template 86
Template talk 18
Help 1
Category 7
Category talk 6
Wikipedia 617
Wikipedia talk 93
Portal 597
Portal talk 24

• Bureaucrat's note: For reasons I will not discuss at the moment, I am granting a 24-hour extension on this RfA, counted from the timestamp on this comment. I encourage the community to debate further during this time. Redux 16:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As an admin, I see myself significantly contributing to three areas. They are vandal-fighting, speedy deletions, and closing XfD debates, though I will be a little cautious at first. As someone who has had to handle many page moves (though some of them were a result of my own fault), I will occasionally help with requested page moves requiring admin intervention. Later, with more time and experience, I see no reasons for not contributing to other areas I currently have little experience in, which include blocking users for 3RR abuse, ArbCom enforcement and dealing with complex vandalism.

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

A: The articles that I have substantially contributed to are listed on this page. I edit articles across the spectrum: From serious issues like 2006 Jama Masjid explosions to even Why did the chicken cross the road?; from Digvijay Singh to Mrs. World. I am particularly pleased with my contributions to Indian Institutes of Technology article that I helped in reaching FA status. I am also pleased about Parrondo's Paradox article, for which, I received a personal thank you note from Dr. J. M. R. Parrondo. I am also pleased with my contributions to Portal:India, in which I have maintained the front page for the past few months. I am also pleased with my work on the three audio renderings of featured articles.

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

A: Starting chronologically, my first conflict was in my first couple of weeks at Wikipedia when at vandal patrolling, I removed an image from an article and put it for deletion over profanity issue. The editor was furious over me and wrote a long reply regarding non-censored nature of Wikipedia. Not convinced at the explaination, I asked for an admin's help, who sided with the editor and explained the Wikipedia policies to me. I learned from it and moved on. The second incident didn't take the magnitude of a conflict, but I am mentioning here as the editor concerned had mentioned it in his RfA. It was when I moved an article from the subject's nick-name to the real name according to the policies. The editor who created the article was working on it when the move happened, and strongly replied to my move. I explained to him the reasons for the move that convinced him. I am not sure if the editor mentioned it in his RfA because he got an "edit conflict" when he had tried to save the page over the moved page. The third incident happened when during the course of making the IIT article featured, one of the editors told me that I am taking the POV issue too much seriously removing even the slightest hint of POV from the article (some of which were added by him). He preferred the article to be "overall neutral", not necessarily in every sentence. I had to convince him that my actions were required to bring the article to FA citing the objections raised at the Peer-review and FAC, when even at a lot of places, I had to remove paragraphs written by me. In all these cases, I believe that I remained civil and interacted in a manner to diffuse the situation quickly, not letting the debate getting heated up. I have never been stressed in my Wiki-life and I often end up feeling more relaxed than I was when I started editing. Given these observations and based on my experience in handling vandals, I am certain that I will be able to handle any possibly stressing issues coolly, and without abusing my powers.

4. from user:ShortJason. Why do you have so many user namespace edits?

A: I was once myself startled to find so many user-space edits. After going through my contribution history, I found the reason. This is because many of these edits were vandal reversions (on my own page and other users' page), edits to sandbox (I prefer to write article in my sandbox before posting in article space. In fact, my sandbox is my fifth most edited page of all wikipedia pages.) and many a times helping other users with their user pages. For example, I recently helped User:Kevin Breitenstein in redesigning his userpage (see this). I also keep a toolbox page, a to-do list, and keep updating it for my needs. There are other reasons also, including this kind of edits. Before I close, I also remember having a userpage that I love maintaining. Please go through my userspace contribs to see the exact reasons.

Optional question from Lar:

5.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...)

A: Yes, I am aware of the willingness to voluntary recalling process, and as I said in the RfA talk page when this issue came up, I am against placing myself in it for strong reasons. In Wikipedia, when you try to do the right work, you often make enemies. To add myself to that category would be allowing myself to betray the confidence the community has given me (if this RfA passes). Instead, I hold different criteria. If either my nominator, or eight people who have supported me now, ask me to go through the process, I would be willing to go through it. Even this, I presume would be a far-fetched thing to do. Instead, if someone comes up and tells me that I am doing bad work as an admin, i will find out what the problem is, and if it is echoed by many good faith editors, then I will try to change myself. If I find that it goes against my principles to change that aspect of my personality, then I will consider voluntarily giving up that specific admin power. For example, if people feel that I am wrongly blocking users, and I feel that I have been right, then I will give up using blocking feature. I will continue to do use the other buttons as and when I feel justified. So, re-phrasing and re-answering the question, I will add myself to Category:Wikipedians who aren't dickheads. I have heard about Rouge admins ever since my first week on Wikipedia. But I simply don't fit the bill. Wikipedia needs Rouge admins (not literally, but the work they ACTUALLY do), but I am simply not the kind of person. I would be amused if someone places me in that category, but it is a possibility that I don't want to think of.

Allow me to paraphrase the first part and tell me if I got it right... you're saying you're not averse to the notion of some accountability, short of being hauled in front of arbcomm involuntarily, but you'd use some other mechanism (your nom, or 8 supporters, rather than 6 random editors in good standing) rather than the way the current suggested criteria for initiating it are structured? I see that as perfectly compatible with the notion!!! The criteria for recall are whatever you say they are, as long as they're reasonable, because it's a voluntary thing after all... I also like the idea of voluntarily recusing yourself from certain classes of actions until you're convinced that issues raised have been addressed... Thanks for giving this matter some thought and good luck with your candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Wickethewok

Final(61/9/3) Endied 14:52, 2006-07-31 (UTC)

Wickethewok (talk • contribs) – Wickethewok is a thoughtful, involved editor who is fairly active in vandal patrol and AFD, and has been here for nearly six months. His talk page interactions impress me a great deal, as he demonstrates a remarkable level of civility while also showing a strong understanding of policy and process. Wikipedia will benefit if we give him the tools. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Wickethewok 15:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-nominator support. I like this user's writing style, discussion style, and attitude toward the project. Glad to support them for the mop. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per me. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. -- No Guru 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support This Fire Burns Always 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Of course. Roy A.A. 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Yomangani 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support good answers, I agree with you on the rollback issue, but I won't harass you over it. ;) Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
8. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Questions convinced me :) Teke 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per nom --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support This users seems good. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Great answers to the questions..I'm sold! TruthCrusader 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support good user. Seivad 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per nom and excellent answers to questions. 1ne 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Merovingian - Talk 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, answer and editing statistics suggest that this user will be an ideal administrator. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Good spread of edits; good answers to questions - give this person the mop!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. All good plus no big deal = no brainer on this one. Ifnord 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per nom and answers below. Alphachimp ^talk 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Support It seems as if there's been a great run of RfA candidates lately and I'm happy to lend my support to yet another great candidate. I really like his attitude per Q3 and am pleased that he's willing to tackle the copyright backlog hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. DarthVader 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Sure support. Mostly Rainy 02:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
25. Yes. Go Yankees 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Support His civility in dealing with editors in recent AfD discussions Deadmines, RuneScape armour, Zergling, and even with anon IP users on his own talk page, speaks well to his actions as a future admin. -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
28. Support A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, without reservations. Sango123 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per nom, this user should certainly be given the mop. --Draicone ^(talk) 08:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, I keep seeing this user buzzing around, working hard to improve Wikipedia, and am satisfied he'll make good and careful use of the tools. Proto::type 10:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
33. Support -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. I'll jump on the bandwagon here. -- Fan-1967 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Kimchi.sg 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Vote by Kimchi.sq. (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), impersonator account of User:Kimchi.sg. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

35. Support: On the way to becoming one of our best moppers. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
36. Support I like his style. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 16:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. All my basic pre-requisites are met, and seems to be a solid user. Themindset 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Deserves the tools. --WillMak050389 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Meets my standards —Mets501 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Meets 2/3 standards. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support Yanksox 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

41. Hear all hear all - for the information of all crew - let it be known that Tawker Supports this RfA. -- Tawker 06:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
42. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-26 10:26Z
43. Support Very suitable. gidonb 11:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
44. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
45. Yes sir, I've seen his name around, and usually attached to good thoughts and contributions. Easy decision here. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support, meets my edit standards, seems solid and knowledgeable about what needs to be done. Themindset 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    Strike out duplicate vote. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

46. Support I don't always agree with his AfD votes, but he has what it takes to be an admin: he's civil and committed to making Wikipedia a better place. Bonus points for being named after an Ewok. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
47. Support per nom and answers. Viridae^Talk 01:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
48. Impressive. Okay, I support as well. DS 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Looks like a great guy. Mo0[talk] 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
50. Support After taking awhile to consider you, and look you over, I think that you'd make a great Admin! Good luck. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
51. I support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
52. Support Per nom. --Vengeful Cynic 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
53. Support. —Khoikhoi 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:07, 28 July '06}
55. Support per all of the above —Minun ^Spiderman 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
56. Support: --Bhadani 13:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
57. Support per nom. Michael 06:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
58. Support per nom and inasmuch as Wicke seems properly to understand that, the benefits of WP:IAR notwithstanding, an administrator ought to act only to interpret the consensus of the community and to effect any attendant outcome. Joe 16:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
59. Support per above. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
60. I'm very concerned about the answers to Fuddlemarks questions (and followon discussion) but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, as there are other mitigating factors. Please don't let me down. Give your AfD closes a great deal of thought and care, and engage others (perhaps on IRC) to seek counsel if you have any doubts. With that caveat: Support ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
61. Support - Iolakana|^T 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Promising, but not quite "cooked" yet. Despite copious participation on AfD, thinks that IPs can't "vote" on AfD. Doesn't interact much on articles talk pages; most of the edits I chose at random on such pages seemed to be insertions of templates. Overall seems like a thoughtful editor, but needs more time. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

   I feel its important to note that I corrected my statement and also that I used the word "shouldn't", not "can't". I should have been more clear/specific that this was more an opinion than policy. My intent was merely to encourage a (new?) editor to obtain an account instead of just editing from an IP address. Rather than explain the situation further, I would refer anyone to my talk page for my response to the admin who originally notified me of my miswordings. With regards to your second concern, much of my discussion has taken place on user pages. Dunno why, but editors always seem to message me about things rather than discussing them on the article talk pages (if you examine my talk/archive, I think others may agree with me). By no means am I asking anyone to dismiss these concerns, I just felt that I should further explain the issues Tony Sidaway brought up. Wickethewok 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

   Don't meet my new standards. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Changed to support per meets 2/3 standards

   Comment, what are those "new standards"? feydey 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

   I believe they can be found here. Yomangani 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Wikethewok is a fairly sound editor but at the moment shows weaknesses of character and action that need to be addressed before they are exposed to more duress in an admin situation. Once they are, he will be an excellent candidate.

   1) "IP addresses should not vote in AFDs" - this was said 4 days ago, and indicates lack of familiarity with fundamentals, as does the response given above.

   2) This diff [29] from yesterday shows the need to develop a thicker skin.

   3) Question 5: "there is proof that he won a Nobel Prize ... (and assuming quality evidence was presented), I think I would have to relist it". Every single laureate has their own article (see List of Nobel laureates), so there is no reason for it to be AfD. This is also another indication of lack of clarity in applying policy and process, and a lack of ability to take the right decisive action.

   4) Question 5: "For your theoretical Mt. Everest question, I would sooner participate in this AFD by giving my opinion and saying to "keep" it rather than having to close it." Again this shows timidity about assuming responsibility for the right action and a possible wariness about unpopularity, which could get in the way of an admin role. Tyrenius 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   So is the guy actually a Nobel laureate or not? I'm pretty sure determining whether or not he is in fact a Nobel prize winner is trivial. Which absurd situation is the theoretical case in question? The one where 20 editors vote to delete a Nobel prize winner? Or where one arbitrary guy for some reason thinks that this guy is a Nobel prize winner but has no proof to back it up? I must admit I had difficulty answering the question due to these vagueries. Also, by no means have I shied away from controversial decisions in the past, nor do I plan to in the future. However, I feel it is also the duty of an admin to perform duties according to general consesus, even if I do not agree with it. Wickethewok 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   The situation is the one where, in your words, "there is proof that he won a Nobel Prize" and, knowing that, you decided to relist it for AfD. Your statement "I must admit I had difficulty answering the question due to these vagueries." points to the qualities which I think you need to develop, namely clarity of analysis and judgement, and the ability to take charge of a situation, which an admin will frequently need to do. The question was, however unlikely to occur in reality, quite straightforward: "How would you close if an AfD finished 20-1, but there were twenty "nn d"s and one "Keep, he won the Nobel Prize in chemistry immediately after climbing Mount Everest naked whilst smoking a pipe"?" (We can ignore the Everest bit.) You have just talked about this as if there were two situations - one with the 20 nn's or the one with the "abitrary guy", but there is in fact only one situation, which comprises the 20 nn's and the "abitrary guy". That is the whole point of it. Basic misunderstandings of this kind are likely to end up with a whole heap of trouble for those you encounter and yourself. You state, "it is also the duty of an admin to perform duties according to general consensus, even if I do not agree with it", which is in most circumstances commendable, but in this limited hypothetical circumstance would not be in the interests of the encyclopedia and would require individual intitiative (IAR) to resolve. Tyrenius 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the quick and honest response. I think I better understand the crux of the question better now, though for integrity's sake, I feel I should leave my answer as is. The reason I chose relist rather than keep was that I would much rather settle the issue on AFD rather than a separate review, which would not be unexpected considering a 20-1 margin. While I am perfectly willing to go through a DRV or what have you, it seems like it be much more efficient to solve the problem in the same AFD.Wickethewok 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   If I may say so, I think that was a good, honest and intelligent response, which shows the kind of thinking I am looking for. Although I think you're certainly right in retaining your original answer, you could add a second below it, to comment on it and state your current position. Tyrenius 05:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Damn, damn, damn. Mate, I know you're a nice, intelligent guy, and the amount of support you've got here certainly shows you've made a good impression on others, too. However, your answer to my question — while not completely clueless — is disappointing. Your view on proposing merges when nominating AfDs — particularly in an era with record numbers of articles nominated for deletion — is just plain Wrong. As for my hypothetical Nobel Prize-winning Everest climber, assuming the assertions were true, then it should be a no-brainer: close as keep. AfD is not a vote, and twenty people who don't know their arse from their elbow (a pre-requisite if you're going to say "nn d" for someone who actually managed to successfully climb Everest naked, I mean, geez, that's pretty bloody awesome) cannot outweigh even one Clueful user who is prepared to offer a good argument and evidence to back it up. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   With respect, Mark, your question stretches incredulity to the heights of...well, you get the idea. If the information was added late to the RfA, then a relist would be *absolutely* appropriate, as the new facts need to be checked before you can just say "oh, he's notable because this person said so and linked to a spoofed URL". Articles get changed all the time during AFD, and relisting due to changing circumstances is well within process (otherwise, you'll just see it on DRV, more likely than not, even assuming those 20 people didn't come back and see the new information). I was all set to change my vote to oppose based on your commentary, but I think you're being a bit harsh. It's not like some of our current admins don't make "keep, obviously notable" closes that are disputed from time to time... -- nae'blis 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   The point here is not that "he's notable because this person said so and linked to a spoofed URL". The situation is that there is verifiable proof that the person is a Nobel Prize winner. That was posited by Wickethewok and his action was based on that premise. The purpose of these hypothetical problems is to avoid real ones further down the line. Tyrenius 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Mark. I've seem AfDs like that. Administrators need to courage to realize that AfD gets it wrong sometimes (or rather, the courage to make AfD get it right despite the raw numbers). Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Mark. AfD is not a vote, and is not for considering articles to be merged. Kimchi.sg 04:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Mark and Tyrenius. Yanksox 05:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   First off, I realize AFD is not for merges in general (it is articles for deletion after all). What I meant below is that in situations where say 98% of an article is rubbish and probably shouldn't exist, but a few lines might be salvageable as mergeable information, this still seems appropriate for AFD. Anyways, I've taken the liberty of expanding on some of my opinions below #5 if anyone would care to read it. Wickethewok 06:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose per fuddlemark. - FrancisTyers · 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Issues surrounding AfDs concerns me per Mark above. --Wisden17 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Mark and Tyrenius. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: A little higher minor edit summary usage will be better. It is now possible to set user's preferences to prompt when entering a blank edit summary under "Editing".--Jusjih 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral I'm ranting. Editors who have no idea what they are talking about argue with me over their nonsensical edits to medical articles all the time. When you write an encyclopedia, you need experts. Please value their opinions when you are an administrator, especially when the experts are fellow admins. -- Samir धर्म 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral while I don't doubt that you are a nice guy, some of the answers to the questions just don't gel with me. Not enough for an oppose, but I can't support. Hope you understand. ShaunES 04:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

Comments

For all edits.Voice-of-All 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Wickethewok (over the 4447 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 170 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 25, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 6, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 95.76% Minor edits: 84.62%
Average edits per day: 45.32 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 382 edits): Major article edits: 99.4% Minor article edits: 91.67%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4447 edits shown on this page and last 62 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.47% (21)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.83% (37)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 29.73% (1322)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 23.81%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 62 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2429 | Average edits per page: 1.83 | Edits on top: 20.17%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 40.72% (1811 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 9.15% (407 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.03% (268 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 40.41% (1797 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 39.51% (1757) | Article talk: 4.52% (201)
User: 4.99% (222) | User talk: 18.08% (804)
Wikipedia: 30.65% (1363) | Wikipedia talk: 0.52% (23)
Image: 1.42% (63)
Template: 0.27% (12)
Category: 0.04% (2)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

• See Wickethewok's _{(Talk ▪ Contributions ▪ Logs ▪ Block Logs)} contributions as of 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) ^(Source*) using Interiot's tool*:

Username Wickethewok
Total edits 4431
Distinct pages edited 2420
Average edits/page 1.831
First edit 17:42, February 6, 2006
 
(main) 1747
Talk 201
User 221
User talk 804
Image 63
Template 12
Category 2
Wikipedia 1358
Wikipedia talk 23

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

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: A couple of specific chores I would often help with would be speedy deletions, which seems like it can never have enough admins watching it, and WP:RM, which always seems to have a surprising backlog even for pretty non-controversial moves. Additionally, I would like to help close AFDs, as I feel that often deletion reviews can have been avoided if the closing admin gave more detailed descriptions of why they closed a particular way, which I am certainly willing to do. This would save time for everyone involved. With the rollback tool, I plan on upping the amount of work I do currently in the recent changes patrol, which I have done less than as of late due to bot superiority and admins being able to revert far faster than I. Also, WP:CP seems like it always needs more assistance with backlogs going back often several weeks.

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

A: It would most certainly be Alexander Coe (DJ Sasha), which is currently enqueue at WP:GA. I am working on it in hopes to get it to featured article status in the near future. When I first started work on Wikipedia, I was surprised by the lack of information and well-sourced content regarding electronic music and its artists, especially considering how present electronic dance music fans are on the internet. When I first decided to work on the Sasha (as it was named at the time) article, I saw that it did have content that was consistent with my knowledge, but that it was largely unsourced and with no in-line cites at all. Searching Google for hours for information regarding specific aspects of Sasha's career helped me realize how important citing reliable sources actually is, especially when compared to how often it is actually done. This leads me to another aspect of Wikipedia that I have participated in: AFD.

While getting articles deleted might not be the most rewarding process, I take pride in the work I have done on AFD. Those of you who regular patrol AFD are certainly no strangers to number of video game-related articles that have been up there recently. These AFDs can be extraordinarily time consuming, due to the amount of debate that occurs. When discussing such articles, I attempt to avoid mentions to "cruft" and other possibly offensive terms. I understand that much of the electronic music bio material may seem like cruft to others, so I understand the reverse. Thus, I try to concentrate on objective criteria such as verifiability and original research, two WP policies too often ignored in too many articles. Anyways, I take pride in my work on AFD making Wikipedia more encyclopedic and more of a reliable source of information.

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

A: With regards to content disputes, I have not been in involved in anything particularly major, most likely due to the (disappointing) lack of other editors working on content I am typically interested in (mainly electronic music and the occasional sports articles). However, there have been of course rather intense debates on AFD regarding the validity of certain articles. In AFD at least, I have found that the best strategy when getting frustrated with others is simply to step away from those for awhile. I have found that aggressively over-pursuing often detracts from one's credibility and civility. Essentially, I have found that exposing an issue to a wider number of people (either through AFD or any other means of review) generally leads to the best outcome in any situation. Through experience, I have also learned that quick and clear communication is most important when resolving disputes. Otherwise, one party is left contemplating the situation for an extended period of and becoming ever more frustrated. If anyone would like an additional clarification in my answers, I am more than willing to answer any more questions.

Optional question from Lar:

4.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read some opinions on the matter. I think that while its not a bad idea to have regular "check-ups" for admins, they shouldn't have to feel like they are constantly under threat of having their adminship revoked. If they do feel that way, then it seems like they are far less likely to come up with creative solutions to problems and do anything they feel may be controversial. As long as the reviews would be done infrequently enough to not interfere with my other Wikipedia tasks, I would be willing to add myself to such a category. I am fine with my work being reviewed; however, I would not enjoy answering a million questions regarding every decision I ever made as an admin. If these reviews became overly rigorous/frequent to the point that it impeded my work on Wikipedia, I possibly withdraw from this category (eg. I don't want to spend more time on review than with other important tasks).

I am indeed aware of "Rouge admins". I see what its driving at, but I don't really think being added to this category means anything. Honestly, I don't quite see why its controversial. If someone wants to add me to it, thats fine - I'd be in good company. While I find it funny and understand the underlying message, I don't think any extended amount of time should be spent contemplating "Rouge admins". If some editors choose to associated other editors in a certain category, thats fine, but I don't think it holds any deep meaning. Anyways, my basic points are these: I am fine with being held accountable for any actions I may take as long as they are less rigorous than RFAs and I don't have any particular feelings associated with WP:ROUGE, though if anyone finds me permanently blocked after this RFA, you can bet it was probably that darn cabal in association with the rouge admins.

Optional question from fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

5. You mention (above) that you would like to be able to close AfDs. What is your general philosophy on AfD? What is your view on the importance of a majority on AfD? How would you close if an AfD finished 20-1, but there were twenty "nn d"s and one "Keep, he won the Nobel Prize in chemistry immediately after climbing Mount Everest naked whilst smoking a pipe"? How important to you consider the views of experts when it comes to an AfD discussion? How much of a role do you feel evidence plays when making an argument for keeping or deleting? Do you feel it's appropriate for someone to nominate an article for AfD if they want its content merged elsewhere? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My general philosophy on AFD is that it is a place where the encyclopedic nature and compliance with WP policies and guidelines regarding conclusion are enforced for topics, as opposed to content. If talk sections for pages such as WP:BIO and WP:NOR are legislature, then AFD is the judicial system. I believe as more and more Wikipedians participate in an AFD, the more likely it is to reach the best conclusion. Majority is of a decent amount of importance (after you subtract "votes" from likely socks that is). While certainly having more users express their opinions in a certain direction is convincing, their rationale needs to be taken into account as well. For example, if some users said keep/delete based on how they feel towards the nominator, whether they like the subject or not, or some other arbitrary reason, then their opinion holds less weight because they did not back it up with valid reasoning. For your theoretical Mt. Everest question, I would sooner participate in this AFD by giving my opinion and saying to "keep" it rather than having to close it. This situation is excessively unlikely in that 20 editors would wish to delete an article about someone of obvious notability. Of course, this is assuming that there is proof that he won a Nobel Prize and such. Reliable sources providing evidence in AFD debates is of the utmost importance. Being able to verify information is a core element of Wikipedia and it certainly extends to AFD as well. Anyways, to answer the Everest question (and assuming quality evidence was presented), I think I would have to relist it and encourage editors to address Nobel Prize and Everest issue of notability. Of course, if no evidence was presented backing up this claim, its a pretty obvious delete.

I would like to be able to offer proper weight to the opinions of experts; however, it is nearly impossible to verify that anyone in particular is, in fact, a bonified expert. Because of this, you can't really consider the view of an "expert" any differently than any other editor. This is a problem in any system where users are semi-anonymous. As for your last question, I feel it is more appropriate to discuss merges on the talk pages of the respective article, though any merges with significant content deletion could be appropriate for AFD. AFD is certainly not to be used for minor merges or relatively uncontroversial ones. If there are any points you would like me to further expound upon, feel free to ask!

Further thoughts: The reason I chose to relist is not because I believe in mob rule and am afraid of unpopularity, its just difficult to believe that 20 out of 21 legitimate (assuming they appear to be legitimate for the sake of this anyway) Wikipedia editors suddenly became idiots momentarily. Anyways, the point I was trying to make wasn't so much addressed specifically to the Nobel Prize winner situation (which is an absurd and excessively extreme situation), but more towards general situations where there are important issues that have recently been introduced into a discussion and have yet to be addressed. If they continue to not be addressed, then clearly keep is the appropriate course of action. In cases of absurdity such as this (bad nom or what have you), I would not hesitate to speedy keep the article. Have a good weekend all! I'm around to answer more questions if you wish, even if they may lead to more controversial discussions/answers on my part.  ;)

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.

[edit] ERcheck

Final (68/0/0) Ended 23:50, 2006-07-30 (UTC)

ERcheck (talk • contribs) – For me it is a privilege to nominiate ERcheck for adminship. ERcheck has been with us since October 20, 2005. During this time he has become a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. Besides doing behind the scenes janitorial jobs, he is the originator of many quality intellectual articles. The amount of biographies written by ERcheck has earned him the nickname "Bio Man" by his peers. ERcheck has made numerous contributions to the Marine Corps portal, Military History - WikiProject and is very active in the following areas: Neglected articles, Wikiproject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia Maintenance and RC patrol. He is also a active member and participant of United States military history task force of the Military history WikiProject and of the Military history WikiProject. The thing that most impresses me about ERcheck is not so much his dedication and edit count (over 13,000) but, the way he handles himself with others. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. ERcheck is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support as nom. Tony the Marine 06:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Yep Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support excellent editor who deserves the tools--Looper5920 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Good Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support, conscientious and dedicated editor. Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong Support Definitely admin material. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 21:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support per nom. Roy A.A. 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Yanksox 21:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support seems to be an excellent candidate who has proved his trustworthiness to the community multiple times over and I see no reason not to give him some extra buttons so he can further help Wikipedia hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong Support per above. Seems trustworthy, great article contributions, a treasure chest of image uploads, and WP: involvement (albiet a bit low recently, but the serious contributions and talk involvement make up for it).Voice-of-All 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support Candidate is incredibly dedicated and would be a great administrator. --Murcielago 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per nom. Alphachimp ^talk 23:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong Support astounding contributions. This Fire Burns Always 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Free Support (ok sorry, I watched Free Willy 1,2,3 and now I like whales a lot) -- Tawker 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Looks good to me. Good luck! --Diehard2k5 | Talk 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, obviously. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 00:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
18. 13,397 Supports Absolutely. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Merovingian - Talk 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Su-su-su-su-support- Good contributor. "Antonio Iron d**k Martin"
21. Support per nom. Go Yankees 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    This user has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of the exicornt vandal. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

22. Support dedicated editors make good admins abakharev 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
23. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. DarthVader 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong Support - refreshing zero thought required vote when our paths have crossed I've always been impressed - Glen 06:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per nom. It looks like this user would make a good Admin. Stormscape 06:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Thought he already was one. 1ne 07:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
28. Support per nom TruthCrusader 07:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Strong Support he has proven to be an excellent member of the community and deserves the mop. --Draicone ^(talk) 10:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
30. Support good user. Seivad 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support per nom. Stifle 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    This was placed by User:Sti!fIe impersonating User:Stifle. Raven4x4x 12:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

31. Support I am taking Tony the Marine's word for it. In the RFA's I checked the last couple months I spent more than an hour on each candidate looking through their history. My main concern is that an admin is courteous and encourages others. Although I am fully aware Wikipedia needs all the help it can get to counter vandalism, I tend to initially oppose candidates who are mostly concerned about AIV tools because their approach is mainly to stop others rather than build the encyclopedia and I've seen too many RC patrollers ignorantly abusing newcomers. --HResearcher 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, lots of experience.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support A great contributor! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
34. Support - no question about that... NCurse _work 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
35. Support: No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Friday (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Looks like a good candidate for admin status. Good answers to questions below.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Support absolutely. He deserves the mop. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. Why shouldn't I? Great user. Kalani ^[talk] 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
40. Robert 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
41. Support per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
42. Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
43. Supportper nom --Mmx1 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, without reservations. Sango123 04:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Ticks all the right boxes ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 08:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Strong support per nomination and other users. Go Yankees 08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    This user has accidently voted twice. The first vote was made on 24 July 2006. DarthVader 10:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support. --JohnnyDemon 08:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    IP -- Samir धर्म 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Recurring AOL vandal. Vote stricken. Naconkantari 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Well ERCheck is a good user, so support. Samiraidif 08:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Editor blocked indef. Naconkantari 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

46. Support. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
47. Pile on support. Themindset 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
48. Support GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
49. Support DVD+ R/W 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
50. Support--Jusjih 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
51. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-26 10:29Z
52. Support Doesn't get much better than this. Joelito (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
53. support per nom. Viridae^Talk 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
54. Support.  Grue  16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
55. Support yes. —Khoikhoi 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:07, 28 July '06}
57. Strong support per above. Take a mop and bucket —Minun ^Spiderman 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
58. Support: --Bhadani 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
59. Support per above Bucketsofg✐ 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Yeah.—Jared A. Hunt 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
61. Support per nom. Michael 06:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
62. Support per nom. Seems like a very trustworthy contributor and I've seen him around. -- Imoeng 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
63. Support per nom and above. You'll make a great mop-wielder. ShaunES 04:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
64. Support Seems devoted and conscientious.--Runcorn 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
65. ERcheck seems a kind and careful editor who has already contributed greatly to the encyclopedia and who is likely to do more good things with the mop. Per nom, many others, thoughtful answers to questions... More candidates like this one, please!^TM support ++Lar: t/c 09:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
66. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
67. Support per all above. Newyorkbrad 17:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
68. Support, meets my standards no problem. Just zis Guy you know? 17:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral sorry, contribution list is very bland, I could not be sufficiently critical.--Musaabdulrashid 09:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1. never mind, I just had a bad feeling--Musaabdulrashid 09:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See ERcheck's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• ERcheck's edit count from Interiot's Tool2 (Retrieved on 05:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js
Username ERcheck
Total edits 13397
Distinct pages edited 7365
Average edits/page 1.819
First edit 02:33, 20 October 2005
 
(main) 7317
Talk 1626
User 319
User talk 1923
Image 571
Image talk 1
Template 6
Template talk 19
Category 21
Category talk 4
Wikipedia 1021
Wikipedia talk 105
Portal 456
Portal talk 8

• ERcheck's edit count from VoA's JS

Viewing contribution data for user ERcheck (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 70 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 23, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 15, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.88% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 62.65 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 531 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 376 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.76% (88)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 6.8% (340)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 20.42% (1021)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 14.5%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 353 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3041 | Average edits per page: 1.64 | Edits on top: 31.44%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 81.38% (4069 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 5.1% (255 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.4% (670 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.12% (6 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 41.22% (2061) | Article talk: 24.54% (1227)
User: 2.48% (124) | User talk: 19.56% (978)
Wikipedia: 1.82% (91) | Wikipedia talk: 1.46% (73)
Image: 4.1% (205)
Template: 0.04% (2)
Category: 0.08% (4)
Portal: 4.2% (210)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.5% (25)

Voice-of-All 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Initially, I anticipate that I will contribute in vandal patrol — monitoring and taking action on WP:AIV. Earlier in my days on Wikipedia, I spent time on RC patrol, but was hampered by the lack of non-admin rollback; now, with rollback privileges, it will be much easier to quickly revert vandalism and warn editors. There are times when I find that it would be beneficial to have additional admin help to more quickly block vandals. I also plan to contribute to in CSD, as there seems to be an occasional backlog that needs a few more admins to assist in clearing.

As I gain more experience, I expect to take on chores in other areas, such as COPYVIO and CAT:PROD.

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

A: I find the greatest satisfaction on Wikipedia comes from working with other editors — collaborating on articles/projects/tasks. It gives me an opportunity to add to my general knowledge, foster a sense of community, and improve the quality of Wikipedia. For example, after making some edits to a few articles that were part of the Scouting WikiProject, I met User:Rlevse and have had the opportunity to contribute to the article on George Thomas Coker; and receive helpful hints from Rlevse — both directly and from reviewing his Featured Portal. I’m currently assisting on maintaining the USMC Portal — which again, happened though a chance meeting with User:Looper5920 when editing a Marine Corps article. I’ve been recently collaborating with User:Marine 69-71 on a few articles on notable Hispanics, helping with fact finding and references — which has improved the accuracy of the articles and has given me the opportunity to branch out and meet new contributors.

In my early days on Wikipedia, I spent a lot of time on patrolling new articles. Identifying articles for speedy deletion is a good way to the maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Likewise, participating in AFDs has been an area of contribution that I have enjoyed — in certain cases, being able to ferret out hoaxes, or even more gratifying, to expand an occasional article that should be a keeper. (An early example is Dan Rice, which seemed like nonsense, but before voting on AFD, I did a bit of research, expanded the article enough for it to become a speedy keep within an hour of nomination.)

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

A: I’ve recently found a number of articles / editors that have been the source of controversy. When I find a place that stepping in (directing the discussion to the appropriate talk page/venue) with information on Wiki guidelines or additional information that might shed a new light, I have tried to do such. It can be frustrating to see how edit warring can disrupt the constructive contributions of well-intentioned editors; at those times, I step back, and on occasion, I seek the advice of experienced editors/admins. With the dispute resolution processes in place on Wikipedia, remaining level-headed and following guidelines does work.

Optional question from Lar:

4.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lar, Interesting questions.

• I was vaguely aware of the Category:Administrators open to recall, having noted it on a few admins' pages. However, I was not familiar with the discussions that lead up to it. I've read the interesting discussion on the talk page and noted that it is a relatively new process with just a few months run time. I am not aware of any admins who have been "recalled". Are there any? I'm in a wait and see mode on this — wanting to see how it works in practice. The underlying question seems to be, "Should there be a process that keeps things in check, rather than have a situation be escalated to the point that an Arb Com intervention is necessary?" I guess I've been on the rather quiet side of Wikipedia — I've not seen any outrageous behavior by admins; in fact, in all my dealings, I've found the admins to be civil and usually quite cordial and very helpful. (That might indicate that, in general, the RFA process works — giving the extra admin privileges to those who can be "trusted". )
• I was not aware of the "Rouge admins". Interesting concept and amusing reading. It's always nice to infuse a little humor into tense situations. (Though I do wonder whether or not those who could benefit most from it — those who believe in the cabal, believe that the admins are a pack of rabid wolves seeking to devour newbies and POV trolls — would have the humor lost on them, taking an "I told you so attitude".) Would I be put in the Rouge admin category? I think it unlikely .... just doesn't fit my personality. But, there are only a few things in life that I will say "never" to.

I know it took me some time to response, but I did want to give it some thought. I didn't answer all of your questions directly, but I hope I addressed the gist of your inquiries. — ERcheck (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] WAvegetarian

Final(84/1/2) Ended 15:03, 2006-07-30 (UTC)

WAvegetarian (talk • contribs) – WAvegetarian is a veteran Wikipedia user who has been editing Wikipedia since 31^st May 2005, and has more than 4200 edits. He has been very active on new pages patrol and has more than 1000 deleted edits to this day. He shows a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and actively participates in AfDs. Connor is also an active RC Patroller and has a keen eye for vandalism. He is also very active on the Help Desk and always offers a helping hand to newcomers. This rational, intelligent and civil user would not abuse the responsibilty bestowed to administrators, and should be provided with the appropriate tools. Nearly Headless Nick 11:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. I-beat-the-nominator-support :) — FireFox 15:15, 23 July '06
2. Support This Fire Burns Always 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) 15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Meaty Support, excellent user. High points definitely make up for Yanksox's concern in my opinion (but please do take that criticism into account after this RfA). RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 15:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support No red flags as far as I can see. WAvegetarian appears to take part in a wide range of activities on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Naconkantari 16:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Yes, please. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak support per neutral section. Look quite good otherwise. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Things seemed a lot better until I saw those edits in the neutral section. Everything else is in order, though, and nobody can be perfect. Alphachimp ^talk 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Support: I've seen this user around and there's nothing worrisome for me. Catamorphism 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Seivad 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. He'll make good use of the admin tools. Canderson7 ^(talk) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support I agree with Neutral 1 and 2, but it still looks to me like this user could use the admin tools, and those examples don't really show anything that would suggest he would misuse them. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I've had...quite an experience with WAvegetarian when I was first starting out here. Obviously, I've changed. He is an excellent vandal fighter; I've had first hand experience! (In fact, I was planning to nominate him, darn!) Thistheman 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
15. That's so hot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
16. Merovingian - Talk 20:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
17. good user, his reputation proceeds him. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Edit conflict Support This editor seems to have a sensible grasp of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, judging by the spread of edits and the answers below.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, support. JohnnyDemon 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    IP contribution -- Samir धर्म 08:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

    Recurring AOL vandal. Vote stricken. Naconkantari 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

19. Support per nominator. Reggae Sanderz 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, I'm impressed by his answers and his contribs are top notch imho - great candidate all right. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Support (despite what another admin candidate, Yanksox, has to say below). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Weak Support. Weak due to concern raised by Yanksox. Roy A.A. 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
23. Support definitely, a good contributor who will make a good admin. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Support solid contributor who I'm sure will make a solid administrator hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
25. Support I was neutral, but a more thorough look at WAveg's contributions and community interactions convinces me that he is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, through ignorance) the tools and that his having the tools is likely to benefit the project, so I, my concerns about the issue raised by Yanksox notwithstanding, support. Joe 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Support for fellow RC Patroller. Pass the mop! E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Support per RandyWang. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Seems like a great user. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Go Bulldogs! --Michael Snow 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
30. I'd have to say this here is a pretty hefty support! bd2412 T 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
31. A 16oz Cut of Meat Support I've been looking for this RfA all summer. Teke 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
32. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. DarthVader 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
34. Support From what I have seen is a good user, should make good use of the admin tools. --blue520 05:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
35. Support --A. B. 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
36. Strong Support I have had recent dealings with this user and a troublesome third user and I think they have been nothing but professional in their dealings. Viridae^Talk 06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per nom. 1ne 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
38. great big bags o'Support I like the answers given to the questions. TruthCrusader 07:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Support per nom. --Draicone ^(talk) 10:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
40. Support. Go Yankees 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked Exicornt vandal. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

41. Well you've been editing over a year, so I support. Mostly Rainy 11:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
42. Support --HResearcher 12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
43. Suppport.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
44. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
48. support Knows his way around.Geni 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Meets all three of my criteria. In addition, all of my personal experiences with WAvegetarian have been very positive. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
50. Pepsidrinka supports. 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
51. Support, without reservations. Sango123 04:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
52. Support, looks quite thoughtful -- Samir धर्म 10:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
53. Support appears to be a good quality user and someone who won't bite sentient beings. I really don't like the responses in the Neutral section (specifically the Again... bit) but it's not enough to sway my recommendation. MLA 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
55. Support GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
56. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
57. Strong support, good for the community. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. A good editor, I'm sure he'll be a good admin too.-Will Beback 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
59. Support, deserves the promotion. DVD+ R/W 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
60. Support Ryūlóng 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
61. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-26 10:32Z
62. Support, WAvegetarian looks like an excellent candidate for administrator. Prodego ^talk 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
63. Support — Vildricianus 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
64. Support - does good work at WP:HD -- Lost 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
65. Support 172 | Talk 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
66. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
67. (Edit conflict) support, as I really like WAvegetarian's answers to the questions he was given. Picaroon9288|ta co 04:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
68. Support per above. Bucketsofg✐ 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
69. OMG Cabalish Support --Vengeful Cynic 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
70. Scrabble-tastic Support. Appears to be thoughtful, mature, articulate and responsible editor. Agent 86 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
71. Support I am sure he will not abuse the tools. --Guinnog 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
72. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
73. Support per above, and per fair and open response to communication. Good Luck! -- Avi 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
74. Support: All reliable editors should graduate to become administrators. --Bhadani 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
75. Support per above, a reliable and trustworthy editor. Silensor 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
76. Support. Good editor. Let's give him a go. --Improv 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
77. Support per nom. Michael 06:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
78. Schizophrenic Support I ask myself, "would Wikipedia benefit if this user gets the mop?" Amazingly, the "other side" replied "yes". Hence my vote. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
79. Strong Support Good editor who is always willing to help others on the Help Desk, reliable and "mature" contributor -- Imoeng 09:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
80. Support Meets my standards. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
81. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
82. Support A good editor and an asset to Wikipedia.--Runcorn 07:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
83. No reason not to, and many good reasons to Support ++Lar: t/c 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
84. Support A sound editor who displays good judgement and knowledge of policy. Gwernol

Oppose

Oppose I don't like his answer to the rouge admin question. The first part (about being called names and wrongfully) is sympathetic. I don't like the part about it not bothering him if he were nominated as a rouge admin. It would bother me if someone put my name in there. I still don't find the joke amusing as it rings a little to loudly with truth. Plus, again, I feel a cliquiness in this rfa. Shannon^{duck talk} 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:TINC? --Nearly Headless Nick 12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shannon, hve you ever heard of WP:AGF? These 'Clique' comments are becoming worring. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I perfectly understand that some people will not like my answer to the rouge admin question. There's not much I can do about that as it was a truthful answer. I will note, however, that I wasn't looking for sympathy as anyone seeking adminship at the same time as seeking sympathy for being called names is decidedly confused about what comes with the territory. I was trying to demonstrate that various disgruntled parties, and a few immature folks from my highschool, had written things about similar in a similar context as what a rouge admin might get. Of course, all I did in these cases was warn them about vandalism, tag their 7th grade friend's bio as a WP:CSD A7, or nom/comment in their company's AfD. Whether you understood that before or not, I'm sure that my explanation of it isn't going to make you more likely to change your mind, but I thought I should explain it anyway just so there was no confusion. A couple of people have commented on your cliquiness concerns in this RfA; many more have in others. There is a legitimate reason to be concerned if you see adminship as a political position and RfA as a democratic vote because only a very small portion of the community is involved. Assuming that there is an average of 100 votes per RfA and that 2/3 of the registered usernames aren't active in any way for one reason or another, that is still a voter turnout of just .005%. As much as it seems to have become like an up or down vote, RfA is supposed to be consensus based. Just like all other consensus based decisions on Wikipedia, consensus is formed by interested parties who happen to show up. There is a group of people who, like yourself, wish to be greatly involved in the RfA process and do vote, for lack of a better term, in nearly every one. When they think a candidate is well qualified they say support. It is my guess that they have similar standards which is why they often end up on the same "side." Although I didn't participate, I would have supported Ohnoitsjamie whole-heartedly. I think this is a great example not of cliquiness, even though many of the same voters that are involved here were involved in that RfA, but instead an example of an amazingly well qualified candidate. I can appreciate what I believe is your ultimate concern that not enough people take an active role in or seem to care about RfAs, but I don't feel that setting your vote to the opposite of what the majority of others are saying is likely to bring about positive change in the matter. I could of course be completely misinterpretting your comments, so please let me know if I have misunderstood what your driving concern is and I will try to address it. I realize that for you this is a secondary matter in my RfA and am not trying to get you to change your opinion, but it is the one criticism you had that I think I might be able to work with you to change. I also have concerns with the current RfA process, although please don't take that as another example of me being a rouge admin running roughshod over process. :)—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose - [Edit conflict] A good user who is obviously interested in the project but I feel the user can get slightly worked up when things do not run smoothly. For example, I closed an AfD nomination and forgot to mention I had found a few sources for them, to add them into the article. WAvegetarian responded with a slightly mild tirade. I could certainly sense his anger. However, I could tell he had calmed down with his reply. Iolakana|^T 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   I admit that my first message was more confrontational than necessary, however the context of the timeline of events gives explanation, if not excuse, for it. The AfD notice was removed and the AfD was closed at 11:40 with the closing remarks The result of the debate was keep. There were two qualified keeps, pending sources. At 14:29, two hours and forty-nine minutes after the closure, there had been no change made to the article and no comment as to why it was being kept. It seemed to me that the almost three hours of elapsed time was more than enough to have brought up any new information or links to debate somewhere else to explain the keep closure. I left the message linked above at 14:29. At 14:58, Kilo-Lima left me this note, explaining that he had forgotten to mention that he had found sources. He made no comment about forgetting to add them to the article. His comment makes it seem like adding them was an afterthought spurred by my enquiry. He added the sources two minutes after that comment, but a full three hours and twenty minutes after closing the AfD. My response, linked above, was geared towards settling any bad feelings that Kilo-Lima may have had. The desired outcome had eventually come about,the article kept as notable with sources; there was no reason to complain about the lack of timeliness as nothing could be done about it. Kilo-Lima had only become a sysop two days earlier, so my confrontational first message may have felt to him like newbie admin biting. I can imagine that there was something that prevented Kilo-Lima from having the time to immediately add the sources, but he should have at least mentioned that he found them and had some intention to do so, although the time lapse and response makes me think he forgot/didn't. I don't feel that most single events are enough to cancel out the rest of a candidate's qualifications, especially if they occurred over three months in the past. That said If I did feel this way and this interchange had occurred two days prior rather than two days after the close of Kilo-Lima's RfA, I might have voted oppose on his for his poor communication and lack of transparency and timeliness. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Seems like a good user, but I'm little worried about this considering that the candidate listed this as being an article that he is proud of. This may seem ridiculous, but that section seems unencylopedic and intended for people that go to/did go to/will go to the school. Yanksox 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

   Please read my response to the associated optional question below. In direct response to this vote: One of the ways that our project is used is as a neutral review and source of information on companies, places, schools and organizations. While I can't say how widespread it is, I know many people who have "googled" potential dates, employees, employers, etc. We are now being used in the same way. Anecdotally I can say that many people I know used Wikipedia in their college search to get neutral information on schools. The Seattle Public Schools allow you to pick your own school to some degree so I don't see any problem with providing neutral information about the culture of the school to potential students and parents. This of course opens up a whole 'nother issue over what way we expect/want people to use Wikipedia. I'm quite certain that there is a more appropriate space to do this than my RfA. If there is a current discussion about this, either here or on meta, please let me know as I would love to be involved in it.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Per Yanksox. I don't think the candidate actually wrote that section or should be opposed over it, but one would hope that a Wikipedia admin would know that kind of speculation about random school employees and people and so on is utterly unencyclopedic and needs to go. --W.marsh 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

   Note: I have removed the two really troubling items, see [30] for the earlier version. --W.marsh 16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral per YankSox and W.Marsh. Joe 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Moved to support.

   Again, please see my reasoning in the response to Yanksox' question.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user WAvegetarian (over the 4311 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 388 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 23, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 11.02 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 355 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4311 edits shown on this page and last 30 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.3% (13)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.62% (70)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 18.53% (799)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 47.75%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 26 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2057 | Average edits per page: 2.1 | Edits on top: 12.34%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 54.56% (2352 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 20.39% (879 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 17.33% (747 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 6.31% (272 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 36.12% (1557) | Article talk: 5.2% (224)
User: 5.96% (257) | User talk: 29.16% (1257)
Wikipedia: 21.46% (925) | Wikipedia talk: 0.65% (28)
Image: 1% (43)
Template: 0.26% (11)
Category: 0.07% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.14% (6)

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

Username WAvegetarian
Total edits 4311
Distinct pages edited 2057
Average edits/page 2.096
First edit 05:08, 31 May 2005
 
(main) 1557
Talk 224
User 253
User talk 1257
Image 43
Image talk 1
Template 11
Template talk 3
Category 3
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 929
Wikipedia talk 28

Taken from Interiot's Tool2. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

A: I have found that much of my time on Wikipedia is spent doing new page patrol. As it is now, I can tag articles for speedy deletion, but that just adds to the back log. I would like to be able to lessen that backlog. I also have gotten fairly good at recognizing copyright violations. I have tagged many articles as such, but would like to work on the other end to reduce this massive backlog. I have experience with images having uploaded a number of main illustrations myself and would probably help out at the image csd backlog as well. I also have been active working on countervandalism through computer assisted recent changes patrol. Having the rollback button would make my vandalism patrolling easier and more efficient. I also would be able to block persistent vandals rather than trying to figure out what {{test4.2}} is while I wait for someone else deal with my alerts on WP:AIV or IRC. Instead, I could be working on that backlog. There is lots written here about "the backlog" because we have a lot of it and I know I helped to create it. It is especially noticeable to me when doing new page patrol and it takes forever for attack articles to be deleted. In my work on the help desk/{{helpme}} patrol I have come across instances where admin assisted page moving/history merging was necessary to fix a duplicate article, someone needed to have the text of a deleted article to rewrite to an acceptable state and other instances where I had to refer them to someone else. I have a background in establishing consensus in discussions in real life. I was elected to the position of a consensus discussion moderator/arbiter at my cooperative, which is a part of the Oberlin Student Cooperative Association (the third largest student cooperative association in N. America). I would make use of this and my experience with Wikipedia to close XfDs.

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

A: I know that there are users who will hold it against me, but the single article I have contributed to the most is Garfield High School (Seattle). The early history of the article got corrupted during a string of page moves, but you can see most (I think) of my uncorrupted changes by looking at my early contributions. This article wasn’t even a legitimate stub when I found it. Since I’m not of the opinion that every accredited educational institution teaching people age 14 and up is notable, I probably would have marked it as having no claim of notability and sent it to VfD, however this article is about ‘‘my’’ high school. I got involved with Wikipedia because User:CAPS LOCK told me to one day in our high school philosophy class. Having grown up in the neighborhood and spent four years there, I figured I was well qualified to write about it. Garfield is by no means ready to be featured article, but it is quite good, IMO. I didn’t create it, but I’m fairly certain the majority of the content is mine. The source research was by me, at least. The best start to an article I’ve made is at Power Pete. Other than some mention of a community of Power Pete players, which did/doesn’t exist AFAIK, I think the article covers everything it should/could.

Most of my contributions haven’t been creating content but instead new page and recent change patrolling and answering on Ref desk, Help desk and helpdesk-l before it closed in February. As it was a mailing list, my contributions to helpdesk-l don’t show up in Special:Contributions/WAvegetarian or my edit count. I would refer you to the archives, but the link on the meta info site doesn’t work. It seems that the only record I was there are the BJAODN I added to the helpdesk page.

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

A: Of course. Most recently (today) while responding to {{helpme}}s on #wikipedia-bootcamp I ran into a disgruntled newbie who wanted help figuring out where his article had been moved to after it stopped being at Credit Card in favor of a redirect to Credit card. I patiently worked resolving his problems while removing helpme templates over and over. It was pointed out to me by another editor trying to help the author that the article was likely to be deleted as it was related to a current AfD. I agreed with them, but continued to help the author. It was at this point that the author decided we were conspiring against them and proceeded to have a fit across my talk page, the other helper’s talk page, their own talk page, the AfD, and the talk page of at least one person from the AfD. This included personal attacks, gross civility violations and blackmail using threats to troll if I didn’t make sure the article got kept. I responded in a calm, civil and collected manner. I pointed out the relevant policies, explained my actions and tried to deescalate the situation. The calmed down significantly after my first message in response to their rant and left a civil question for me on their talk page. I answered it, giving the reasoning behind my actions. I feel that open communication and civil discussion are the best ways to deescalate conflict and stress. If stress is cumulative rather than stemming from an individual conflict I find that short wikibreaks can be very rejuvenative.

I flipped out once in what I feel is the distant past during the AfD for REMAGINE. I felt that the author was being bitten for not understanding Wikipedia policies. I was out of line and have not had anything even close to that occur since. JzG gave a great example of deescalation technique and a lesson I took to heart [31]: clear and early communication avoids problems. In general my wikistress levels have been relatively low other than during the time I was involved in this dispute. I did get into it with User:Mike Nobody over edits to the George W. Bush article and the addition of a 238 pixel wide image to his signature. It eventually became clear to him that the insertion of his POV using out of context photos was unacceptable as was the oversize fair use image in his signature. I explained how to avoid inserting your own POV into articles and explained the fair use criteria. I finished the exchange with a compliment and didn't have any problems there after.

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. You listed Garfield High School (Seattle) as one of the articles that you are most proud of. However, there is a section that appears not exactly be encylopedic[32].Do you believe the section should still be inculded? If so, why? Thank you very much in advance and good luck! Yanksox 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, that section. I agree that the section will not be there in its current form if/when the article gets to featured status. It appears that more of the edits got lost in the various moves and history merge crap than I realized. I know that I have made many edits to this section to clean it up. The only one I found in the history is this. I guess this is one area where I am an eventualist. While I agree that the current style of this section is unencyclopedic, I think that the culture of the school is an encyclopedic topic worth covering. The painting of the stack and culture surrounding activities on Alder Street are, now with the remodel "were", an integral part of the Garfield student culture. I didn't create this section, but feel that it will and has served as a spot to draw in new editors where they will feel like they can make a positive contribution. Eventually I would like to see this section become a nice paragraph detailing the changing culture of the school through the years as evidenced by the words students at the time used to describe it. I realize this may be somewhat of a pipe dream. Currently I feel that the section is doing less harm than good so I haven't deleted it. There have been no concerns raised over it on the article's talk page so there hasn't been any consensus created one way or the other. I don't think this is quite the right forum to discuss article content, but will definitely take that into consideration. I urge anyone with a viewpoint on this matter to discuss it at Talk:Garfield High School (Seattle) and to post an article content RfC if they feel so inclined.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

5.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(/me scribbles down his notes frantically wishing the professor would slow down) :) (sorry I got carried away but one paragraph per 3 ?s seemed reasonable).......

I actually just read about the 6 users requesting resignation thing earlier today when poking around in the fallout of Sean's second RfA....So I'm now coming back to answer this question having had the edit window open for roughly one hour per question mark. After a long, hard thought I've come to the conclusion that if I were made an admin in 5.5 days, I wouldn't put myself into that category. I think that the idea is a sound one. Allowing a minority of the community to have that power preserves the consensus backbone of the project that I feel is getting lost as we grow larger and switch to more vote-like systems as it is very hard to scale consensus up to the population size we now have. This is one way to prevent the voice of underrepresented groups from being squashed as sometimes happens in percentage based RfAs. I also like that this provides a way to avoid the time consuming hassle of RfAr. No matter what the eventual outcome, arbitration takes a lot of calendar time and person hours and often results in hurt feelings and grudges. This provides a way to avoid that. This would also take the bureaucracy out of the process, allowing the editors of Wikipedia to get results without having to depend on members of that thing of which there is none that starts with a C.

That said, here are my reasons for not liking the wording of the category currently: I'm not sure that 500 spelling corrections make you enough of a community member to be in good standing. I support the work that recipients of the Minor Barnstar do, but one can rack up 500 minor edits rather quickly without ever communicating with others, knowing policies or really getting involved with the community. I just checked and it took me 2.5 months of solid editing, but from May 31 to October 14 elapsed time, to rack up 500 total edits. Others might disagree, but at that point, given the length of time, quality of edits and sense of community I had, I felt like I was certainly "in good standing." So I find myself feeling that 500 main space edits could be both too low or too high a standard. One month also seems short to me, but someone who spent many hours each day on the project, was involved in policy discussions and communicated with the community about Wikipedia off site through IRC, meet up or whatever could have a very strong grasp of how we operate and be a fully functioning member of the community "in good standing." Thus I have similar conflictions about both numerical limits. I am also worried that by the written criteria someone who doesn't know how to use the preview button, made many borderline helpful minor edits and got a week long block after three weeks on the project could then turn around and request the blocking admin step down. Obviously some people get accidentally blocked so banning people who have been blocked from the process isn't good, but maybe having a cooling off period after coming off a block would avoid retaliatory requests. I also think that there needs to be some kind of double jeopardy clause that limits how soon after a successful reconfirmation and admin can be requested to prove themselves again, otherwise it would be used as a tool of admin harassment. While this RfA has been going quite well for me so far, I'm not sure that I would necessarily want to go through it again as I have some reservations about the way they are conducted, as touched on earlier. I think that there are better forums for reviewing user conduct, as I believe that administrators are User:s just like everyone else. One forum that comes to mind is a user conduct RfC. This could have some modified form for reviews of admins, but I think it is a better base to work from than a second RfA. If I were to join something like this, which I'm not opposed to, I would need to determine "good standing" on a subjective case-by-case basis as I don't see there being a practical and objective way to do it and have some other form of review than RfA. I believe that I have always tried to treat others fairly and think that I will be able to make clear-headed decisions regarding who is in "good standing" and worth accepting criticism from in this format.

As for Rouge admins...In my time here I have been called: a stupid fucking asshole, pathetic, a bad apple, a douchebag, a self-abuser, a porn addict, and a homosexual (used as a pejorative). I've been told I have no clue, no friends, and no life. I was able to call upon Godwin's Law in an AFD debate after my actions led to Wikipedia being equated with "NAZI Germany." Most of this was due to people feeling I was horribly treading on their rights to add vanispamcruftisements to Wikipedia. (Thank you to Freakofnurture for coining that). Well, that or my inability to distinguish them as being distinct from a localized absence of topsoil. I think the Rouge essay is quite funny and obviously appreciate others as well. I certainly have some Rouge tendencies, but I also feel that transparency and consensus are important. If someone placed me in the Rouge admin category I wouldn't be horribly offended and wouldn't object. After all, I have felt the need for {{db-cb}} (for CSD CB) from time to time. I also am extremely concerned about keeping transparency and accountability in admin actions. That said, as just about everything can be undone now, including undeletion of images, I think that it is important for admins, and everyone else for that matter, to do what they think is best for the project and rely on people to tell them if they are stepping on toes or eating the bowels of newbies later. I feel that at times both process and policy can get in the way of the good of the project and that momentary voluntary ignorance of either can be justified if done in good faith with openness to undo it if questioned. I do strongly advocate treading lightly around newbies, however if they partially unbutton their shirt, pull back their collar and seductively say, "Take me," you shouldn't hesitate to bite their neck and drain them of their unrepentant vanispamcruftisementing blood, that is to say that you can only be nice to admitted trolls for so long before blocks are required. So I guess my adminship beliefs boil down to: do what you think is right, but always be open to criticism; don't take it personally when someone tells you your actions were wrong; and be willing to re-evaluate if you have the community's trust every time you edit. I guess they aren't that different than my non-admin Wikipedia philosophy.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry for the essay questions there! Other editors have done OK with them though. Thanks for your thoughtful answers, that's what I'm hoping for when I ask these... ++Lar: t/c 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Yanksox

Final (104/4/7) Ended 02:40, 2006-07-29 (UTC)

Yanksox (talk • contribs) – Nick, a.k.a. Yanksox, has been a bizarrely impressive editor since his arrival early this year. He's contributed to this project in so many ways: all kinds of deletion debates, RfA, AN/x, vandal fighting, newpage patrol. Most importantly, Nick is a valued member of the community. Newbies and established users frequently consult him, and at least a half-dozen users have expressed interest in nominating him. Over the past few months, I have become close friends with Nick IRL and I am highly impressed with his dedication and maturity, so much so that I frequently solicit his input on my edits. Nick is also the editor primarily responsible for uncovering the infamous Satchel Cohen hoax. In summary, Nick is ridiculously qualified to serve us as a sysop.

Here's your rundown (stolen from RfA/Gwernol):

• Edit count - 8200+.
• Time around - Edited as anon before February 2006. Massive contributions begin in May 2006.
• Civility? - Always. No personal attacks ever in high-pressure situations.
• Edit summaries - 100% all around.
• Mistakes - None.
• Email enabled? - Yes.
• Userpage? - Clean.
  • History recently cleared to remove inadvertently disclosed personal info, but the sysops among us are invited to verify that there was nothing controversial there either.
• Any edit warring/blocks? - No blocks and no wars.
• FA participation? - Probably not.

Please join me in supporting Yanksox for sysoppery! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yanksox is top class admin material. He has a stable, measured temperament and has proved he does not rise to the bait even over extreme abuse, but maintains his objectivity.[33][34] He has an intelligent, enquiring, thorough mind, as in his brilliant initial investigation exposing the Satchel Cohen hoax. He knows and can apply policy firmly, but is not heavy-handed. He's a good communicator and knows his way around the project. I wanted to nom, but CrazyRussian said he had first claim! Tyrenius 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Having been shocked to find out Yanksox was not an admin, I too had planned on nominating him for adminship. Reviewing his history, and watching/interacting with him in discussions, I have been consistently impressed at the professional way in which he conducts himself. Nick is already doing a large number of admin tasks, such as removing users from WP:AIV ([35] [36] [37]) and closing AfDs (that have been decided) ([38] [39]). Giving him the tools is a natural extension of his current contributions, and it is my honor and privilege to join in this nomination. Alphachimp ^talk 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• I too, was just going to nominate him just two days ago, I was just going to ask him if he would accept a nom from me, and then I had to go to work. I completely support this nomination and wish to add my nominator-seal to it if possible! Go Twins! -zappa.jake (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Guess this is a quintuple nom...Yanksox is rediculously qualified. I would have nominated him if I knew he wasn't an admin. 1ne 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I am truly flattered and honored by these nominations. After personally reflecting about this nomination, I gratefully accept and ardently await the opinions of other members of the community. Yanksox 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support: Well rounded, brilliant editor. His work on the Satchel Cohen hoax was exceptional. He will make an excellent administrator -- Samir धर्म 02:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Soxport! - Yes, I know, most people will think I have a bit of a bias (a 25 month relationship with the nominee). But in sharp contrast to what most of you may think, it's in the other direction. I'd like to oppose because then he might get discouraged and decrease his editing times - thus increasing his Sable time. But just look at all he's done!!! He's reverted TONS of vandalism, helped a lot of newcomers, voted in (and closed!) AfDs and MfDs, copyedited extensively, mediated... All in all, with over 8,000 edits, he is experienced, levelheaded, intelligent, and eager. I have to say I'm very proud of him and all he's done here; it's truly remarkable. :) Srose (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Fully Support Phenomenal editor; I had originally intended to nominate him myself hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 02:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Huge support (although the Yankees and sox blow ; )) Very rational, civil, and intelligent user. I don't forsee any obstacles for you in this process. Should be a cakewalk. Good luck AdamBiswanger1 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Shoot-the-Moon Support: An excellent user if WP has ever had one. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support This Fire Burns Always 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Lots of edits, useful editor; would be a good admin. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Absolutely admin material, although I find "Mistakes? None" quite hard to believe. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Although I don't support Yankees. :) --Terrancommander 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Wholeheartedly support: Yanksox offered some kind words of encouragement to me during my early days at Wikipedia, at a time when I was feeling discouraged by vandalism and linkspam. Each time I have crossed paths with him since, he's been nothing but friendly, encouraging, and helpful. He's beaten me to the punch countless times in vandalism & new page patrol. In short, I see nothing but good things for Wikipedia coming out of Yanksox's inevitable adminship. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. I've found Yanksox to be willing to cooperate and open to dialog, and has developed a great grasp of policy pretty quickly. Most important, he has shown he values the humane aspect of the project by consistently helping others and approaching fellow editors in need. That is a true virtue, which makes me give him nothing shorter of my wholehearted support. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 04:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support A great editor in all that I know of him. --TeaDrinker 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Support I checked into Yanksox past comments with others. I believe this person would make a fine admin. I see no problems with giving this person the advanced tools to further the cause of this project. Yes, I support! JungleCat talk/contrib 04:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Well-rounded user. --Nearly Headless Nick 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Crazy co-nom monkey support!1!111. This is so WP:100. Alphachimp ^talk 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
16. 'Support - doomed never to be able to edit articles again support :) -- Tawker 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, great user. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
18. Not an admin yet? support --WillMak050389 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Will make a fine addition to the ranks.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Mo Vaughn-sized support First I remove my co-nom lest that section should get too long, and then I discover that I can't even make the first 15 supports. Oh well. All that I'd have to say has already been said, and more succinctly at that. Joe 05:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Merovingian (T, C, @) 05:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Support He makes me look like a Gnome :). I've no problems with past jibs; I think he's matured enough. Personal opinions in votes do not reflect actions as administrators. Teke 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
23. I-wish-I-were-awesome Support. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 06:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Mailer Diablo 06:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
25. Support per nom. Michael 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Green lamp. Go ahead. But please don't thank me for voting. --Ligulem 07:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Third Nominator Support -zappa.jake (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
28. Strong support I have been consistently impressed with Yanksox.--Kchase T 08:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per nom, will make a good admin despite your poor taste in baseball teams ;) BryanG^(talk) 08:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
30. Support great editor with right interests for an admin abakharev 09:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. DarthVader 10:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
32. Support per nom. --Draicone ^(talk) 12:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
33. Co-nom support of someone who will be as great an asset to wiki as a dedicated and conscientious admin as he is as an editor, and who, it is obvious from this page, is his own harshest critic.Tyrenius 12:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
34. Support of course! Computerjoe's talk 12:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Great user, no problems here! Thε Halo ^Θ 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
36. support, great name to choose  :) Mostly Rainy 14:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Support A fine user. Would make a good admin in my opinion. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
38. Support No problems that I can see. Batter up!!!!! TruthCrusader 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Killer of vandals! Seivad 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
40. Support my twin. We started editing in a difference of merely three hours :) — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
41. Strong Support See this diff. Eluchil404 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
42. Support A great user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
43. Sure, I'll clear for adminship --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
44. Support, despite Fuddlemark's links, which are valid. The explanations provided satisfy me Yanksox won't do it again; we've all learned from past editing mistakes.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
45. Support per nom. Even if he's too new, we sometimes have to make exceptions. Roy A.A. 19:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
46. Support.  Grue  19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
47. Strong Support woah! I can't believe that in the 12 hours since I last checked there've been this many comments. I needed to seek assistance from an admin a few days ago so I thot I'd seek help from Yanksox. I was amazed to learn that this editor wasn't an admin. He really should be! Agent 86 19:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
48. Not only did I think he was an admin, but I also thought he was a b-crat too! support + triple edit conflict support - per myself. GeorgeMoney ^(talk) 19:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
49. Support of course! G.He 20:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
50. Support per nom. Molerat 21:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
51. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per... well, the nom about covers it, doesn't it. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
53. Support, after reading the response to Mark below. --heah 22:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
54. Strong Support per nom. You mean he wasn't an admin already? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
55. Support -- JamesTeterenko 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. Wow...I would have nominated him if I knew he wasn't one. :-O 1ne 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. Despite my respect for Mark, and he makes a very good point, I think Yanksox's adminship will help Wikipedia more than it will hurt Wikipedia. Pepsidrinka 00:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
58. Suppoert. Through experience and per all above. Good luck. --AaronS 00:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
59. Super-ridiculously-delayed Shomer-Shabbos primary-nominator Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
60. SupportThis guy is just what we need in an admin. 'sed 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
61. Support The first time I get to say, "I thought he was an admin already." I feel like I've lost my virginity. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support, though I don't know if you're a Yankees, Red Sox or White Sox fan. Go Yankees 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Struck out vote from indefblocked sock - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support Naconkantari 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.134 (talk • contribs).

    This vote was innapropriately added by 64.12.116.134 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). Alphachimp ^talk 05:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

62. Support Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

    IP vote - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support Mailar diabIow 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked indef as imposter. Iolakana|^T 11:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

63. Support Iolakana|^T 11:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
64. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
65. Support, in the few months I've been here, I've constantly seen his name popping up on page histories and talk pages. Obviously very prolific, and seems like a decent sorta guy too. Good enough for me! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 13:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
66. On our way to WP:100 Support. Editcount impressive, pleasantly suprised by the answer. ;) Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
67. Support A little green, but has given me every reason to trust that he'll make a good admin. --InShaneee 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
68. Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
69. Support, excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
70. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 09:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
71. --Andeh 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Excellent, trustworthy, and highly productive editor. Xoloz 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
73. Support. per nom Anger22 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
74. Robert 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
75. Support DrunkenSmurf 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
76. Support Dr Zak 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
77. Support Does all of the right things to earn a mop. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
78. Support, prolific vandal fighter and researcher. Valuable member of the community. Accurizer 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
79. Support. Valuable editor, exhibits good common sense, we need more like him. -- Avi 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
80. Support per nom(s). Sorry I didn't get back to you on your email question, but it looks like you have it figured out! Good luck. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
81. support had only good encounters with this user. --Bachrach44 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
82. support GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
83. Strong support, good for the community. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
84. Support, good editor, deserving of the promotion. DVD+ R/W 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
85. Support all my dealings with this user have been great. Viridae^Talk 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
86. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
87. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-26 10:40Z
88. Support Bucketsofg✐ 21:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
89. Support Yanksox was helpful and later encouraging during my RfA. I do not see anything wrong with his attitude or edits. Definitely, this user should be admin. --Osbus 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
90. Support Yanksox is civil, intelligent, and hard-working. I have no doubt that the sysop tools will be put to good use. -- Kicking222 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
91. Pile-on support. The one mistake MarkSweep mentioned was just that - a mistake. I think it's reasonable to forgive. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
92. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
93. Support; ridiculously qualified candidate. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
94. Support per nom! —Khoikhoi 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
95. Support I rarely participate in RfAs, but I think I know this user well enough to give a full endorsement. --mboverload@ 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
96. Yessuh! Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 09:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
97. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:07, 28 July '06}
98. Support per above —Minun ^Spiderman 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
99. Support: just one less than a century, but many more to come! --Bhadani 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
100. WP:100 Support I confess I was waiting to do this :P --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 13:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

     I wish I had thought of that. Welcome to the WP:100, Yanksox. αChimp ^laudare 14:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

101. Missed it by that much Support. Needs more co-noms though. :) ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

     "Missed it by that much"? Geez, Chief, that should have been my line! Agent 86 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

102. Support - Passes my standards. —Mirlen 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
103. Support -O.K. I'm on the bandwagon. The catch on the hoax is impressive. I do wish the guy would keep personal activities elsewhere, but I don't see any more "love" pages around so this seems to have cut back already. -MrFizyx 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
104. Support Are you joking? I thought Yanksox already was an admin. This guy has more experience than plenty of actual sysops (8200 edits?! I'll never amount to that in my entire life!!!). With all my heart and the strongest vote possible, I say to wikipedia: YANKSOX ROX MY SOX! VOTE YANKEE FOR SYSOPPERY!Crisspy 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Crisspy

Oppose

1. Strong oppose. Yanksox nominated Al McKay for speedy deletion fairly recently, even though it was not a candidate for speedy deletion, even though he didn't even think the article should be deleted himself. The reason? The article started life as a speedy candidate because its author was using progressive saves (note the newbie-biting in tagging for speedy less than a minute after first save and using an inappropriate deletion reason), and the author removed the tag once he judged the article was good enough to avoid being speedied (he was right). Yanksox wanted the article deleted to punish its author for removing the tag. (For reference: [40], [41], [42]). Now, I'm heartened that he Saw The Error Of His Ways afterwards, but the mere fact that he was capable of getting Wikipedia procedure so completely, heart-rendingly, indescribably awfully wrong in his over-enthusiastic participation in Chinese Whispers Policy Wonkism is something I'm extremely uneasy about. I appreciate he's a good vandal-hunter, but newbies attract enough teeth marks as it is ... and as for making up policy out of whole cloth — that's Not Good. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 07:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   I'm actually quite glad that you posted this mistake of mine. Personally, I think it should be noted that was when I was first getting my feet into the water and I, myself, was a "newbie" at the time. I think that this is actually a prime example to show how I have improved drastically as a user. I tremendously respect you and your opinion, and I actually can look at Al McKay as a learning experience that I shouldn't have had but did. The only reason it occured was since I was just getting into the CSD, and didn't really learn it as well as I should have. I was confused, and trying to find my place in this great big place. It was an unfortunate event that occured, but as I have stated earlier, "I have made mistakes," I wish it didn't happen, but it did, and I believe everything occurs for a reason. The reason for that was I had to do sommething really "idoitic," so that I could become a better editor. Yanksox 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   This incident (which occurred over 2 months ago) has been somewhat dramatised. To say Yanksox wanted to "punish" its author is pure conjecture without any evidence, certainly does not AGF and, judging from Yanksox's general good behaviour, is not likely to be true. The evidence indicates Yanksox's motivation was upholding process, namely the instruction that article creators should not remove CSD tags (for obvious reasons), and therefore he was acting with the best interests of the project in mind, even though there might be over-conscientiousness in this case — but rather that than the reverse, in my book. It's not fair to criticise him for proposing CSD in less than a minute, as the article was just an external link in its first appearance, and to all intents and purposes CSD was correct. That is a strong testimony to Yanksox's efficiency in monitoring New Pages Patrol, and his dedication there has been very beneficial to the project. Everyone is bound to make errors at times, and this was a relatively minor one from good motivations. The important thing is how people deal with errors. Yanksox displayed exceptional humility in his response, [43], as he has in his responses on this page. He has earnt and deserves our respect and endorsement. Tyrenius 12:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   He's earnt my respect, but not my endorsement. Two months ago is still too recent when you consider the sheer idiocy of his actions — I strongly believe that anyone who "upholds process" in the face of the Right Thing to Do is detrimental to the project, so Yanksox's movement towards attaining Clue since that incident is heartening, but not enough to get me to support him so soon. As for whether or not it's "fair" to criticise him for proposing a speedy less than a minute after an article has been created, it most certainly is — if efficiency is gained at the expense of newbies who could well be on their way towards creating a good article (or at least, as here, a good stub), then efficiency can go to hell. If you don't have that approach, then you're doing more harm than good. I'm glad that Yanksox is learning; is Tyrenius? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   Mark, let me again state that I highly respect you and your opinion and am pleasently surprised that you have taken the time to even post on this page. I do believe it is right to critize me for the actions that I committed on Al McKay, however, I think I have strived to improve myself since that incident. Also, said incident was one of the main reasons why I started to really actually study up on policy (I made flash cards, and have a notebook full of the stuff), since I didn't understand it at that time. But since the incident I honestly believe that I have drastically improved as an editor and a member of the community. I think a really bad analogy would to say that if this was a football/soccer match, intially, I picked up the ball with my hands and threw in the air. Now, I have practiced to try to improve myself that I could assist the team (every Wikipedian) to improve. I understand and respect your reason for opposing me, but I would like to clarify that I am a much different and more mature user since my "newbie" learning experience. Yanksox 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   I certainly recognise I have things to learn and always make efforts to do so, and would be grateful for any guidance, but that's not the subject of this page. "Idiocy" is unnecessary and uncalled for. I think is is more fitting to follow David Gerard's observation, ""Newpages patrol and RC patrol are unpleasant tasks, and the workload is such that the admirable people who do it may well make mistakes," and Jimbo's endorsement, "it's ok for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the defense of quality."[44] The point is that tolerance is extended to the hard workers in this situation, and we should not come down on them like a ton of bricks! Tyrenius 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   "Idiocy" is certainly an apt description of Yanksox's actions in biting a newbie and later asking for a decent article to be deleted; he admits as much, and I am impressed by his frankness in that regard. As for "erring in the defense [sic] of quality", that's not the same as "do not under any circumstances wait five minutes to see if it might be a progressive save from someone who will turn out to be a valuable new user". It's called using common sense, and it's a Good Thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   I very much respect your protection of the "newbie" editor. There are conflicting values in this, as in many situations, and it is necessary to make a judicious and balanced evaluation. We disagree where that lies, but the matter has been thoroughly worked through and now the community can make up its mind. Thank you for being so conscientious in exploring this incident. (PS "defense" is the correct US spelling, albeit not UK.) Tyrenius 14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry for wandering in, but the last version that Yanksox tagged a speedy [45] read "Al McKay is a crafty guitarist, songwriter, producer and former Earth, Wind & Fire band member." There is a potential article there, but this isn't it, and there is nothing to be gained from keeping inanities like that in the history. Imagine someone writing an article on Paul Erdos, saying "Paul Erdos proved many theorems. His entire possessions fit in a suitcase." Entirely true, and entirely deleteable. Dr Zak 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. You are the userpage vandal reverter. It's hard to go around Wikipedia and not notice your hard work... But you're still too new to be an admin in my opinion. You've only really been contributing a few months. Sorry, but that's what I think. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment:How is newness a factor? He's made 8,200 edits in his entire duration. That seems to prove that he's more devoted to Wikipedia than others. It shows that he can make constructive edits quickly.I think that that amount of edits proves experience. 'sed 03:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. You are wrong. Edits do not show experience — though it helps. There are some new editors who achieve over 6000 edits in a couple of months. However, they never take the time to slow down and actually learn things. Additionally, people leave the project very quickly: we do not need an admin that may leave when he/she suddenly discovers that he/she is bored. This is why many people prefer that a user has been here for a while: it shows commitment, rather than a new-found fad/hobby (if it were up to me, an editor would have to be here for a year. But then again, I wouldn't have been an admin until last month, and many people would become frustrated. Also, I'm going to stop rambling now and get back on track). Anyway, with all that said, and with the currect standard that the community has set, it baffles me how Lord Deskana can perceive the candidate as "new". "New" is in the realm of 2-3 months. --Orane (talk • cont.) 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Mark's concerns trouble me as well. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose. Too few namespace edits, come back in a few months and I will be happy to support.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.158.40.105(talk • contribs) .

   Anonymous users are not allowed to vote. Please log in. Naconkantari 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose As per other opposes already expressed. Also on the fact that the same group that has supported most of the rfa's as of late, has again supported this one. My objection, ahead of time, is that this group, at least for the most part, is a clique and far from a well-rounded representation of the wiki community. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

   Your oppposition is becoming a good luck charm around here. Cup of tea? - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

   Do you really think 84 people (as of this edit) are a "clique"? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

   There are a number of people whose names recur on RfA because they take a particular interest in it. This has the advantage of giving them expertise in assessing candidates. When there is a good candidate, they naturally support, and with a bad candidate they oppose. That doesn't mean they are a clique, because there are plenty of occasions when that unity divides over a candidate whose suitability or lack of it is not so straightforward. I suggest you bring the subject up on RfA talk page. It is, to say the least, a questionable reason to oppose a specific individual. Another cup of tea? Tyrenius 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

   <cabal paranoia mode on>There must be an oppose clique as well. Can you spot the members? :) --Ligulem 08:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

   WP:TINC --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

   Too late, it's already on the list of cabals. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   Shannon, if you have a good reason to oppose, as you say you do by supporting the other oppose voter's concerns, then fine. But why add these clique comments everywhere? Do you not realise that they fly in the face of WP:AGF? Please, try and assume good faith and believe us when we tell you there is no RfA cabal. Please! Thε Halo ^Θ 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)