Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requests for adminship sections
Main page edit \| watch Active nominations for Administrator and Bureaucrat	Talk page post \| watch \| archives Bureaucrat noticeboard Discussions related to RfA	Past nominations Successful RfAs Unsuccessful RfAs Successful RfBs Unsuccessful RfBs Nomination data	Nominate To nominate an editor	Related reading Administrators Bureaucrats Guide to RfA Admin reading list Admin how-to guide
Current admin count: 1,159

To update this page, purge the page's server cache.

1 Most recent successful nominations
2 Links to earlier successful nominations
3 Candidacies not promoted
4 Archives

[edit] Most recent successful nominations

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

[edit] Waggers

Final (35/0/1); Ended Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:03:13 (UTC)

Waggers (talk • contribs) - This is a self nomination. I've been active on Wikipedia since February 2006 and have accumulated well over 5,000 edits in that time, across all namespaces (over 3,000 in the main article namespace). I've written a good amount of content in numerous articles, mainly on UK geography, British people and hospitals. I've also been involved in various forms of cleanup, including categorisation, RC patrol & vandalism fighting as well as a bit of double-redirect fixing and fixing links to disambiguation pages. I've created and help maintain two portals, and I'm an active member of five wikiprojects. Waggers 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm tempted to decline a self-nomination just for amusement's sake, but I think I'll accept.

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 participants:

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

A: In my mind, there are two major groups of sysop chores that need the most attention. Firstly there are those which are urgent in nature, such as speedy deletion candidates, AIV, copyright violations etc. Secondly, there are those less urgent chores that have built up a significant backlog. If successful, I intend to help wherever I can, but paying particular attention to that first group of most urgent tasks. I expect I'll also help out in those areas with less of a backlog, to prevent more backlogs from occurring. My aim is to be flexible and to meet need wherever it occurs.

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

A: I've spent a fair bit of time building up the articles on the districts of Southampton (and the surrounding area) and the hospitals in Southern Hampshire. I've done a fair bit of research (not original, of course - just looking stuff up in books or online) into some of the history behind those places. I've also created several stubs which I've enjoyed expanding with other users into fully fledged articles. I'm also quite pleased with the Hampshire Portal.

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

A: There are a few IP users that have questionned the vandalism warnings placed on their user talk pages, but that's par for the course. Probably my worst scuffle was when I was trying to implement the neutral language aspect of MOS, altering "different than" (acceptable in the US but not the UK) and "different to" (vice versa) into "different from" (acceptable pretty much everywhere). A user seemed to think I was trying to impose UK English over US English and neither of us handled it well to begin with, although we eventually calmed down and reached an amicable solution. There was also a conflict over the Galatasaray Football Club article which spread to the Football Hooliganism article, in which I attempted to act as mediator between two warring factions; I managed to get the two parties to engage in discussion and a satisfactory outcome ensued.

Optional question from – Luna Santin (talk)

4. Easy to forget how large of a community Wikipedia is; I don't think I've run into you, before, so I thought I might ask two questions. First, could you describe one or more circumstances in which the use of your admin tools would NOT be appropriate?

Probably the most obvious answer is in a situation where I know another administrator disapproves of my proposed action, as described in WP:WHEEL. There may be times when a decision I make may be contentious, and I intend to avoid getting into any such situation during my first three months or so as an admin while I learn the ropes. My golden rule is going to be that if an administrative action I intend to take isn't clearly backed up by Wikipedia policy, it needs discussing first.

5. Second (er, fifth?), I notice you haven't enabled an email address for your account (Special:Emailuser/Waggers returns an error) -- would you plan on enabling email if/when you became an admin?

Yep. The reason I haven't enabled email up to now is to avoid the temptation of "behind the scenes" discussions. Since the mantra is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, I felt that discussions should be in the open to ensure thorough accountability. As an administrator though I'm sure there are things that require a greater degree of discretion, and so I'll enable email. In fact, I'll go and enable email right now!

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Support Looks like a good user, very good article contributor, submissions to AIV and good vandal reversion and warnings - could do with the tools Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent contributions in the AIV. --Meno25 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Would like to see more mainspace non-vandal contributing, but there's enough there that along with his track record and a look at recent posts I'll say he can be trusted/benifit from the tools. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Seems good. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Ryanpostlethwaite. Acalamari 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A good admin candidate to support. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom and things like this. Edit countitis per WP:WBE box on user page is a major concern, but still. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite appearances, I actually share your concerns about editcountitis. I should make it clear on my user page that the stats are there purely for interest and don't hold any weight as to my usefulness. I'll make that change shortly. Waggers 11:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Just a friendly note: the only CSD categories that are "urgent" are G1 (nonsense, but some of it is offensive), G3 (vandalism), G9 (office actions), G10 (attack pages), and T1 (inflammatory templates) - correct me if I missed some. The others are not so urgent; if it waits 24 hours, it will still get deleted eventually. "Speedy deletion" only means that it doesn't have to go through any formal process. But that's a minor boo-boo, and no reason to oppose a solid candidacy. YechielMan 05:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice, it's much appreciated. Waggers 11:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems to be a good, well-rounded person to have the tools. - Denny 05:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Anas ^talk? 09:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Terence 10:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seems to be a very solid editor and needs the mop. Twiddle that bit! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per excellent work on portals, very helpful, active vandal fighter, competent mediator and solid article writing. Addhoc 20:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support solid, experienced user.-- danntm ^T _C 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Clear dedication to the project. Good contributions. --Infrangible 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good. -Mschel 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Glad to see that you nominated yourself, Waggers. Fine AIV work, good candidate. -- Jreferee 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 13:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - looks like a fine content contributor and a level-headed one. And we need more admins, etc. So thumbs up. Will doubtless acquire more familiarity with process if needed. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Support excellent and dedicated contributed.-- danntm ^T _C 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You've already expressed your support :-). See #16. WjBscribe 02:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good user from what I can tell--$UIT 05:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support seems like a good and trustworth user... Cbrown1023 talk 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I feel that this user can be trusted with the tools. A possible slight obsession with edit counts does not affect his potential as an admin.--Anthony.bradbury 12:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportI have looked at your talk page archives and have noticed that you treat others in a very civil manner. You also seem to be a responssible person and have a need for the tools. Good luck!:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per others, fine answers to my questions. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe this user will abuse the tools. Good luck! – Luna Santin (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I was going to oppose, based on the acceptance statement—just for amusement's sake...but decided not to... Tom e r ^talk 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Terence 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Already up at #11, mate :) – Riana ^talk 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good. – Riana ^talk 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. --Bhadani (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, no signs he'll abuse the tools.--Wizardman 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - Active article writer, self-nom with lots of edits who sees adminship as just a tool for helping out with chores and general upkeep? This is my perfect candidate. Milto LOL pia 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I think Twas Now's concern is legitimate, but Waggers's answer is adequate. Just don't act on any policy you aren't sure you understand, and you won't break anything. — coel acan — 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. WjBscribe 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

WP:POINT comment by User:Qxz removed. El_C 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

I don't see a lot of Wikipedia-space edits, which is a general indicator of ones knowledge of (or concern for) policy. (You do have 71 edits to WP:AIV, but most of these are from July 2006 or earlier.) The Wikipedia-space is where the vast majority of discussions important to administrators occurs (policy, disputes, bans, assistance, etc.), and active participation with policy-related issues would significantly help you in making decisions as an admin. You might see how other admins behave and thus learn the proper boundaries, or you may simply keep up with the latest developments in policy (for example, WP:A as an amalgamation of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS). However, I am not opposing your RfA on this basis because I do not consider it serious enough to be detrimental to your use of the admin tools, and I see you are a diligent editor. I think you would be a good admin, but consider this a caution. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those comments, you make a very good point. Whatever the outcome of this RFA, I will make an effort to get more involved in the WP namespace. Waggers 08:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This brings me a little dismay, as someone who generally likes to be left alone by admins, and who is generally denied their wish due to restlessness of admins looking for a problem to solve: most of the admins who most readily come to my mind do so by being well-known, which means they've probably ditched mainspace and spend the majority of their time in WP space and user talk space bothering other people and getting into fights. I think his focus on mainspace is encouraging, and in my opinion, somewhat who is interested mainly in helping out with chorey tasks like backlogs and speedy deletes need not be involved in making policy as long as he reads up on it. I for one would love to see more admin candidates with Waggers' focus on articles and not drama and rules, and with his casual approach to adminship. Milto LOL pia 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Casliber

Final (49/0/0); Ended Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:20:20 UTC

Casliber (talk • contribs) - Cas has been a faithful editor now for just under a year now. He's racked up a ton of new articles, many DYK's, 3 FA's (That I can keep track of! Correct me if I'm wrong...) & in his spare time contributes to WikiProject Dinosaurs, WikiProject Banksia & WikiProject Fungi & maintains their collaborations. Phew! With over 8,000 edits (Over 4K of which are in the mainspace) & great rewrites, he's earned my respect (though that doesn't count for much) & has worked hard during his stay here. He's even saved Kakapo from the FAR. Cas is resourceful, modest & I've never seen him angry or uncivil. He's the exemplar Wikipedian & deserves to become an admin. I cannot ever see him abusing the tools & I'm sure he will make great use of them. Spawn Man 05:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept a nomination for adminship. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:34, 21 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: Thus far I have delved into Articles for Deletion from time to time and tinkered with wikifying pages. I do feel I have a lot more expertise in subjects I know about and find alot more to do in the specific wikiprojects I have been involved with rather than the general community portal as such, though I have looked there too. I find there is alot more to do than just the pages on notification pages (i.e. wikifying, sourcing etc.) I do alot of negotiating with stressed people in my day job and have a good general knowledge. I expect being an administrator would be very helpful in cases of conflict resolution. I have been looking at the AfD pages to get an idea what lies on the boundaries of acceptability. One of the things I have been proud of is getting one editor back on track after a bumpy few weeks (including a block) a while back.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I have been really pleased with WikiProject Dinosaurs and WikiProject Banksia. Coordinating collaborations effectively to produce Featured Articles has probably been the most rewarding part of working here, also helping restore Kakapo was cool too. Watching an article develop between 3-5 editors is amazing. Of course a few interested people are a prerequisite and as a volunteer project it requires considerable goodwill and energy; WikiProject Fungi hasn't really got off the ground yet is a case in point. I should add I am a bit of a slob so work best with meticulous people. Thus all FAs I've been involved with have been blessed with at least one or more folk with this attribute which has saved the article's FA bacon :)

I count 10 FAs, including one 'revival' of a former FA (Platypus, and one FAR that I consider I have had some involvement with to varying degrees though I think all probably had more edits from someone else, especially in the fine-tuning stage. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I've had minor edit conflicts but by looking forward and trying to negotiate a middle ground I think I've found a way through them without any online cussing etc. Essentially I should be able to explain or justify every action I do, and I will continue to work this way. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Nominator Support - :) Spawn Man 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. An excellent member of the Wikipedia community; committed, trustworthy, supportive, handles conflict well. Hesperian 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 08:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Yah. Cas is certainly a good candidate to be nominated for adminship. With the amount of contributions he has contributed to wikipedia, I believe he will do a better job as an administrator. Luffy487 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support upstanding Wikipedian.--cj | talk 11:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support great candidate with a good record of contributions. Seems very level-headed and trustworthy. - Anas ^talk? 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Stegosaurus Support. Mature and intelligent contributions throughout. Cas is a superb Wikpedian who'll make a first rate admin. —Moondyne 12:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Terence 13:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support in the spirit of Mailer Diablo's WP:1FA, and for overall expertise. YechielMan 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I'd like to see more contributions in the project space that relate to admin duties rather than WikiProjects, but given Casliber's trustworthiness, I support him with the belief that he will not make rash decisions without fully exploring all applicable policies and guidelines. Leebo ^T/C 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. I'm very proud to have worked closely with Cas on so many dinosaur articles. Cas has shown himself to be incredibly intelligent (borderline brilliant), very calm, and is truly dedicated to the project. He has not worked extensively in the WP: space, but his work on various WikiProjects has vastly improved at least a thousand articles; I'm also certain Cas has contributed to more than 3 Featured Articles. Cas' professional demeanor and thoughtful attitude would be an asset for Wikipedia; he is always civil. As a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs, he is often cleaning up vandalism from school children. An administration mop might help him with that task. I appreciate Oleg's comments below, and certainly hope Cas will use an edit summary on every edit from now on. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support seems very qualified. - Denny 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, though I think judicious use of "show preview" is in order due to high edits per page. I also recommend selecting the "force edit summary" option (as recommended by Oleg, below) as edit summaries are a very useful and important thing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support It is weird that i've never known Casliber before but looking at the contribs i find myself really amazed. The concern about the edit summaries explained by Oleg at the oppose side is important but is not a big reason not to support. Probably, Casliber would do their best in enhancing that aspect. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. Yuser31415 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I appreciated his help with talking the mentioned user off the edge and helping him get back on track. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Casliber is dedicated to the betterment of Wikipedia, has the experience, and can be trusted. -- Jreferee 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support He's trustworthy, knowledgeable, and diplomatic. J. Spencer 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - per nom. Looks like an excellent and trustworthy candidate - Alison^☺ 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A trustworthy and committed candidate who will make an excellent administrator. ArthurWeasley 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Seems fine. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support directly contributed to 0.7% of all FA's, one who'll use the tools wisely Gnan garra 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per gnangarra Captain panda In vino veritas 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per all of the above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Real96 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Support doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools, and satisfactory history. - Denny 05:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You already voted, at #12. --ais523 09:56, 22 March 2007 (U T C)

Oops, sorry. Got it. - Denny 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Answer to Q1 doesn't really address a need for tools, in my mind, but still an outstanding contributor who seems highly unlikely to abuse the bit, so support. – Riana ^ঋ 06:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Terence 10:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)~~ you already voted at #8. —Moondyne 13:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. Michael 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks alright.-- danntm ^T _C 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Axl 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - A strong contributor who has been helpful, friendly, hard-working and knowledgeable in a range of areas. Orderinchaos78 13:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Top 'tributor, sterling, passes through my Bad Admin Sensor^TM with no warbles. Pig^man_dialogue 03:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Woah! 3 FAs?! Casliber looks like a great candidate and will make a good addition to the cabal. :) Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support! —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-25 00:53Z
Support Please keep up the edit summaries, otherwise looks like a great editor and admin, thoughtful and civil user. --Canley 07:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes Please --Michael Billington (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Reliable user who also is a active wikipedian. Good luck!:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - A great contributor to the contents and community tasks of Wikipedia. gidonb 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Sure, why not?--Wizardman 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, good candidate. Kjetil r 04:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Big dinosaur type support...as long as you don't use your new-found power to claim dominion over Wikiproject Birds in the name of Wikiproject Dinosaurs :P ! Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Who told you about The Plan? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shhh! The world isn't ready for our greatness... ;) Spawn Man 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support good user. No reasons not to. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. --Bhadani (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Lakers 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Always impressive at DYK and FAC. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks solid, despite prior low edit summary usage. Impressive contributions to FAs. --Seattle Skier (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Sarah 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Melburnian 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

~~Oppose~~ regretfully, as the edit summary usage is too low, at 59% for major edits. An admin should always explain one's actions, like page deletion, blocking, and article edits. Will gladly strike out my vote if the candidate enables the "force edit summary" in the preferences and promises to pay serious attention to the issue. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply:OK I've done that in my preferences. One reason is that I did many new template talk pages, which were fairly self explanatory on my watchlist. Also, I have used other computers where smart text wasn't turned on or I was in a hurry for various reasons. In anycase I've turned it on now. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 18:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Good luck. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT comment by User:Qxz removed. El_C 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

[edit] WJBscribe

Final: (131/1/0); Ended 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe (talk • contribs) - I have the pleasure of nominating User:WJBscribe for the mop and flamethrower. He joined us in November 2006, and, for those that count these things, has since made over 6,000 edits right across the 'pedia. Significant contributions include helping bring Ruth Kelly up to GA standard; finding dozens of free pictures for illustrationless articles; and translation of articles out of French Wikipedia, including Bernadette Chirac. He is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and has been barnstarred for hard work he's put in - the barnstar is joined by three others, for editing, graphic design and anti-vandalism work. He's bloody excellent at discussion and getting people to co-operate when arguments flair. I really mean that - this is a user who knows how to get people to work together (see here, here here here, to name just a few). Even vandals come back to say thanks for setting them straight! He's an excellent vandal fighter and a devout warner, following through at WP:AIV. He's long been into the discussion at WP:AN, helping out the lost and the bewildered as well as discussing, with a sharp grasp of 'pedia policy and guidelines, issues that arise - always in a helpful manner. He already does semi-admin work, clerking at Wikipedia:Changing username and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, cleaning up at WP:AfD and WP:RfA (two places with much misplaced edits) and keeping an eye on WP:RfC. From his contributions, I can see need of the tools in cleaning-up vandalism and vandals, in acting on WP:AIV reports instead posting lots of them and in keeping the place generally tidy with judicious use of the delete button. From personal interaction, I can see that the tools will be used well and well used, that the reasonableness and discussion-mindedness will be a great aid in the admin tasks and that his knowledge of Wikipedia's laws, bylaws and twisted paths will benefit us all when he's got the keys to the closet. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept. Thank you for the kind nomination. WjBscribe 23:32, 19 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: I would like to assist in vandal fighting- there are few things more frustrating on Wikipedia than repeatedly reverting vandals that you reported for admin attention after a final warning some time previously. I have noticed a WP:AIV backlog often develops around 12:00 UTC and am at present often available to deal with the backlog around that time. I have experience in identifying candidates for speedy deletion and would be more than happy to help out with backlogs at WP:CSD. Also given my contributions at XfD (especially AfD and RfD) I would be willing to close discussions in those forums. I assist as a clerk with username changes- recently, it has been requested that clerks assist with moving pages over content when usurpation occurs [1]. Admin tools would allow me to assist with this process.

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

A: In the mainspace, I am pleased with my development of articles on UK politicians, such as John Reid and Ruth Kelly. I have also written most of the article on the Declaration of Montreal- I wish more information were available to take that one further. I am involved in translations from fr.wikipedia such as translating Bernadette Chirac and proof reading Christiane Desroches Noblecourt. Also, I have had significant involvement in improving Portal:LGBT. I am perhaps most proud of my dispute resolution efforts outside my main sphere of contributions however, most notably in a heated dispute between various representatives of Anesthesia providers in the US following the protecting of Anesthesia, which occupied a lot of my time last month (see Talk:Anesthesia). This dispute appears to have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, who now seem willing to work together.

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

A: I don't tend to get stressed over disputes on Wikipedia and try to find common ground with those I disagree with. I had an early disagreement with a user over the Ruth Kelly article. In the end we came to work together on improving that article and he ultimately awarded me a barnstar for my efforts [2]. My contributions to WP:LGBT often involve me in disputes in controversial areas, I may not be able to resolve those disputes, but I believe my contributions tend to cool the situations. As Redvers points out above, I believe I have engaged in productive dialogue with those I have had a difference of opinion with recently and that those discussions have been kept calm and measured as a result. My usual approach if I think I am getting too personally involved in a disagreement is to concentrate my edits elsewhere for a while. There are a lot of non-contentious activities to take one's mind off disputes. I find sorting Category:uncategorized and my clerking duties in relation to WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U pretty relaxing. Actually I find vandal reverting quite relaxing, but that's just me

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Support -- unhesitatingly. WjB has been consistently hard-working, thoughtful, and responsible, and has my complete trust. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (Earlier listed, reverted, and now listed again: I wished only to say that my support for the nomination was not dependent on the nominee's acceptance or answers to questions -- I have simply seen so much of WjB's contributing style in issue-deciding areas (as distinct from article edits), and found it so consistently responsible (even in contentious discussions, even when we disagreed) that I no longer have any reasonable doubt as to how WjB will handle admin tools. -- Ben 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC))
Strong Support - Excellent candidate, have seem them all over the place. Would make an excellent addition as an administrator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I cannot imagine a single person on all of Wikipedia who would make a better administrator. WJBscribe has (mostly) a cool head, a sharp mind, and always discussions with his input come out much better for it. His contributions to WP:LGBT has been immense (though that automation of the Portal hasn't happened yet ;) ). WJB is friendly, helpful and polite. I genuinely believe that WJBscribe will prove to be one of our finest admins. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Chrislk02 and Dev920. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —dgies^t_c 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Cliche Support - you mean he's not one already? --BigDT 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - an excellent candidate. - Richard Cavell 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Unquestionable support - I've seen your work over on WP:CHU/U over the last while and your edits relating to WP:LGBT are extensive and legendary. I've seen you just about everywhere. (was holding off having anything to do with RFA until certain things were complete, but simply couldn't let this slip by). Another one of those "what? You're not an admin??" moments - Alison^☺ 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Great user, around everywhere and always very reasoned, will do great work Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Finally! WJBscribe is one of the most perfect candidates, he is a great user that will make a great addition to the administrative team. Cbrown1023 talk 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Easily. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support! Great editor! :-) He'll make a really fine admin, I'm convinced of it. Raystorm 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Erm... yeah! I keep seeing WJBscribe literally everywhere and I think to myself "Wtf, not an admin???" It shocked me to realise he wasn't one, and even then I still kept forgetting. I offered to nominate him a few weeks ago, but Redvers beat me to it. WJBscribe is an asset here, knows exactly what he's doing and will make a fantastic admin. Good luck, not that you really need it... =) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Will make a fantastic admin. No reason to oppose this user at all. --sunstar net^talk 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. I offered to nominate this user as well. Grand master ka 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Ordinarily I'd say too soon, but from what I've seen of WJB I have no problems. I'm certain he'll be one of the best. —Moondyne 00:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Can't say it better than it's already been said. —Krellis (Talk) 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent editor. ^Khukri 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I've seen this user everywhere, no doubt he'll make an excellent admin.--Hús ö nd 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. It's about time, too. I've been suggesting he do this for a while now. Jeffpw 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Of course. Xiner (talk, email) 00:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Without a doubt.--Xnuala 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Will be happy to see WJBscribe as an admin. I've seen him be a calming influence in some heated situations, as well as offering excellent advice. Does good work, is ready for the tools, and giving him the tools will help the 'pedia. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Support Can't really make a supporting statement, I left my box of superlatives at home today. – Riana ^{shiny disco balls} 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow... really? Not a sysop? Hm... - NYC JD (interrogatories) 01:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support per many of the reasons listed above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Most definitely Pascal.Tesson 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Supportas per all the reasons stated above.Shindo9 Hikaru 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support per nomination. An admirable and competent user who will make an excellent administrator. Xdenizen 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seems to understand policy from the interactions I've seen. Good nom. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. yes yes yes. --- RockMFR 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - it's hard to add to what's already been said - a fantastic editor. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. Very active contributor on WikiprojectLGBT, one of the main contributors to that, excellent writer and negotiator, absolutely Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Now this user is indeed a good admin candidate! Captain panda In vino veritas 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I've seen him a few times, and I admire his contributions. YechielMan 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What?? I never expected to say this, but- "you are not already an admin"? Well, it's about time, then. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent user. John Reaves (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, all over the place, will use the buttons wisely. Kuru ^talk 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support WJBscribe is a good editor and I am sure will continue as a good administrator. Aleta 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support, I've always been very impressed with WJBscribe and am sure he'll make an excellent admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Will make an excellent admin. Beat me in vandal reverts and AIV's before i even clicked a button.... --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 05:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Seen a lot of good stuff. Daniel Bryant 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as nominator. Obviously :o) RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 08:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I-need-not-even-look-at-this-guy's-edits-to-tell-he's-admin-material-super-support - Jumping jehoahoa! This guy deserves the smelly cleaning device we have come to know as the mop. May it reek especially so when you bash vandals with it. 100% support & we hardly (if at all) know each other. Great work man... :) Spawn Man 09:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm even willing to make an acception on the "6 month minimum rule" of mine because this guy is so great... Spawn Man 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support this is the first time I've ever seen WJBscribe but he definitely looks like admin material to me, it would be a mistake not to make him an admin --Lwarf 09:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support No reason not to jump on the bandwagon. --Folantin 10:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I've been consistently impressed with WJBscribe's civility and other fine qualities, even from our first meeting. Happy to support.-- Chaser - T 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No-brainer Support - Anas ^Talk? 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Agathoclea 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Adminship for you should have been automatic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - This guy is everywhere and is superbly qualified. 100+% support. -- Jreferee 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No question. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I was thinking of nominating this user myself, particularly active in XFD's and generally an excellent user.Telly addict 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Yep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Steel 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Fantastic.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, vehemently. Neil (not Proto ►) 17:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes please. Yuser31415 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-- Nick ^t 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as an excellent addition to the added responsibility which comes with the twiddled bit. I find WJBscribe to be an excellent contributor and see no indication the bit would be abused. Twiddle away. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. Addhoc 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm I thought he was an admin Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support WJBscribe has done great work on Wikipedia, both with articles and items in the Wikipedia namespace. I feel comfortable giving the admin tools to a trustworthy candidate. Nishkid 64 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. No red flags so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support → Why should I not? Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, skills used with patience. Modernist 22:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent candidate – there are a few of those around at the moment. Bubba hotep 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support, excellent and intelligent editor. He will use the tools wisely. --Asterion^talk 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, (insert cliche here per NYC JD). · j e r s y k o talk · 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks excellent.-- danntm ^T _C 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great, level-headed contributor. utcursch | talk 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. WJB is an excellent RfA candidate and I am sure he will make a fantastic admin. Sarah 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support mrholybrain 's talk 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support My only concern is that this will detract from real-world drinking time. Cheers. Chrislintott 11:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Mais oui, bien sur. Coemgenus 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Terence 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Oh yes. Will (aka Wimt) 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support has excellent editing as well as janitorial experience. Definitely has my support.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Persian Poet Gal. Acalamari 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support NoSeptember 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Should make a fine admin. Good luck. IrishGuy ^talk 22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Definitely. Seen this user around and theres nothing but positive contributions. James086^Talk|Email 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I have seen this editor around and done business a couple of times. I can not see where giving the tools to this editor will hurt the project. I have faith that WJB will use the tools in accord with policy coupled with common sense. I do not foresee, based on the contributions and editor conduct where the tools will be abused. WJB, do what you can to improve the project. I have full faith, and confidence that you will do so. Now go write an encyclopedia. :P Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Great editor. Active at admin places already. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Let's see if we can pull this to WP:100. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--MONGO 05:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A good candidate/prospect. - Denny 05:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seen and appreciated at WP:RFCN Shenme 08:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Thought WJB already was an admin!Pedro | Talk 12:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Isolated incidents are no big deal, we all goof up our communications every once in a while. In any case, adminship is no big deal. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 19:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --Conti|✉ 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support for obvious reasons --Infrangible 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Yeah--SUIT 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Storng support zero » 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Real96 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Very good user, deserves adminship.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shindo9Hikaru (talk • contribs).

I definitely appreciate the support, but you're already #29 :-) WjBscribe 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great user. -Mschel 11:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support And I'm not just being a bandwagon. :-) · AO ^Talk 12:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support! Congratulations on hitting WP:100. I'm all for a bot and flamethrower for you, good sir. ♠PMC♠ 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support without hesitation. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Darn, I wanted to be #100. :) — Malcolm^{May the schwartz be with you!} 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support High time. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not terribly meaningful by this point, but I give WJBscribe my compliments and support. Such as I have encountered of his work has been of the highest quality and diligence. I have no doubt he will make an excellent administrator. — Dan | talk 21:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I only drop by RfA every so often, and here I see none other than WJBscribe is up? Where do I sign? My edit isn't exactly required, at this point, but I will look forward to working with you as an administrator. Everything I've seen indicates you'll use the tools responsibly. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
El_C 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support An editor of exceptionally fine skill and laudatory demeanor. Never say "fie" of him. Salute! Pig^man_dialogue 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't any doubts about WjBscribe's integrity. I have wondered where all his energy and patience comes from, but adminship should take care of that. ;-) — coel acan — 04:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- helpful in WP:CHU =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia will be significantly enhanced by giving WjBscribe the tools. Good luck, Gwernol 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I was gonna go neutral due to your relatively short time here and your nom using "bloody excellent" as a descriptor. But come on, I'd be a fool not to support you.--Wizardman 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I've seen this user around on WP:CHU, and I must say he's one of the more helpful users on the wiki. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support, per WP:CHU/U. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Support John254 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Support! —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-25 00:53Z
Support. See discussion below. Royalbroil^T : C 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Very helpful contributor. ShadowHalo 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Overwhelmingly Strong Support VERY helpful in Anesthesia discussons. I appreciate his willingness to dedicate his time towards a rather dry topic. He is always available! Overwhelmingly strong support. ICUDocMD 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary SupportDeserves to be an admin. Now. Dfrg.msc 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Probably one of the fairest and most patient people i know.Mmackinnon 22:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
He will make a good admin:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good editor, will make good admin.--Jersey Devil 06:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I am new, but after looking through this user's contributions, I can see that WJBscribe will be a great help to people looking for... help! Social Studiously 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Seen you around a lot, nothing but impressed! Chasingsol 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

~~Oppose~~ (changed to support) - Edits like [3] - calling something that I strongly support "rubbish" - have the tendency to rub people the wrong way. The number of supporters of this RfA comfort me that this is most likely an isolated incident, and that WBJscribe will refrain from that kind of talk as much as possible after he is given the mop. The comment is enough to cause me oppose, though. Royalbroil^T : C 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Royalbroil, personally I cannot see what the fuzz is about. It was not a personal attack, just WBJscribe speaking his mind. Are you sure this is reason enough to oppose? Seriously, I cannot see him going on a rampage using the tools to speedy stuff he does not like. I am sorry but I think this is more to do with sour grapes. I expect admins to be bold even if their opinions are not liked. As for the link you provided above, anyone else can follow the rest of the thread and would surely realise what a level-headed response it ensued from WJBscribe (i.e. [4]) . Obviously, you are entitled to your own opinion but voting oppose simply based on a disagreement on an AfD is just morally wrong. Regards, --Asterion^talk 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Royalbroil, to keep it short and simple: A flimsily justified revenge oppose like this is bad style. You may want to consider changing to abstention from voting and not ruin WJBscribe's well-deserved perfect tally just to make a point. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask editors not to make any further response to this oppose opinion or approach Royalbroil about it. He and I have discussed the matter from which this arose on his talkpage and I consider the matter closed. I understand that he is feeling pressured by responses (and perceived responses) to his !vote, and I do not wish anyone to made unhappy due to an opinion expressed in good faith. WjBscribe 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally opposed because I felt that my experiences with WJBscribe indicated that he would be likely to feed the trolls/vandals/idiots that we are all too familiar with. I promptly received an apology for his "rubbish" comment which I quickly accepted. I considered the matter closed. I posted a talk message to WJB after I felt strong pressure to change my vote. WJB quickly responded with a well-worded message. The message was so well composed and thought out that I decided to reconsider my decision. I dug deep into his history to see if my experience was an isolated incident. I spent two hours looking very critically at his past, especially discussions with anons, vandals, and XfD discussions. I found absolutely nothing wrong, in fact I found a strong history of solid decision-making and keeping calm/levelheaded in excited situations. I have decided to change my vote from oppose to support as I have indicated above. I urge Tshilo to reconsider his/her decision in light of my entire group of experiences with WBJscribe.

I made this decision because of the second positive experience with WJB, not because of pressure (whether perceived or real). I hope that a single vote on a single RfA is not enough to give a "bad reputation" to someone, especially when the decision was all but official before the vote was even cast. The whole editing history and decision-making ability of the contributor should be the basis of their reputation. I think that people should not be caught up getting a perfect tally as no one on earth is perfect. RfA is a highly critical process meant to separate "the men from the boys." I routinely see contributors pointing out non-major difficulties as a reason to oppose.

I noticed right after WJBscribe's last comment that he was from London. It took me a while to find a UK dictionary to see if there is a subtle difference between the U.S. & UK definition of "rubbish". There definitely is a difference. I took it as the American English definition "unwanted or worthless things" [5], but I believe he was intending to use the informal UK definition "something that you think is very low quality or not true." There is a big difference between "worthless" and "very low quality." Who hasn't run into misunderstandings caused by the subtle differences between the national versions of English? Royalbroil^T : C 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Should have used the eccentrically but thoroughly British "inverted pyramid of piffle"... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Hasn't been around long enough yet. My opposition will ultimately end up having no effect, but I don't think 4 months is long enough to establish that a new editor can maintain the persona they present in that time. Tom e r ^talk 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely a fair concern. I believe that in this case you will be happily wrong, though. =) — coel acan — 04:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Time, pretty clearly, will tell. :-) Tom e r ^talk 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Suggest user goes and does something useful with their life instead – Qxz 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bad faith oppose. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Qxy voted oppose on all 8 active RfAs and blanked their talk page with an incivil message in an apparent protest departure. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

[edit] ^demon

Final (80/1/0); Ended Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:06:46 (UTC)

^demon (talk • contribs) - I am pleased to be able to nominate ^demon for adminship. Although he had an RfA before and it failed to pass, he has grown and learnt a lot since then and is now a very valuable asset to our project. ^demon recently took the post of chair for the Mediation Committee, demonstrating that he is very much trusted by the community, particularly those within the committee. He has also mediated a good number of cases. ^demon has taken part in many administrative aspects of Wikipedia, from completing mundane maintenance jobs to helping to deal with vandals, to giving his opinion at AfD. Of particular note is when he did all of the work usually done by MedCom's bot throughout a period at the end of last year when it was unavailable due to the absence of its operator.

I am of the opinion that ^demon is someone who would find many uses for the administrative tools, and I believe that we can trust him to use his excellent judgement when doing so, and that we should therefore, as a community, grant him access. —Xyrael / 21:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Co nomination by Martinp23. This is my first (co)nomination for a while, and I feel that ^demon really deserves it. He and his bot (User:^demonBot2) have been hugely successful helping out at WP:TFD by orphaning templates due for deletion, and have helped the category situation everywhere by replacing deprecated templates. The bot's work at TfD is invaluable - at a place where there is ofen a mounting backlog, anything which makes it easier for an admin to get rid of a template is a bonus, and ^demon's bot fulfills this purpose. By his noted devotion to templates, the community can be sure that ^demon will be of even greater use at WP:TFD as an admin, while, as we all know, helping out readily across the whole project. I urge you to !vote support, knowing that ^demon will work to surpass each and every one of your expectations. Mart inp23 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I told myself I would only place myself up for RfA again if I was nominated by a user who I highly respect. In my time here, there are few users I respect as much as Xyrael and Martinp23, and with that being said, I graciously accept their nomination. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:45, 18 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: I want the tools to serve the needs of the community, wherever they need me to serve. Personally, I would prefer to concentrate my work on TFD and EPP. However, if the community needs me to come forward and deal with AE/AER, I will not be afraid to step forward and get my hands dirty. I believe blocks should only be handed out sparingly, and in situations where polite warning would have no positive effect. However, banning should be considered most severe, and should only be handed out by the will of the ArbCom, Jimbo, or the community at large. Finally, as MedCom chair, I will, as a sysop, never perform any action that could potentially damage the committee's repute.

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

A: If we are given a place to brag, I suppose it would be this question right here. As Xyrael mentioned above, when Essjay made his sudden and unexplained departure over the summer, the mediation committee was left with no head and also no bot to run all of our case management--a tool that we had grown used to having do a good portion of work for us. Without access to the code I was unable to set up a new bot, so I proceeded to do the work of the bot by hand, which was very tedious I must say. I believe it was my work as the de-facto chair in his absence that lead to the committee's overwhelming support of placing me in the position of chair, including Essjay's personal endorsement as then current chair.

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

A: As a mediator, I see on a daily basis the conflict of other users, and I am thankful that thus far I have been able to (for the most part) avoid becoming involved in any major entanglements. Of course I've had my minor squabbles here and there, but I would think that the most major dispute I've dealt with would be dealing with the mediation case about Socionomics. It was a very grueling case to deal with, as both side felt they were right and it felt to me as though they both were looking to me for some kind of official opinion about what to do. In addition, I slowly began to develop my own personal feelings on the case, which made it hard to be impartial (however, I did my best). As you all know, this case later went before ArbCom. I think the one thing I learned most from this is that as a mediator (and in general) if you start to form opinions about something in which you are supposed to be neutral and as unbiased as possible, it would be best to recuse yourself from the situation and let a new person step in to replace you.

Optional Questions

4. Will you maintain your position as mediation chair if this RfA passes? -- Selket ^Talk 07:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A: I had planned on remaining the chair, regardless of how this RfA turns out. I hadn't seen any potential conflicts of interest in being either chair or admin, so I honestly hadn't thought too heavily on this. I do understand that there are situations in which serving in one capacity would make serving in another a potential issue (serving on ArbCom/MedCom comes immediately to mind). However, as most chairs of the committee have been admins while chair, I don't see any reason why I could not do the same. However, if there is some potential issue that you see with this that I'm overlooking, please bring it to my attention.

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Support as nominator. —Xyrael / 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Almost beat Xyrael in the IRC race support Mart inp23 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC race support? That sounds... curious. Geez, apparently I am missing a lot by not being in the admin channel. -- ReyBrujo 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the members of the admins channel weren't part of this little bit of fun, all conducted through private messages :) Mart inp23 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Duh. -Amarkov moo! 22:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I saw this user handling a case in the Mediation Cabal (I was not involved), and he did so expertly and thoughtfully. I said on WP:ER that I'd support him for that reason alone, and I stand by that. YechielMan 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. would make a great admin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. ^demon may not have the traditional spread of experience but there is no doubting his trustworthiness and knowledge of policy as demonstrated by his mediation work. He is calm and level-headed- will use the mop well. WjBscribe 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Amarkov. "Support, duh" comes to mind here. – Steel 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, This is the current head of the Mediation Committee. Since being the head of the mediation committee requires a rather higher level of trust than an admin flag, I think we can easily trust ^demon with the latter. --Kim Bruning 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Kim Bruning. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Considering that this user is in charge of WP:MEDCOM and runs a bot, there is plenty of reason to support. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Was thinking of nominating ^demon myself eventually. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but wtf support - you're not already one? WTF? – Chacor 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support About time for this candidate to become an admin. Gutworth 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per noms, answers, overall record. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great volunteer to have on the project. I'm sure giving him a few extra buttons will only help both ^demon and the English Wikipedia. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems overdue, per all of the above. I'm sure this user will get at least one editcountitis oppose (693 mainspace edits?) but he's fully qualified. Grand master ka 02:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Thought he was one. Orane (talk • cont.) 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not. Khoikhoi 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support ^demon is already highly trusted by the community as the head of MEDCOM, so this is a no-brainer. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support qualified admin candidate.--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent qualifications... -- Scientizzle 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, hell yes. Daniel Bryant 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Daniel. – Riana ^{shiny disco balls} 05:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A mediator that haven't received adminship?! I feel that we committed a crime. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Real96 06:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom and all of the above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support John Reaves (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
^R ^F ^A cliche #1. >Radiant< 10:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, he's not one yet? I cannot believe it. Terence 11:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Given that ^demon already occupies several position of trust - mediator, bot-running etc. - it is clear that he can handle the responsibility of adminship. Rje 12:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Definitely! Runs a bot, mediator - has my complete trust. - Anas ^Talk? 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent, well-rounded, experienced candidate. Xoloz 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
37 -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per the nominations. S.D. 18:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. Addhoc 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongest Support Possible Kntrabssi 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I trust ^demon not to implode Wikipedia with a few extra buttons. Hand over the mop. ♠PMC♠ 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Prodego ^talk 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
^demon has impressed me with his maturity and skills here, both as an editor and as a mediator on the MedCom. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support ^demon is a great editor who I am sure will do a fine job as an admin. Cbrown1023 talk 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, no concerns at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support very good editor, will be a good admin. James086^Talk 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, and this is an "I-thought-you-already-WERE-an-admin" non-vote. Clearly responsible; already doing hard work well; and as for "needs-the-tools" (the question brought up in "Oppose" below), admin access would have let ^demon retrieve the deleted bot code rather than do it all by hand, and also would let ^demon see, undelete, and protect evidentiary text that anyone else had tried to hide by deleting. These tools clearly relate to the job ^demon is already doing. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Mediation and templates... Xiner (talk, email) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great candidate. Good answers. Moptastic. --Dweller 10:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Candidate's has done a great job at everything else. I have total confidence that will continue as an admin. --Selket ^Talk 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I have interacted with this user before, and while we do not always agree, he has struck me as level-headed and fair, and thus I would tend to trust his judgement. Good Luck! -- Avi 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, your support means quite a bit to me, as we have often crossed paths and not agreed. Thank you very much. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This user was particularly helpful in helping me get an older signature which I used to use working, he went the extra mile just to help, I definitely trust him with the mop. Good luck! Telly addict 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. Yuser31415 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Can be trusted with the mop. -- Jreferee 20:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Caretdemon seems to be an excellent candidate, and I can find nothing which indicates otherwise. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. -- Nick ^t 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seems like a reasonable editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A fine user, who deserve my support. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I've crossed paths with this user several times and they seem to know what they're doing. Definately worthy of becoming an admin. // DecaimientoPoético 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Needs tools by all accounts. Bubba hotep 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support User can certainly use the tools.-- danntm ^T _C 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Great user. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Approachable, dependable, helpful, experienced. —Psychonaut 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support certainly based on history, answers, and apparent kind nature. - Denny 05:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Dfrg.msc 09:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Very good user, as part of MEDCOM, he will use the tools at least for deleting expired medcom cases. Regardless, adminship is no big deal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support — excellent work for the Mediation Committee, demonstrating a desire to achieve and retain consensus - a highly desirable trait in a sysop; anthony^[cfc] 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Well demonstrated editor --Infrangible 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, almost forgot I !voted oppose the first time around, but this is the most "improvement" I've ever seen between RFA's! :) — xaosflux ^Talk 04:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I think Demon would make a great administratorLeprechaun99 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Someone whose work has made them a valued mediator will doubtless be even more valued with the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
El_C 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Trust is high, no dearth of support, enthusiasm is fulfilled, sealed with a sig. Pig^man_dialogue 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per noms. Sarah 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support this editor is trustworthy, dedicated, and has what it takes to be an administrator. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This person is a great user!!! I think that him becomming a admin is far overdue. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 19:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Not a whole lot of mainspace hurts your standing. Yeah, I had to take the strong out, sorry. But you're still a great user who deserves the tools.--Wizardman 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seen good stuff from him. - Merzbow 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. I don't think that this user needs the tools, and the answers to the questions don't do anything for me. A Train ^{take the} 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh look. It's the I-don't-like-this-user-so-let-me-find-a-shitty-reason-to-oppose-him-even-if-it-is-vague-and-doesn't-make-an-ounce-of-sense vote. Haven't seen one of those in a while. PS: What exactly do you want the answers to do for you? Orane (talk • cont.) 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA. I am starting to sound like an echo I say that so much. Prodego ^talk 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My apologies. It just bugs me to see votes like these. Orane (talk • cont.) 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It bugs you to see someone hold an opinion that you don't agree with? Good luck with that. A Train ^{take the} 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Um what opinion? you haven't stated an opinion, except a vague "he doesn't need the tools" and the answers don't tickle my fancy. I don't even know what to call that. For someone who have been through the RFA process, one would think you'd know how to lend a proper comment to an RFA discussion. Anyway, I'm done. Let's not waste space here. You made you vote, I commented on it. full stop. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll give an example of why ^demon needs the tools, if that means anything. The MedCom deletes rejected cases after x days, as a long-standing process. Rather than have to bug me, or tag articles for speedy deletion, he could delete them himself. Just one example. Daniel Bryant 06:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not a vote, and A Train does need to solidly defend his position, else people might ignore it. On the other hand, User:Journalist does actually need to assume good faith. Politeness would have helped too. Finally, it might have been wiser to ask specific questions (such as: Which question was answered wrong, and why, and what can we do about that in future). --Kim Bruning 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Wouldn't have said anything, but someone mentioned the v word ;-P

(re-indent) My opinion is that the project would not be well served by ^demon becoming an administrator. I have my reasons, and hold nothing against the user - we've never even interacted, to the best of my recollection. I obviously hold a minority opinion here. I've been with the project for two years, I have almost 4000 edits under my belt and I am an administrator myself, so I hope that I will be forgiven for feeling that I'm entitled to keep my own counsel. There is no shortage of votes that say only "oppose" or "support" from editors in good standing, and no one presumes that those are discounted. Journalist seemed to take my oppose vote as a personal insult (which it clearly was not) and I invite him to apologize to me at his earliest convenience. A Train ^{take the} 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not offended by A Train's opinion. He is entitled to it, and he is under no obligation to explain himself. I would appreciate it if we could stop badgering him over it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't take A Train's vote as a personal insult. I just thought it was time people moved past the kind of vote where there are no particular reason. If you can't express it in words, then you know there's something wrong. Also, this is a discussion right? If you're voting oppose, then don't you think its reasonable to provide the candidate with some sort of reason, so he can know what is wrong and work on it? Just a thought. And lastly, A Train, I don't believe I have anything to apologize for. Orane (talk • cont.)

Neutral

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

[edit] SGGH

Final (38/0/1); Ended Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:35:51 (UTC)

SGGH (talk • contribs) - For me it is a privilege to nominiate SGGH for adminship. SGGH has been with us since May 2006. 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 such as the Russian-Circassian War and the Mozambican War of Independence which was promoted to FA status. SGGH has made numerous contributions to the Pedia and is very active in the following areas: newpage patroller, Wikipedia Maintenance and RC patrol and member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. He is also an active member and participant of the Military History Wikiproject and leader of the Law Enforcement Wikiproject. The thing that most impresses me about SGGH is not so much his dedication and edit count but, the way he handles himself with others. He has gone out of his way to help and encourage others by adopting new users. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire. An example of how he handles himself under preasure while interacting with others can be found in the FA nomination:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mozambican War of Independence. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. SGGH is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Accept SGGH 22:16, 17 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: I will work where ever, once I have made sure I known the protocol to the letter I will work through as many backlogs as I can cover. I will be working particularly hard in the RC patrol and new page patrol areas, utilising the admin tools to deal with vandalism and nonsense changes and new pages far quicker as well as dealing with longer term vandals with warnings, as I do now, and blocks if necessary. I will work with page protection, I will work in mediation, and answering the call on the admin notice board as much as I can, and any other areas where I find things that can be done or where my help is requested. I plan in particular to utilise the admin tools to help facilitate smoother management of the Law Enforcement wikiproject, as I foresee a greater need for such managing as the project expands.

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

A: As Tony mentioned, I am very pleased with what the CSB Mozambican War of Independence has achieved, and I hope to bring the Russian-Circassian War to the same standard, the FA review particularly has taught me new things about article writing, and I am very pleased to have learned about the technical points of article construction. I am proud of my work on the History of Women in Combat, which was my first big project, and I am also proud of how the Law Enforcement project has expanded from having only one other active user by the time I joined, to 40+ users and over 1500 articles, it's really growing strong and I am particularly pleased with its success. I am pleased with some of my smaller contributions as well, slowly working through articles for MoH recipients is rewarding work for the Military History Wikiproject which I joined not long after registering.

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

A: I have had one edit conflict during my time here. Shortly after taking over the Law Enforcement wikiproject I was contacted to mediate by a user who was experiencing trouble with another user who was deleting maintenance tags and removing valid edits to an article. My resulting warnings about he above resulted in a rather unpleasant back and forth with the user in question, and while I was searching for the best way to solve things I was finding it difficult to please everyone, however after the conflict past (support from other users involved greatly appreciated there!) I found afterwards that I had taken a number of lessons away from it, and have now learned to enter such conflicts with a cooler, more neutral head. So all in all I am pleased with the lessons learned from (fortunately) my only conflict with another user.

4. You say in Q1 that you plan on working on RC patrol, yet I can find only a few edits and one report to WP:AIV. Do you have any experience in vandalism detection and reversion and how would you deal with vandals? Naconkantari 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A In answer to the first part, I do revert vandalism found in the recent changes log, as well as vandalism that I happen to come across while reading articles by the by, however at the current moment in time the majority of my vandalism patrolling is new page patrolling, however I am planning inreasing my RC patrolling, though unfortunatly very recently my brower is very slow loading the list pages, forcing me to new page patrol instead, however this is a temporary issue. In answer to the second question, there are different grades of vandalism to respond to, so please bare with my long winded answer! Blatant vandalism, like replacing all the 'the's with 'sex' I would deal with the various BV templates, with the level used depending on the levels of previously existing warnings already on the talk page that were given by other users, and for perhaps first time blatant vandals i would leave an informal note suggesting that they tone it down, or take a look at a non-encyclopedic site as wiki may not be for them. For less blatant vandalisms, I would tend to either 1) leave an informal polite message asking them to take care of what content they introduce, including a list of links to manual of style etc. (this I use for first edit newbies (along with a welcome tag), first time 3RR violations and vandalisms that are genuinly accidental or easily done) or 2) a series of Test1-4 tags, again the level of the tag depending on what previous tags are present, and of course the Test1Article tags for the same, except for inappropriate page creation rather than edits, which at the moment in time forms the larger majority of my anti-vandalism activities as I do more new page checks than RC, as mentioned above.

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Strong Support, as nominator Tony the Marine 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I like your answers--SUIT^양복 23:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good nom and good answers. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Active wikipedian, good responses/answers, good contributions. LordHarris 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support We need people like him. Antonio Martin 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks like an excellent contributor and admin candidate. —Krellis (Talk) 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I have had excellent interactions with SGGH and trust that he/she will be a good administrator.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
moved from neutral, Naconkantari 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support - but you may count it as a full support vote. Seventy ... dot ... 02:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Struck - This vote was placed by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Orderinchaos78 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. The nomination and answers show sufficient experience. YechielMan 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Impressive range of contributions and answers and past history that suggests a reliable future admin. Orderinchaos78 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. the kind of admin we need Crested Penguin 08:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Good idea's will make a great admin, experience has been acquired by that conflict with Patchbook, so it wasn't all bad, still running the Law enforcement project excellently. Overall: Let him own wikipedia, lol Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 11:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Should do great work with the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support another great candidate. Sure. - Anas ^Talk? 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good answer and good contributions. Rje 13:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Will use admin tools wisely. --Meno25 14:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great answers, good contribs, no reason not to. Gan fon 15:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Excellent candidate. Has shown the ability to solve conflict and get things moving in WP:LE.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jeff503 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Support: Great candidate, I look forward to seeing him help WP:LE and WP:MILHIST. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Yuser31415 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Full confidence that SGGH will make a great admin. --Aude (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good, no reason not to. James086^Talk 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support An all around excellent candidate with oroper answers and proper admin quality.--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 23:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Change to Support -Thanks so much for responding to my concerns as you have! Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I may be just a newcomer, but I believe SGGH more than deserves Adminship, not ~~just~~ bescause SGGH adopted me, but because of the qualities that SGGH has perfect for sysops. All the answers, contributions, etc. definitely are a great (near/future) admin's skills.The Wiki Whippet (deeds)
Terence 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support A hard working contributor. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - looks like an excellent editor who should make a fine admin. Johntex\^talk 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I've worked with Tony and if he says SGGH is admin material, SGGH is admin material. -- Jreferee 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as I can find no valid resons for opposing. I see no evidence this editor would abuse the bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I did a thorough editor review of this user not too long ago and was very pleased with what I saw. I found absolutely nothing that would prevent me from supporting. Afterwards, s/he was eager to follow up and improve based on my suggestions. Great candidate! delldot talk 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Seems fine. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a very good editor, I've particulary appreciated his work with Mozambican War of Independence.--Aldux 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - will make a good addition. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

~~Oppose~~ unless the candidate sets an e-mail address. There are many cases where an e-mail can be useful to an admin. A common one occurs in the case of issuing a block. Since the blocked party will not be able to leave a message on the blocking admin's talk page, they may attempt to address the situation through e-mail. This is impossible if the admin has not set an e-mail. Johntex\^talk 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have set an email, I'll try to email myself through it now to ensure it is still working. Tony the Marine emailed me not two days ago... SGGH 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

you're right, it's stopped working. I'll fix that now, but Tony can verify that I have had it set up for ages now... weird. Thanks for pointing it out to me! SGGH 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reactivated it now, but I'm 99% sure it has been activated for ages, how else would the Marine, or User:Patchbook, have gotten my email? Odd, but again thanks for point this out! SGGH 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of this happening to another user before, I think there may be a bug that shows it's head sporadically. Thanks for (re)settting the e-mail. I am now switching to Support. Johntex\^talk 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

~~Until Q4 answered. Naconkantari 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)~~

~~Neutral~~ I dug back a few months in your edits to the most recent interaction I could find with a vandal. Although there may be a few others, this is the one I found [6]. I am wondering about your experience with RC patrolling. I read above about your currently slower browser as a reason for your lack of current practice in RC patrolling. Might you direct us to a time when you did more RC patrolling? What I am hoping to see is evidence of understanding of the use of notices to vandals such as "test 1" or "#{{subst:uw-test1}}". On the other hand, I note you have done great work on several articles, such as the Mozambican War of Independence and the Russian-Circassian War. Thanks, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure as to whether I am allowed to answer you down here, but I should explain. The majority of my current anti-vandal work is new page patrolling and speedy deleting due to vandal pages etc, and once pages are deleted they of course don't show up in my edit history anymore. If you click here (which is hopefully the correct link for my edit history on user talk pages) you will hopefully see my vandal warnings on user talk pages, there have been a significant amount from mid january to mid february. There are others scattered around there, but due to the weird browser problems and my recent preoccupation with those two article you mentioned above, the mid-Jan to mid-Feb are the most recent batch. Also, when speedy deleting vandal pages I don't always notify the user (something I should do more of I realise, and I will in future) which is why they don't always appear on my edit count. Hope that answers your question, and I hope it's okay to answer down here! SGGH 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Just to be publicly clear, the one thing I wish we all would watch for is how well nominated users have intervened with various forms of relatively hostile users (both IP users and those who have signed in). Like I have said, you demonstrate great patience and focus as an editor. This will certainly help. I have just known a number of admins who seem to have felt relatively abused by hostile users. Regardless, I wish you the best as you move forward. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. I've no good reason to oppose this nomination, but I note that this user doesn't have email activated on his account. I don't care about this for a user but it gives me a bad feeling for someone who should be able to handle the problematic areas of user interaction. AKAF 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to express my own opinion on this comment. You shouldn't have a bad feeling if a user doesn't activate his e-mail on his or her account. Problematic areas should be handled within the Pedia's talk pages thereby permitting other members of the community to participate actively. This should not be a reflextion on the nominees ability to handle situations. The e-mail activation is an option. However, there have been many cases, and to site one I'll use the case of User: Alabamaboy, where some anon's have made use of his activated e-mail to personally attack and threaten him. The community cannot participate in disputes carried out in an activated e-mail. This is my opinion. Tony the Marine 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As i have stated above, my user email was activated sometime ago after conversation with Gingko100, but it seems to have packed it on it's own. I have now reactivated it, and thank the users who have pointed it out. SGGH 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly wasn't opposing on that basis, and I think that an administrator has the right not to have email activated, but I'd be wary of an administrator who hadn't yet discovered that it is possible to set an email address through wikipedia. Best wishes for your RFA. AKAF 08:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Michaelas10

Final (77/5/0); Ended Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:31:39 (UTC)

Michaelas10 (talk • contribs) - Ladies and gents, I give you Michaelas10. This user has been with us for almost a year now; in this time he has achieved a whopping 10,000 edits, a statistic which should satisfy even the worst sufferers of editcountitis. He is an exceptional contributor, who's all over Wikipedia at once - for starters, he participates in XfDs, and regularly closes AfDs for articles that have been speedily deleted (he caught one of mine today! :) ). In all these he exhibits a clear and acute understanding of deletion policy.

He also participates in article/portal peer review, and regularly reviews featured article, portal and list candidates - and somehow manages to slip in the occasional editor review. Lastly, he is an active member of the South Park WikiProject. His contributions always indicate his attitude to be collaborative rather than combative, a much-needed attribute in an administrator.

Michael is a frequent recent changes patroller, who always takes the time to warn vandals, and reports vandals when necessary (at the time of writing, he has a stack of AIV reports, about 75). No doubt the ability to quickly block troublemakers, and the rollback tool, would benefit everybody enormously.

His frequent edits to requests for page protection (always helpful, never interfering) indicate that he has sufficient knowledge of the protection policy to be entrusted with the extra button.

Not just a pretty face, he has also helped in raising Trapped in the Closet (South Park) and Make Love, Not Warcraft to GA status, helped to get List of Harry Potter films cast members to featured list status, has helped to improve Portal:AC/DC (currently a featured portal candidate), copyedited a fair few articles while on FLC, and has saved a few articles from AfD too.

Michael is invariably polite, friendly and helpful, has assisted in welcoming a few hundred new users, and is just an all-round nice guy, whom I've never seen act in an uncivil manner.

As for the paperwork - no blocks, e-mail-able, cool, non-annoying userpage and signature.

This guy deserves the tools - he will definitely make great use of them, and he'll make a great addition to the team. His enthusiasm for the project, coupled with his knowledge of policy, his many and diverse contributions, and his excellent record, make him a natural candidate for adminship, and I respectfully submit him to your attention. – riana_dzasta 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination Well I am a little bit late, I offered to nominate him back in January and this is when we were going to give it a shot. Basically this is a knowledgeable user who would benefit greatly from the tools. Anything else to be said has already been covered by Riana (she beat me to it ;) ~ Arjun 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 15:33, 17 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: As an administrator I anticipate closing deletion debates and decreasing backlogs at WP:AIV, two areas where I've previously been very involved in. I also expect to help deal with CAT:CSD requests, an area I believe I'm experienced with and which could always use an extra pair of eyes. Further areas I anticipate helping with include WP:RFPP, WP:RM, and DYK. 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A: Although I've never been a supreme FA writing machine, I'm quite proud of myself as a decent contributer. My major contributions are

Trapped in the Closet (South Park) and

Make Love, Not Warcraft. I've assisted on countless others, including

List of Harry Potter films cast members,

List of volcanoes in Indonesia,

Prigat, and Portal:AC/DC. I'm also proud of my works on behalf of the portal peer review volunteers; thus far I've reviewed nearly 50 portals both on WP:FPOC and WP:PPREV, most of which eventually received featured status. Hopefully I will bring an article to featured status myself in the nearby future. 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I rarely have conflicts over my edits. The last major conflict I've been involved in occurred back in December 2006. AnonMoos continued to remove an AfD header which he believed to be added in bad-faith, despite mine and Amarkov's attempts to explain him otherwise. He was eventually warned by an admin and since discontinued. I feel I've handled it quite well, and in the future I plan to calmly handle conflicts without going into edit wars. 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

4. How do you explain your views on the Wipipedia deletion debates?

A. I believe a clarification would be useful here. Wipipedia is a wiki about BDSM lifestyle, which was a subject to two AfD's and a DRV that took place last year. What originally drew my attention to these was the amount of WP:ILIKEIT votes in connection with the subject matter at each debate. Regardless, the second AfD was ultimately closed keep by Runcorn, and the subsequent DRV resulted in an option to relist it anytime rather than overturn. This was likely due to the presented evidence of a trivial website using some of Wipipedia's content. As a participant of both the DRV and AfD, I don't believe my opinion was unfair, nor it was unsupported by other participants. I will proceed to relist it on AfD anytime this year if nobody else would. 10:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

General comments

See Michaelas10's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Extreme nominator support – riana_dzasta 15:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Is voting even open yet? Anyways, this is one of the few people I think would make a perfect admin. · AO ^Talk 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Wow, two of my friends say yes so far, so now I do too! Ry Guy 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support he'll do excellently. Good luck! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support as co-nom. ~ Arjun 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A great user who I see often.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support (cliché warning) - good luck! The Rambling Man 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent candidate. Xoloz 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Fuck yeah. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - Perfect image of an administrator. Good luck, Michael! Mike5193|Mike5193 - Talk Michael 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Not much to add to the very thorough nomination. Excellent candidate. Rje 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Wow.--SUIT^양복 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support On my to-nominate list, as well. <yodaspeak>A great candidate for adminship Michael is.</yodaspeak> Nishkid 64 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I'm Captain panda and I approve Mailer diablo's message! Captain panda In vino veritas 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support This user is definitly an admin canidate. No doubts.--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most RfA candidates are definitely admin candidates. ;) --Kyoko 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Familiar with the policies and definitely eager to help.--Orthologist 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, let Michael have the mop and bucket. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. WjBscribe 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - trustworthy nominators, seen this chap around a fair chunk doing the right thing. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Trust the nominators and the candidate. –Llama man^talk_contribs 21:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Wow that's like 10 times more than my edits. I see practically no reason at all to object. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support An excellent candidate. —Krellis (Talk) 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I have seen his excellent work on here. Spebi 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. S.D. 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Naconkantari 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Seventy ... dot ... 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe this user has been indef blocked as a sock. IronDuke 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I'm not sure what to add. YechielMan 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I would however urge the candidate to mark his more minor edits as minor. This is not a major concern, though. --Kyoko 03:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Has the need for the tools, the experience to use the tools correctly, and the demeanor to use the tools wisely. -- Jreferee 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Friendly, hard-working and helpful, I think adding the tools to his palette could only be a good thing for Wikipedia. Orderinchaos78 05:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Trustworthy of the tools. Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Terence 09:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. Addhoc 11:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support excellent nom! Great and trustworthy candidate. - Anas ^Talk? 12:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great contributor.--Yannismarou 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Very good contributions and per his answers. --Meno25 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Axl 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Yuser31415 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Dev920. James086^Talk 22:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Yes. - Richard Cavell 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - no problems here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support.--Hús ö nd 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Rockpocket 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per responses and overall record. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael is an excellent candidate and I am confident he will be a fantastic, fair admin. Sarah 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Hardworking, qualified, helpful - will do a good job. M3tal H3ad 09:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ja. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Very good candidate. I will respect this user's authoritah. IronDuke 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support he's been helpful to me - and will be an asset to the encyclopedia as an admin. --sunstar net^talk 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support good candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support LuciferMorgan 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I see no valid reason why this user would abuse the mop. Twiddle the bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Sweet. Pig^man_dialogue 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, until Runcorn proves his/her claims. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Seen some good solid work from this editor all over. Most impressed with the effort put into peer reviews, GA and FAC. Extra tools will go a long way, I reckon. Bubba hotep 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --cj | talk 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Joe I 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Great user. See him around plenty. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support You know why. Get on it! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: I am amazed at his responsiveness - I sent him a wikipedia mail with a message, and his response was immediate. We require responsive administrators. --Bhadani 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. See no problems. ElinorD (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Runcorn's diffs (yes, I know Runcorn opposed). User showed a good knowledge of policy in these debates, and was in my opinion quite correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've only interacted with him/watched his editing recently, and I am not terribly impressed with the strengths of the opposes. What I saw was administrator material, and the below opposes are nothing compared to his attributes. Daniel Bryant 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Fine contributor all-round. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - The most efficient WP user I know. He knows all policies/guidelines off by heart. -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, based on previous interactions with this user. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 15:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I was neutral before but I've changed my mind, I cant hold it against you just for what could be a technical fault. Good luck! Telly addict 16:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Denny 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose User has shown some bad judgements on AfD, attempting to get good articles deleted and to get keep votes overturned on DRV. This gives me no confidence in his ability to close AfDs himself.--Runcorn 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I please ask for some examples? – Riana ^{shiny disco balls} 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Try the second AfD on Wipipedia [7] and the subsequent DRV.[8]--Runcorn 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. – Riana ^ঋ 06:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made an additional answer above to explain the situation. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 10:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I was involved in the discussions linked above and agree with Runcorn. I will retract if I can be convinced that Michaelas10 has learnt from this and would not repeat what happened then. --Holdenhurst 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I know that my vote will not affect the outcome, but if it makes Michaelas10 think and not repeat his mistakes then I'm not wasting my time.--Brownlee 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose From what I have personally seen of this user, he is a deletionist following his own agenda even when an article has recently been through a deletion debate. (I have no opinion of how he might be useful in relatively minor backwaters of administration.) He does not seem to have an understanding of how an interactive encyclopedia must build over time and I feel he would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. --Interesdom 07:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you shooting him down for having opinions? I can't see any evidence that says he lacks knowledge of policy, or badly interprets it. – Riana ^ঋ 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose User:Michaelas10 has shown great personal vindictiveness against me in connection with the 2nd Wipipedia RFD, and went through a whole long rigamarole nonsense of misusing warning tags on my user talk page, while refusing to give any concrete specific non-speculatively-hypothetical replies to any of my concerns, which has all left a very sour taste in my mouth -- and given me very strong feelings that I don't want him to be given any additional powers which he will probably end up misusing in the end. AnonMoos 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I would support this user but... I asked this user if he would like an RfA in the past (shown here) and I kindly asked if he would reply on my talk page, in which he did not, he said on his talk page that he emailed me and did not contact me as asked, so this brings me to doubt about whether he takes time to read and understand situations, also it seems unclear to me whether this user would hurry into decisions and not listen to what someone wants or asks if they were asking him a question or asking him to perform a sysop chore on another user/article etc. I know some may think this is a small reason to oppose but this is whar I think.Telly addict 20:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can recall emailing you, can you please double-check your intro box? I apologize if there was some misunderstanding, hopefully the message will be retrieved. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 21:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you have a right to express your opinion, but I do feel this !vote doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a neutral perspective (no pun intended). For the simple reason that you recently felt so impressed with this editor with you wanted to nominate him, yet on the basis of what appears to be at worst forgetfulness and much more likely a technical gremlin, you are now not willing to even support? Moreover, I'm not sure how this is evidence that he may "hurry into decisions and not listen to what someone wants or asks". I would instead propose that the reason he wanted to email you could be because there was perhaps personal information in his reply that might not be appropriate for a public forum. I know both times I was asked about being nominated I replied privately for those very reasons. Indeed one could argue this shows the editor demonstrates good judgement and discretion. Finally, could I respectfully propose to you that you may be reacting to disappointment at the perception of being snubbed, and ask whether on reflection this should influence your overall impression of this, otherwise very impressive, nominee? Rockpocket 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The above from Tellyaddict may arise from his GA review of Still Reigning, which has been disputed at GAR. LuciferMorgan 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tellyaddict was quite clear in his reasoning for why his !vote was not one of support, and the GA review was not mentioned. To his credit he was willing to reconsider, noting "maybe my vote was a little one sided" and I commend him for that. Having withdrawn his comments, I don't think a detailed examination of his motives is helpful, nor appropriate. Rockpocket 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] MichaelBillington

Final (89/1/1); Ended Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:14:27 (UTC)

MichaelBillington (talk • contribs) - Another one of "Oh! I thought he was admin already!" candidates for you. Michael joined Wikipedia in March 2006, and started actively contributing since May 2006. He's been active with all-round aspects of the encyclopedia. Not very proficient at article writing, he has contributed by creating various pages/stubs and Wikignoming over articles like Delta Blues (horse), ASCII art, Spam (electronic) etc. Michael is an active checkuser clerk, a regular spartan in our constant battle against spam. He has a tonne of vandalism-reversions to his credit. Michael has been regular on the Wikiproject on Open proxies with ample experience over disputes and users making contentious edits. Apart from gnoming and regular contributor work, Mike is a respectable, co-operative and a friendly user, who is kind and helpful to the newbies and regulars alike. He is the developer of Mike's Wiki Tool for fighting vandalism and one of the Vandal Proof developers. A system administrator on the English Wikiversity, with more than 12,000 blocks to his credit, this guy is a complete tool! :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy is well-known around the press circles too – [9]. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I Accept --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: It's hard to ignore that speedy deletions have become anything but speedy lately. I already know the basic criteria, and have experience working with this at Wikiversity, (for anyone that doesn't know, it is the newest of Wikipedia's sister projects). I also hope to be able to help with the multi-wiki effort to enforce the open proxy ban, which is something I have also been very active with on Wikiversity. I'm keen to do what I can on the various 'requests' pages also. Sir Nick mentioned that I was a clerk for WP:RFCU (since December or so), and as part of that, there are always a few socks that will need blocking. I've been on the wiki for a while, so am aware of most of the policies. If time allows, WP:RFPP and WP:AIV (not to mention the image backlogs and copyright problems) await. 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A: That's a tough choice. Right now, I like the look of the 2005 Wizard Home Loans Cup article, which I started a few weeks ago. If I can get time, and sufficient sources, I'm hoping to write a bunch more of year articles for various Aussie rules competitions. I spend most of my time on Australia-related subjects (football and Victorian geography are a large part of my watchlist) and computer-related subjects. There are of course thirty-something other articles to my name, all of which I'm happy to have made available freely on Wikipedia. 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I am involved with a lot of anti-spam/anti-vandalism, so there are always users who wish to contest my actions. As many of these users are unfamiliar with how wiki talk pages work, I leave my e-mail on my user page, which means that many of these disputes are resolved off-wiki. To list a few, I have been contested (almost always by the owners of the sites in question) over reversions on Fleshlight, Employment website (also related pages) and ASCII art, among others. I have never edit warred, or broken 3RR however, as is evident by my empty block log. 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

4. You seem to have a fair use image, Image:Solaris10.jpg, on your user page, your awards subpage, and a talk archive. I'd remove it, but I'm loathe to edit another user's pages when the image is so small and the user could do it themselves. Could you get around to removing them? Picaroon 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A: Short answer: Yes, Long answer: I've gone through and substituted the image for Barnstar.png in all 3 cases. It was given to me as an award or sorts at the start of October. Thanks for telling me that, I hadn't noticed until now that there was a fair use image among my barnstars. 05:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

— Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Support – riana_dzasta 12:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why wasn't he nominated ages before? Strong Support! The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. It is true that I was quite concerned about Michael and that I opposed his previous RfA. However, during the last four months, I've kept an eye out for him and I feel he has proven himself to be a mature, intelligent, reliable and trustworthy Wikipedian. Michael has assisted me with admin-related jobs such as identifying/confirming open proxies and I feel very strongly that he has the knowledge, skills, maturity and personal commitment to the project to become an outstanding administrator. I have recently considered offering to nominate Michael myself because I do believe that he is ready for adminship and so this may be considered a co-nom from Bay 13. Sarah 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. PTO 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support Great user, and I'd have been more enthusiastic had Mike's first RfA not been smalled. Make it into a wikilink if you want, but the full text should be of the same size. Xiner (talk, email) 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Gnan garra 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support the nom said it, thought he was one... Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support, great guy. Terence 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Excellent candidate. Will (aka Wimt) 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Sounds like a great, great admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support definitely. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
MaxSem 17:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Very qualified candidate -- bit of a "cliche" moment here! :) Xoloz 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep-on-rambling support - good luck! The Rambling Man 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
'Support Does good grunt work around here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good candidate. -- Jreferee 18:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - will make an excellent admin. -- Nick ^t 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - per Sarah. --Guinnog 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. Michael is a knowledgeable and helpful user on Wikipedia (see his clerical work at WP:RFCU and WP:CHU). He was on my to-nominate list. Nishkid 64 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Bucketsofg 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good, well-rounded experience. Will make a good admin. WjBscribe 20:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Sure thing. Just H^{editor review} 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Daniel Bryant 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, indeed. --Core desat 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks like another great admin-in-the-making. —Krellis (Talk) 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I supported last time, and nothing has changed my mind since then. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I have come across this editor and feel sure he can be trusted as an admin. --Bduke 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. S.D. 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Naconkantari 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Seventy ... dot ... 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote struck - sockpuppet of blocked user. Orderinchaos78 05:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support' Looks capable, level-headed and practiced. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Experience in various admin-type jobs qualifies Michael for the mop. YechielMan 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Gogo Dodo 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Mature, experienced editor who deserves the mop, in my view. Orderinchaos78 05:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Sound, experienced candidate. Tyrenius 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support OITHWAAA™ ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Real96 06:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Well qualified for the mop Crested Penguin 08:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good addition.--MONGO 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. Addhoc 11:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support definitely has the experience. Would surely be an asset to the admin team. - Anas ^Talk? 12:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup.' Thought he was, etc. Gave me my first barnstar, I seem to recall. Enjoy your mop. Handle with care! --Dweller 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Shoop da Woop support: strong candidate, will do great things for the project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I thought he was admin already! Yuser31415 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks-like-you-might-pass-this-one! Support All the good things happen when I take time off :P — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought he was..... Support — Lost^(talk) 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I know it's a cliche, but: I thought he was... - Richard Cavell 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support He's not an admin, but he should be. Seen many positive contribs coming from this account. James086^Talk 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- I have no reason to doubt this editors usage of administrator tools. - Longhair\^talk 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Khoikhoi 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support This user clearly demonstrates the qualities of an admin.--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 04:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Of course. —Moondyne 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good experience. —dgies^t_c 07:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You couldn't escape adminship forever! Mwahaha! --Slowking Man 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I once offered to nominate him; I still think he's a good candidate. · AO ^Talk 11:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, Very capable. Modernist 12:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good contributor with experience. utcursch | talk 12:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - sounds like someone who is doing great work already, and will only help even more if given the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks excellent.-- danntm ^T _C 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were one, too. But now it seems that is going to become official. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Tyrenius.--Runcorn 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, understanding that this would be a strong oppose if the nominee were the one who actually posted the thing over at the noticeboard. It is not a good thing to do, but I can hardly fault the nominee for other people's mistakes. -Amarkov moo! 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Dude! You're, like, fabulous. Go go go forth and clean well with a will. Pig^man_dialogue 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. VegaDark 10:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Based on contributions and actions, seems to be a very solid individual who will be an asset as an admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I don't see any reasons for significant concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support → The user seems experienced enough. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Seems good and experienced. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good Candidate, Admin tools are warranted. Dfrg.msc 08:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support – Especially per his answer to Q3 where he has been active in dealing with spam and vandalism. Looks good. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I am suprised his is not an admin already! ffm ✎t 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. ElinorD (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support It's about time --Infrangible 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - trustworthy experienced user. Metamagician3000 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Yeah, you can have it. Please don't abuse the mop. StayinAnon 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
El_C 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support One of the nice, helpful users in a place full of idiots (i.e. IRC). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support kaiti-sicle 08:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Would make great admin -- Punk Boi 8 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved this vote from being a "comment" (per indenting) below, given the update of the tally count to indicate that he was intending to support. Punk Boi is a young child, and I fear he was mistaken in his placement; I hope I've interpreted his intention here correctly. Please reverse me if you disagree. Punk Boi can't be contacted because he's currently blocked for one month per ANI. Daniel Bryant 09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support hells yeah T. Kewl the First 09:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose While it seems that the community has quite a bit of trust in Mr. Billington, I must respectfully oppose his candidacy (quite strongly, at that) based on previous concerns brought up during his last RfA, most notably his predisposition to willingly skew consensus in his and his mates' favours. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a postscript to my original statement of opposition, I'd like to point out that this RfA is currently being canvassed for support at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements is a longstanding (since 11 November 2005) and widely accepted solution to the problem of how to inform without canvassing. Gaillimh is entitled to his opinion on it, but it is utterly inappropriate for him to try to influence this vote by characterising the legitimate use of this tool as a deliberate attempt to subvert this process. Hesperian 03:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Informing those who are likely to support this RfA is pretty much the exact definition of canvassing mate :) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is actually defined as overt solicitation, which this is clearly not. Your position is fundamentally cynical and unfair to the candidate.--cj | talk 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'd be happy to discuss the definition of "canvassing" on our respective talk pages, the only thing unfair to the candidate is our drifting away from the topic at hand which is, of course, Mr. Billington's request. As such, while I admire your faith in the candidate, I disagree with your estimation and respectfully oppose his candidacy. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither myself nor cj have voted in this RfA. You wouldn't have a clue whether or not we support the candidate. Hesperian 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting neutral announcements on Wikiprojects has never been considered canvassing. WP:CANVASS clearly defines canvassing as crossposting on user talk pages, although the issue of IRC canvassing has been debated on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing in my view is asking for a vote on talk pages, or for people to vote a particular way. Advertising at Portal:Australia if you are not well liked could well be suicidal to one's chances as becoming an admin (and it has happened before). Orderinchaos78 09:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to here Michael's take on this. Picaroon 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your user talk page. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

— Comment, can I ask why in the original, withdrawn RFA, why your start date is listed as December 14, 2005, where above it is March 2006? I'm probably missing something... SGGH 14:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

comment this was discussed on the previous RfA in that his account was created on Dec 14,2005 but his first edit wasnt until March 2006. ~~The current nominator was the one who raised the issue and opposed that nomination~~ struck out this section of my comment as Sarah only listed this RfA at WikiProject Australia Gnan garra 14:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gnang, I've responded to this in my own spot under support. Sarah 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Oldelpaso

Final (37/0/1); Ended Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:34:14 (UTC)

Oldelpaso (talk • contribs) - It is a pleasure to nominate one of the best editors I've come to know on Wikipedia. Oldelpaso has been a Wikipedian for over two years, since registering in February 2005, and became a more regular editor a few months later that year. He has accumulated in excess of 6,000 edits, distributed amongst the various namespaces, but his best work can be found in the article namespace where he has over 3,000 edits. He has been the main contributor, or one of the main contributors, on nothing less than five featured articles (Manchester City F.C., FIFA World Cup, Football (soccer), Premier League and City of Manchester Stadium) and a featured list (English football champions). You might notice his interrest in football, and I've been working regularly with him on WikiProject Football and various related articles since he signed up for the project in August 2005.

He is willing to learn from his mistakes, and he has shown his level-headedness in many of the conflicts that have passed during these two years. Having a lot of contributions in the article namespace, Wikipedia namespace and user talk namespace, he has a good understanding of policy, and I would fully trust him with the tools. I believe in a fair mix of administrators doing different tasks, some concentrate on mopping backlogs, some are specialists on dispute resolutions, some are great XfD closers, and some are like me, regular editors that mostly contribute to articles, but when an admin is needed, they're there and they solve the problems they are faced with. I admittedly can't speak for Oldelpaso, but I believe he is the later type, and he would be one of the best if trusted with the tools. – Elisson • T • C • 20:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. Oldelpaso 09:49, 17 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: As a sometime new page patroller, I'm well aware that CAT:CSD frequently reaches hundreds of items, particularly on Sunday mornings, and would welcome the ability to tackle some of it. Another area I feel I could help with is protection and unprotection. Quite a few pages on my watchlist regularly require semi-protection (mostly sports teams and high profile players). Being familiar with the type and levels of vandalism that occur at these pages, I have a good idea of when they need semi-protecting, and conversely when they should be unprotected. I won't be actively hunting for someone to block (my reports to WP:AIV are few in number), but I know my way around the test templates and blocking policy, and know what to do when the need arises. While my primary focus is article writing, I'm certainly not averse to maintenance tasks, for instance, an example of non-admin maintenance I already perform is updating the football article improvement drive each week. Oldelpaso 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I've contributed to a few featured articles, some collaboratively and some on my own. Each has its own rewarding aspects, but the first one is always the hardest, so Manchester City F.C. is the one I'm most proud of. Going through the stages of getting it to FA probably taught me more about what makes a good article and the relevant policies and guidelines than anything else has done. Also, while I don't think its as strong an FA as some of the others, football (soccer) is an FA standard vital article, and there aren't that many of those. Oldelpaso 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A: I don't tend to get too stressed about happenings on Wikipedia, I find that doing so is usually a sign that I should so something else for a few hours - there's always tomorrow, and there's very little that needs to be done right this second, not in the context of a content dispute anyway. My most frustrating experience was probably trying to communicate with User:AlexWilkes, a well-meaning user who sometimes struggles to grasp the community aspect of Wikipedia. More recently, my making this AfD nomination resulted in a few heated exchanges, and serves as an example of why mass nominations are often a bad idea. I try to be open about my mistakes, and if I remember I list them in this page. Oldelpaso 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Support Seems fine. Good luck! --Meno25 09:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. On review of the Wikipedia: namespace contributions, I find no objectionable edits, and many useful and level-headed contributions to XfD and other community processes. All looks good here. Sandstein 10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support great football contributions, and a good distribution of edits across WP. Good luck! The Rambling Man 10:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great user. Good football contribs.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Late support as nominator. – Elisson • T • C • 12:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 13:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Terence 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A good choice indeed for adminship. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A good and level-headed hard-working editor. He will make a good admin.--Guinnog 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Punkmorten 19:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support for all the above reasons. SteveO 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Civil, helpful, productive. An asset to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and in the other places he pops-up. Wiggy! 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Everything looks fine to me. Nishkid 64 21:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Been waiting for this one, so much so I watchlisted it a while back awaiting its' creation :) Strong support, most certainly. Daniel Bryant 22:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, looks good to me. --Core desat 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak support - still count it as a full support vote, though. Seventy ... dot ... 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote struck - sockpuppet of blocked user. Orderinchaos78 05:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support The interest in handling speedy deletions from new page patrol is something I share. YechielMan 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Clichéd, I know, but I thought you already were one :) Orderinchaos78 05:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Oh, definitely. Great editor and Wikipedian, would certainly make a great admin. - Anas ^Talk? 12:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, looks good, and ironically I deleted a page earlier called Ol Del Paso.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Yuser31415 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Has learned the Wikipedia Way from the ground up. Excellent researcher. I think he'll prove his worth as an admin. Dudesleeper · Talk 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good work, good answers, all around smiles from me. Pig^man_dialogue 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seems to be an excellent contributor and I see nothing which leads me to believe the mop will be abused. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Well qualified and demonstrated trustworthiness brings my support. -- Jreferee 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support-Seems good. Good answer to Q1. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support although I don't see "City supporter" on his list of mistakes... ~ trialsanderrors 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support S. Miyano 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support One mop comin' up. Please don't abuse it. StayinAnon 19:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I have a slight reservation about how much this user really needs admin tools or will use them, but really there's no reason to turn down someone who is trustworthy and won't abuse the tools, even if their use of them is likely to be infrequent. It all helps. Metamagician3000 01:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom, very nice candidate. Good luck with your adminship, Simon. Sarah 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

I would like to see more indication of experience with conflict resolution from this user before I support. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] CMummert

Final: (48/7/1); ended 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

CMummert (talk • contribs) - has been a Wikipedian for a year, and very active in the last nine months. CMummert did a lot of good work as part of the mathematics wikiproject, and I know that he has been active outside of mathematics also. I believe that CMummert is experienced with how Wikipedia works and will use the tools wisely. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and feel honored that Oleg has nominated me. CMummert · talk 00:59, 16 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: I would be glad to assist with the backlogs of old AFDs, speedy deletion candidates, and requested moves.

My first edits as an administrator would be to help with the backlog of requests for protected edits. Many of these are routine, but a few may require editing templates. I have some experience with complicated templates after significantly editing {{maths rating}} and writing and testing code that was added to {{cite book}}, so I would be glad to make noncontroversial edits to protected templates. I have already made a few edits to nonprotected templates such as {{citations missing}}.

I do not spend a large amount of time fighting general vandalism, but I I have about 1100 pages on my watchlist, including pretty much every article in mathematical logic, that I watch for vandalism. I have occasionally needed to post to WP:3RR or WP:ANI because of continued vandalism over a short period of time. I have not followed these pages closely as an ordinary editor, but would contribute my time as an administrator.

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

A: I have edited many of the pages in the general area of mathematical logic, and am proud of my contributions in that area. In particular, I have written or rewritten significant parts of Recursion theory, Peano arithmetic, Second-order arithmetic, Turing degree, Prenex normal form, Borel hierarchy, Arithmetic hierarchy, and Analytical hierarchy in addition to routine copyediting and maintenance.

In January, with an enormous amount of civil conversation, I negotiated with other users to improve Exponentiation quite a bit.

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

A: I am not prone to get particularly stressed. I tend to state my opinions briefly, but with civility.

In January, I spent a long time discussing the Exponentiation article, but was not overly stressed by it, and we seem to have managed to find a consensus wording despite strong opinions by several editors.

Very recently, I have been involved with the article Christopher Hitchens, a WP:BLP article. Although I have not contributed significantly to the article, I have been aiding discussion on a NPOV issue and have been successful (so far) in encouraging the editors involved to work towards a consensus wording for a contentious section.

4. Question from Johntex - If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?

A: This is a difficult question for me to answer. I am constantly amazed (in a good way) at how successful Wikipedia has been so far. Although it is not perfect, I have faith that the encyclopedia, community, and policies will continue to adapt to new issues as they arise. Obviously there is no "quick fix" that will turn Wikipedia into a utopian environment. There is a lot of work to be done, and I am here to help.

Because the encyclopedia is edited by humans, interpersonal disagreements are inevitable. Being civil and assuming good faith are crucial in managing these disagreements and preventing them from disrupting the encyclopedia. If everyone followed the spirit of the fourth pillar ("Wikipedia has a code of conduct"), the working environment would be more pleasant for us all.

5. Question from Salix alba - in light of concerns raised about lack of AfD experience, would you take any action to gain more experience and how would you approach a contiversal AfD closing.

I would not rush blindly into closing AFD debates. I should have rearranged my answer to Q1 to emphasize that my initial work as an admin would be with requests for protected edits, which are backlogged, and that I would proceed cautiously to assist with other admin duties.

The best way to learn the "facts on the ground" about the AFD process is to participate in the debates and then observe how they are closed. Once my predictions about how they will be closed become accurate, I will feel that I am ready to begin closing similar AFDs. Perhaps a more experienced admin would be willing to volunteer to mentor me in this area until I am up to speed.

Controversial AFD debates are particulary important to get right. They arouse strong feelings, and if they pass to deletion review the actions of the closing admin are likely to be scutinized. I do not shy away from making tough decisions, but it would be inappropriate for me to make them in the context of AFD until I have a track record closing simpler debates. For situations where there truly is no consensus either way, the deletion guide for admins states "When in doubt, don't delete."

6. Question from Addhoc - have you reported any vandals to WP:AIV or reported simple vandalism elsewhere?

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to describe my experience in this area.

I have about 1100 pages on my watchlist, and although they are not prime targets of vandalism there is certainly a decent amount. Because of the hard work of people watching recent changes, most of it is reverted before I see it on my watchlist.

Some vandalism does slip through, however. I went through my contributions in 2007 and found many instances where I have reverted vandalism [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and many instances where I have warned a user about their vandalism: Jan [22] [23] [24] Feb [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Mar [30] [31]. I wish to emphasize that this is entirely from following my watchlist infrequently during the day; most of the time I find out about vandalism by seeing its reversion when I refresh my watchlist.

When my warning is the first message on the talk page, it is appropriate to assume the vandalism is a one-time thing, so I phrase my warnings as welcome messages. To expedite this process for IP editors I have my own welcome template that I use.

It is very rare for me (personally) to see repeated vandalism by the same IP in the same article in the same day, because the same article has to slip through the cracks twice. So there is not much opportunity for me to report editors to AIV. I have reported one user to AIV who had already recently been given appropriate warnings. [32] I later tried to report User:Germanium (see below) on Jan 8, 2007, but he was already reported there.

The most complex vandalism situation I have dealt with involved User:Germanium who is now indefinitely blocked. The editor added some clearly unverifiable OR to multiple articles and kept reverting its removal [33] [34]. I warned the user in a calm manner [35] , as did other editors, but Germanium did not stop. I reported the reverts to 3RR, since it was not obvious vandalism, there seemed to be a sockpuppet involved, and it was an obvious 3RR violation. [36]. This was on Jan 4.

Germanium later returned around Jan 8 as a sockpuppet (maybe two). I reported this on ANI [37]. The IP sockpuppet left some mildly harassing message on my talk page [38] that I responded to by adding a sentence to the ANI request.

General comments

See CMummert's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
I'm more than happy to mentor the candidate on AfD judgements if the need be :). - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Support. High quality contributor. --CSTAR 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks like a great person to be an admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Appears to be a solid editor with a good distribution of edits across multiple namespaces. A high number of edits per article suggests that judicious use of the "Show preview" button may be in order, but I do not consider this a good reason to not trust CMummert with the mop. Twiddle the bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, no reason not to.--Jersey Devil 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as nominator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. A high class editor, with a marathon-like endurance in putting up with problematic editors. A subject matter expert with a nice array of contributions, in addition to putting in a great deal of time into Wikipedia: WikiProject Mathematics, such as the new A-class. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support knowledgeable, communicative, and has a long history of employing that rarest of qualities, common sense. Opabinia regalis 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Community oriented, solution oriented, reality oriented. --KSmrq^T 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I thought I was a geek until I looked through this guy's contributions. Look at this - [39]. Good Lord. - Richard Cavell 04:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've seen CMummert's work in mathematical articles and usually assume he will be the voice of reason in any debate. If there is need to be shown evidence of his patience or civility, skim through the long, long history of Talk:Exponentiation. EdJohnston 04:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Mathematicians make great admins. (cough... cough...) Pascal.Tesson 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A spread of edits in the main spaces and a sensible attitude show that this editor will not abuse the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support no reason not to. --Salix alba (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I haven't found a reason to oppose, and I trust the nominator. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support As one of the editors involved in the Exponentiation article who did get fed up with the problem editor, I salute CMummert for his seemingly infinite patience. His initial NPOV rewrite was brilliant and still stands largely intact. VectorPosse 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support – Always constructive. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Oleg and Opabinia. An insightful, calm and clearly reasoning editor. Willow 08:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - clearly, for all of the reasons mentioned already. Geometry guy 09:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support good candidate. - Anas ^Talk? 11:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Areh..Give him the mop..(we have a mathematics genius among us)..--Cometstyles 13:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - math is somewhere we can really push WP - not much POV there. :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support; sorta-low wikispace edits, but some people can participate in 10 XfDs and learn what others can do only in 200. Everything else looks great. –Llama man^talk_contribs 15:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. Guess I would even support only to convince him to stay. Wikipedia badly needs academic experts. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks like an editor of great value to WP. I hope his admin responsibilities, which could be done by many, do not take away too much from his editing articles he is knowledgable about, which few could do. Edivorce 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Contribs look good; community interaction is constructive and well-balanced. Give him the mop, eh? -- MarcoTolo 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've never seen him to be anything but cordial and helpful. I'm sure he'll make an excellent admin. --Sopoforic 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Support ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | Switched to Oppose. ~ trialsanderrors 16:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This one's easy. -- Selket ^Talk 02:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:30Z
Terence 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —Ruud 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Paul August ☎ 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, a thoughtful editor who does very good work. While he may not have had a hand in everything, I'm confident that he won't abuse the tools or rush into issues without studying them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support – A solid contributor with the patience of Job. DavidCBryant 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - will be a good addition to the admin community. Tompw (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why the hell not? I honestly couldn't care less what he's done with vandalism; what matters is that he's done good work, and thinks the tools would be useful. Ral315 » 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I have seen this user around, extremely competent and calm contributor. Will not abuse tools. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Trustworthy, and I'm happy to have more admins watching math articles. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: good temperament, clear need for the tools in a manner that fits with his experience working with templates, cautious demeanor about undertaking bold admin actions in his first weeks after RfA. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Vandal fighting is not rocket science. This thoughtful user will do well with the admin tools. FloNight 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, not per CharlotteWebb. I trust this user and agree with his decisions in AfD. Apple •_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Ral315. ElinorD (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Late support.--Wizardman 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

His editing experience is the narrowest I've seen. Minimal experience with vandalism, and he seems a bit confused when discussing it: "I have occasionally needed to post to WP:3RR or WP:ANI because of continued vandalism" does not inspire confidence at all. Says he is interested in closing AFDs, but he has participated in roughly a dozen of them, all of which I perused. I'm not going to comment on the merits of the articles being discussed, because I have no idea what they looked like at the time, and frankly I don't care, but will say I was not very impressed with his understanding of deletion policy. Specifically, he says "merge and delete" several times [40] [41] [42], but that is not permitted as the GFDL requires us to preserve edit history for all content we use. More broadly, he also has a backward view regarding policies and guidelines. I'm slightly appalled when he says "Lack of sources is not an AFD criteria" and "It is only notability that I think is the issue here." [43]. Verifiability is absolute policy. Notability is a subjective guideline, one which is vulnerable to systemic bias on all sides. I worry that he will delete valid, verifiable content because it doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (whatever) guideline he feels most closely applies, as he suggests at [44]. That would be a huge disservice to the project. — CharlotteWebb 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that notability can be subjective, and I would do my best to impartially gauge consensus when closing AFD votes as described here. This is one of many areas where admins must take care to do things right, because of the strong feelings that an AFD can arouse. I fully support WP:ATT, since there is no reason that anyone is likely to believe claims that cannot be attributed to reliable sources. The issue of edit history for deleted redirects is important, but it can be handled by the closing admin as decribed in the note here.

Regarding a lack of sources not being a deletion criteria: I gained this opinion from observing comments of others I respect and from Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which includes "Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations)" under the list of "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed". My viewpoint is that if consensus says the material is completely unverifiable (or, in the new parlance, unattributable) then the article may reasonably be deleted as original research. If sources could obviously be found for an unsourced article, and I believe that a good article on the topic could be written, I would not support deletion when commenting on an AfD. But in closing debates I would follow the consensus established at the debate, according to the deletion policy. CMummert · talk 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte, I don't see exactly what's wrong with saying that the absence of quoted sources (which, surely is what he meant in that case) is not in itself a reason for deletion, whereas notability can be under the right circumstances. It seems to me that if you disagree with the current notability guidelines, the way to go is to see whether you can gather support for changing them rather than refuse adminship to anyone that supports them. In any case, it seems clear from CMummert's response that he has an excellent understanding of the relevant policies and their finer points. Pascal.Tesson 04:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per CharlotteWebb - narrow range of article edited - for example very little WP:BLP experience. Admin candidates should understand that vandalism is reported to WP:AIV instead of WP:3RR. Also, doesn't have much experience in XfD and concur that several "merge and delete" 'votes' are slightly unusual. ~~Not entirely convinced that we bestow the mop to allow editors to modify protected templates either, I was under the impression that improvements can be proposed on the talk page.~~ Addhoc 11:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposing improvements does not by itself effectuate improvements; someone with administrator permissions still has to do the actual work. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, after looking at his Q1 response again, I realise that he was referring to the chore of making edits on behalf of non-admins. Addhoc 13:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so CMummert has very little WP:BLP editing experience. I have none, and I've been an admin for a year and a half now (with 30,000 edits). I understand your and Charlotte's reasoning. But you have to realize that we don't elect as admins people who have done everything on Wikipedia. We elect people who are reasonably experienced, won't abuse the tools, and will help move the project forward. Picky votes like yours will scare the hell of any reasonable person who'd think of becoming an admin. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't really agree, I think it's perfectly acceptable to make a judgement based on several different factors. Also, there is no requirement for a unanimous decision, so criticising editors who you disagree with isn't necessary. In this case, lack of involvement at WP:AIV is my principal concern. Secondly, a weak answer to Q1, especially regarding WP:3RR for counter vandalism. Thirdly, lack of XfD experience overall plus "merge and delete" 'votes'. Finally, this isn't mitigated by writing featured articles or having a wide range of article writing input. Addhoc 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me this is not an uncommon difference in philosophy. Some people believe the natural progression is for a good editor to be come an admin. Others believe one should essentially train for the job first. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per CharlotteWebb. The sheer dearth of AfD experience is troubling enough, but when you add blanket statement like "WP:ATT is not deletion criteria" makes me worried about high error rate in closing AfD's. ~ trialsanderrors 16:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The complete sentence I used at that AfD was "Lack of sources is not an AFD criteria, provided that the information is verifiable." [45]. I assure everyone that I would not act rashly in closing AfDs. My initial admin work would be on a different backlog, protected edits, that I can start with right away while gaining more experience with AfD. CMummert · talk 18:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about this one. A contemporary topic absent any evidence that the subject even exists, and WP:ATT is not a deletion criterion? Sorry, I don't think you're anywhere near astute in WP policies to be given the mop yet. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But in this case CMummert is entirely correct. The page Wikipedia:Deletion policy contains a list of Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, which explicitly lists Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations). The remedy is not to delete the article, but to add citations. In this specific AfD case the problem was almost certainly a lack of notability. If it had been notable, we'd have found the references. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly comments like this why I oppose admin candidates who want to close AfD's but don't have AfD experience: the mistaken notion that reading policies is a substitute for the tacit process knowledge that only comes from participation. There is a gigantic gap between "deletion may not be needed" and "ATT is not a deletion criterion", and participation in twelve AfD's won't help you bridge that gap. ~ trialsanderrors 20:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've participated in more than 400 AFD's, and have never considered violations of WP:V or now WP:ATT per se to be a valid argument for deletion. I can't find support for the idea that it is in guidelines, policies, or practice. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty sad, given it's an unviolable policy. But really to cut this policy discussion short, I'm not opposing because of differences in interpretation, but because of massive lack of AfD participation. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per CharlotteWebb. Dionyseus 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I would like to see more evidence of work with IP vandals and other relatively hostile users. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? You don't have enough evidence he keeps cool or patient? As mentioned above, there was an incredibly long debate between everyone and one editor on exponentiation. Start with Talk:Exponentiation/Archive_3 (section 8) and continue on to Talk:Exponentiation/Archive_4 before proceeding to Talk:Exponentiation, which is the current discussion with the same editor. It'll be rather hard for me to believe that you aren't convinced after that. I've met plenty of admins that have much less experience of that sort even after they've been admin for a while. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your comments, but at least maybe it'll make an impression on some others, so let me say something here. It's really easy to get a huge number of supports and no oppose by doing a lot of vandalism reverting, warning, and reporting, and engaging in brief exchanges with IPs that shout ridiculous things at you. These are things that really are quite easy to do well and one can pretty much learn the formula of such interactions relatively quickly. What CMummert has done in just my one example is engage in an extremely prolonged ordeal above and beyond what I would expect of a good editor. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per CharlotteWebb and Trialsanderrors. Too little experience of vandal fighting and XfD to show understanding of policies related to those areas and too much evidence raised to suggest the contrary. WjBscribe 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Charlotte and Trials.--cj | talk 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Somehow something makes me feel uncomfortable, but not enough to oppose. Yuser31415 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Rebelguys2

Final (35/1/0); Ended Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:52:29 (UTC)

Rebelguys2 (talk • contribs) - It is my pleasure and honor to nominate Rebelguys2 for Adminship. I have worked with him on several articles and I find his edits to be of the highest quality. He has been editing on Wikipedia for over one and half years, and he has over 7,000 edits, including more than 3,000 to the main article space. He contributes to a wide range of articles and collaborations, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting and Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin. He has started and improved several articles, including being the prime factor in getting University of Texas to GA quality. His interactions with others are helpful and courteous, even on somewhat heated topics such as whether Gibraltar should be included in WikiProject Spain [46] He is an active member in community discussions such as WP:AfD [47] and WP:ANI [48]. He makes important contributions to image uploading/review/and deletion such as WP:IFD. He practices good use of edit summaries (Mathbot says Edit summary usage for Rebelguys2: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)[49], and he has set his e-mail. Giving him the admin tools will help him build and protect more great articles for Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:33, 15 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: Last I checked, there was an over two-week-old backlog at images for deletion. A significant backlog is still a fairly common occurrence over there, though there are a few regulars that do a swell job. I do a lot of work tagging images for blatant violations — no source, no license, copyright violations, and the like. If the community trusts me with the mop, I'll be able to lend a knowledgeable hand in cleaning up over there, as well as on related pages like possibly unfree images and copyright problems.

I also intend on helping out at articles for deletion, a place where my participation has waxed and waned over my time here. I'm familir with closing procedures, having performed them for uncontroversial "keep" and "redirect" votes intermittently over the past year when the backlog got big, and I hope to help more effectively with some more tools in my hands.

Finally, I intend on continuing to fight vandals. With the "undo" link, VandalProof, Twinkle, popups, and the rest of the rollback options available to non-admins, reverting is, admittedly, a pretty simple task. It sure would be more efficient to have the ability to block those IPs after their last warning, though.

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

A: I do a lot of cleaning up in the mainspace, but there's a number of articles I've helped write that I'm fairly pleased with. I made my first few edits about the Spanish town of Cádiz. I think my additions turned out pretty well, considering that it was my first swing at revamping an article.

A couple of articles I've written or expanded might not have been on crucial topics, but I think they're pretty unique and have definitely caught peoples' eyes. The Great Rose Bowl Hoax comes to mind, as well as the bizarre incident on British Airways Flight 5390.

I've also helped bring two articles up to Good Article status (University of Texas at Austin and Robinow syndrome), and I've had a number of articles show up on Did You Know?

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

A: Certainly. I think it's nearly inevitable that an editor run into someone with a different view on how to best improve our encyclopedia.

However, I've learned that it's important to remain civil. You can be firm, and you can completely refute the other editor's argument. (And I suppose you were both being WP:BOLD, right?) But there's no need for incivility towards the other user — despite whatever he or she has done. If it really does get a bit out of control, forget about it for a while. Walk away, relax, and put your feet up for a bit. Don't worry — you'll be back — but both sides will have a clearer head to work towards that ideal consensus.

Finally, I'm sure that every once in a while, we all run into someone that, from your view, has just completely crossed the line. We've assumed good faith and had that good faith thrown back in our faces more than once. But is similar incivility going to fix the problem we were originally discussing? Nah. If this guy really and truly is a problem, we have good, working avenues for dispute resolution.

And if you do slip up every once in a while, or if you find yourself eating crow about something, well, you're only human. If the other side's still willing to listen, swallowing your pride isn't going to hurt anything.

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

A: Well, {{bv}} stands for "blatant vandal," doesn't it? I tend to use the {{test1}} to {{test4}} sequence unless there is obvious evidence that the vandal really knows what he's doing. I suppose that, in the end, it's going to be a bit subjective — if it wasn't, there'd be no reason to ask this question — but certain actions lend me to believe that a user is out to be malicious.

For example, the editing of transcluded templates to mess up today's featured article very badly is probably going to deserve a {{bv}}. The addition of sneaky, but correctly-formatted "facts" could merit a {{bv}}. And I'd probably slap a {{bv}} tag on the talk page of any editor whose edits pay homage to something "on wheels" or the "communism" vandal. These are but a few examples of cases where the editor obviously knows his way around here, and he or she clearly knows how this place works, but still performs these obviously unwelcome acts.

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: I don't think it's required to bring up every possible technical violation at the 3RR noticeboard. I've seen plenty of experienced editors feel the same way, leaving a message on an offender's talk page noting that, while he or she isn't going to perform any blocks for the offense, the offender should really watch what he or she is doing.

That said, there's not much of a reason you should accrue 4 reverts in 24 hours in the first place, save for obvious exceptions. You might only be violating the letter of WP:3RR, but you're certainly violating the spirit of working towards consensus through rational discussion. That's not to say that blatant and unrepentant violations of the three-revert rule ought to go unstopped, but we're primarily looking to stop edit-warring before it gets too ridiculous — not to go out and punish bad judgment.

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

A: As far as editing in general goes, I could go for better writing. I see plenty of featured articles passed with unresolved objections about poor writing. At the same time, those objections are sometimes met with hostility, as good prose can admittedly be quite subjective.

Now, these articles aren't always horrible by any means, and I don't think mediocre or weak writing in a few sections should unquestionably condemn an article to non-FA status. If the article is readable, and the only remaining actionable objection deals with prose, go ahead and promote it. Yeah, some users are better at writing, and some are better at making that writing sound good — hopefully one of the latter will eventually find their way to the article.

That said, there remains any number of legitimate reasons that not all of our articles are brilliantly-written. This was a pretty idealistic question, though, wasn't it?

Question from FayssalF

7. Could you please tell us a bit about yourself as there's no single info on your userpage? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A: Sure. I won't reveal my Social Security number and the secret handshake until we're better friends, though.

I'm a full-time undergraduate student in the U.S. studying physics and government. In regard to encyclopedic content on Wikipedia, I find myself returning to articles related to Scouting (I am an Eagle Scout) and the University of Texas at Austin (where I am a student). I like editing, and I have edited, just about anywhere, though. To give you a better idea, I have a subpage at User:Rebelguys2/articles with a few articles I've written or expanded, though I can't promise it's up to date.

I blanked much of my user page after a controversial UT-Austin-related article started attracting the attention of someone tangentially involved with the incident. Long story short, there was off-Wikipedia harassment of a number of editors. I cleared out some information from my user page, and I haven't decided whether I should put anything back yet.

General comments

See Rebelguys2's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Thanks for your contribution; unfortunately, anonymous contributors can only contribute to the "Discussion" section of requests for adminship, so I have moved your comment here and struck your use of the word "Oppose". —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

Support - Good answers, experience, and IfD could use all the help it can get. —dgies^t_c
Support level-headed and experienced. Definitely qualified. - Anas ^Talk? 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Rebelguys2 was one of my first wiki-friends, over a year ago. He is fair, level-headed, and a fine prose writer. He has already been working with image issues. He volunteered to help me get my first article to FA status. I know he'll make a fine admin.Rlevse 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I haven't had any direct dealing with him, but I've seen Rebelguys2's work and I think he'll be an excellent admin.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumoeagle179 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2007 March 15 (UTC)
Support - The last thing we need is another Longhorn admin but I guess I'll let this one slide.↔NMajdan•talk 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - a great find by Johntex. The Evil Clown 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems like a great person to trust with the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Yuser31415 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -Loads of Wikiexperience and also Pretty good answers to all of the questions..Yay..--Cometstyles 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no problems with this application - a good spread of edits in the main spaces and responsible editing too. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the trite cliché, but I could have sworn you already had the flag. Support. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Hey, why would I not support, eh? Captain panda In vino veritas 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as I see nothing that would dissuade me, and plenty which leads me to believe he'd be a great admin. Twiddle that bit! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Overdue Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I see some good image work here. Keep it up! >Radiant< 08:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Seems pretty fine. --Meno25 11:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Yep, no prob here.--Jersey Devil 06:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:30Z
Support this Texan cowboy! :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Terence 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Generally well qualified and interest in image work is a plus. -- Jreferee 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Solid. (I will bypass both Longhorn and Aggie jokes for the moment.) Pig^man_dialogue 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--MONGO 08:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 15:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Shoop da Woop support: strong candidate, will do great things for the project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Everything looks good here. IronDuke 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Duh. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support → It seems to be a good user who can be trusted with the tools. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Definitely need more admins willing to do image cleanup work given the backlog at CAT:CSD (unknown copyright status = 17 days, no fair use rationale = 17 days, RFU = 14 days...) Looks trustworthy and experienced. Enjoy the backlogs mate... WjBscribe 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rebelguys2 has chosen to specialize in image cleanup, a rather touchy area. As such, the behaviour should be above reproach, and I am sorry to find that it is not, and I do not trust this user with the tools. This discussion is one example of this user's behaviour. First, this image was nominated because Rebelguys2 looked through my logs during a dispute about an unrelated issue. This is not comparable to checking the logs of someone recently discovered to have uploaded 3 or 4 CV images, and this sort of targetting is, in my opinion, unbecoming an admin. It blurs the distinction between behaviour and neutral policy enforcement, and that is a bad thing in the long run. I would oppose for this reason alone, but in addition the original nomination showed poor research, suggesting a lack of future diligence as an admin. When this error was pointed out, the response was not to apologize for the error or suggest solutions, but rather to create yet more arguments for deletion. In fact, during the remaining discussion, the user not once used his image expertise to help or make any suggestions about how to resolve the problem. We don't need admins who prefer confrontational approaches to collaborative ones. Gimmetrow 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Hi, just thought I'd express agreement with Gimmetrow's above comments. And add, as further evidence, another unpleasant experience with this candidate. Here he is conspiring with a known copyright troll to drive away a fellow contributor (before discovering that IRC is the proper channel for such activities). Once he gets his mop, he will have a much easier time of it and won't have to worry about anything but the arbcomm. Just Block, Ban, Delete, Ignore. But convincing the majority of you of this, much like the project itself, is an exercise in futility. In the RFAs of almost every defrocked, disgraced or contraversial admin, there are a quiet few voices of dissent who raise key concerns. Concerns which, though ignored at the time, are proven 100% spot-dead on right. In the end Wikipedia will get the admins it deserves until it finally collapses under the weight of its own crapulence. So Congrats Rebelguys2 and see you at the Arbcomm.--70.171.22.74 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

[edit] Wafulz

Final (40/0/0); Ended Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:07:57 (UTC)

Wafulz (talk • contribs) - I have bumped into Wafulz couple months ago when he requested an editorial review. I took the opportunity to review him (see the entry in User talk:Wafulz#Hello. As a reviewer, we take deep research into the user's contributions and look for areas that are controversial, and should be criticized about. However, I could not find anything to criticize about Wafulz except that his Wikipedia talk is low. But he is a long-standing contributor to WP:AFD and WP:DRV, so his ability to communicate with other editors regarding the policies was unquestionable. Overall, Wafulz have shown consistency in his distribution of edits, and displays appreciation and understanding of policies (per his long-standing contributions to AFD discussions and deletion reviews). He is also a capable encyclopedia contributor, with great quality on articles such as Dominik Hašek and Sidney Crosby , which both have FA potential. I truly believe Wafulz will make a good addition to the admin team. Cheers!AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Wafulz 06:45, 15 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: Primarily, I would deal with the areas with which I have the most experience, so vandalism and deletion are the main priorities. In particular, article deletions, so WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, and WP:DRV are the big ones. I'm confident I can use the tools because I understand that every legitimate entry into Wikipedia requires a not unsubstantial amount of effort from at least one editor- before making any decisions, I like to ask myself "What policies does this violate" and "Is this the proper avenue for deletion?" I understand that arguments on AFD and DRV must be rooted in policies and relevant guidelines, and not necessarily in brilliant rhetoric.

I'd really like to be available to help out at WP:AIV and WP:RPP, especially since I understand that the last thing we need is for people to be misinformed or to be greeted by "PENIS" when trying to read an article on Einstein. I've reverted a lot of forms of vandalism that might normally slip under the radar, primarily since one of the first things I do when I see the addition of a new chunk of text is try to find a source myself, or by verifying a provided source. In the end, I want to keep the encyclopedia clean of nonsense, vandalism, and misinformation, and I think it never hurts having a helping hand around for this.

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

A: Well, as mentioned in the nomination, Dominik Hasek and Sidney Crosby are two of the hockey articles that I've put a substantial effort into. Hasek's article was essentially a poorly formatted fanpage when I first stumbled onto it, but thanks to the efforts of myself and several other collaborators, we should have it to at least Good Article sometime soon, and potentially Featured Article status in the future. The article on Crosby is a bit more difficult to write because he's a young superstar, which means the article is in a very fluid state, so I don't think it'll have the stability to reach GA or FA, barring a sudden end to his career. I have also created and/or edited numerous other articles, particularly those in hockey- examples include Maggie the Macaque, Lloyd Turner, Cam Ward, and Marc-Andre Fleury. I find that hockey articles tend to be poorly written and unsourced, so I try to fix this whenever possible.

My future project will likely be Vladislav Tretiak, in addition to sourcing any of the articles listed on my user page (some of those that I've listed were primarily cleanup and not sourcing). I'm especially proud about the fact that I was reading an online news source about Sidney Crosby, which at one point included "according to his Wikipedia article...." It's really neat knowing that something you worked on is being cited, which kind of emphasizes the importance of proper sourcing.

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

A: Yes, several. The conflicts have ranged from deletion discussions to neutrality to the most mundane and trivial segments of articles. Something Awful is the most recent one I can think of, where we had to spend some time addressing the addition of questionably sourced criticism. I ended up being stalked over the outcome of the General Mayhem deletion discussion, though luckily they were really bad at it and didn't get anything close to my real information. I have skirmished through conflicts in Marc Lepine, where it appeared that an anti-feminist was posting information. I was also involved in the removal of KGB allegations from Romano Prodi's article, where I had to bring up issues of undue weight, weak sourcing, and WP:BLP.

Ultimately, I make sure not to let arguments get to me, and I remember to address the issue and not the editor and attempt to use the most neutral language available. I also make sure to try and see from the other person's perspective, and I keep in mind that potentially thousands of people could be reading these articles, so a delicate balance is required sometimes. Of course, I also keep in mind that core issues like WP:NPOV and WP:ATT should override opinions- after all, this isn't a democracy. I think WP:PROCESS sums up how I feel about conflict the best: "Process. Painful to watch, but sixty years without a world war."

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Strong Support - As nominator, per reasons stated above. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good experience and good answers to questions! Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support seems very well suited to the mop. MLA 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, wafflecopters, and good responses too —dgies^t_c 08:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportThis user seems to know how Wikipedia works well and has enough experience already. --Meno25 08:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good balanced editor. The Rambling Man 09:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support one of my first interactions in Wikipedia were with Wafulz. He is definitely admin material. - Anas ^Talk? 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good edits coupled w/ a good understanding of NPOV. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. A solid contributor, with whom I've only had positive and constructive interaction. Plus a nicely realistic answer to question 1 (I just find the image of "being greeted by PENIS" inherently amusing at this time of night). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks alright. Good luck! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 11:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Terence 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Experienced, well-balanced candidate. Xoloz 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no problems here. >Radiant< 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support all Cubo-Belarusso-Canadians - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I don't see a problem here. (aeropagitica) 16:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 17:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support No reason to oppose.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportSeems like the kind of experienced editor who can be trusted with the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nominator. Yuser31415 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Is there any Doubts??I dont think so..--Cometstyles 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - good answers to the questions. Looks like a good user and a worthy candidate. Johntex\^talk 23:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great user, great admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Go Pens ~ trialsanderrors 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:31Z
Support Civil editor. Xiner (talk, email) 14:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Kinda embarrassing considering I hang around RfA a fair bit, but I coulda sworn that... – riana_dzasta 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, we could do with some help, and this editor obviously can. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Excellent candidate, excellent answers, excellent civility. My spidey sense is tingling. Pig^man_dialogue 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Can be trusted with the tools. -- Jreferee 05:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support semper fictilis 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. WjBscribe 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Exactly what I look for in an administrator candidate. --Deskana (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support → I think he'll be a good admin. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good, experienced contributor. utcursch | talk 04:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

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

[edit] AzaToth

Final (143/4/3); Ended Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:48:31 UTC

AzaToth (talk • contribs) - I am pleased to nominate AzaToth (talk • contribs) for adminship. AzaToth joined Wikipedia in November 2004, and has been active for more than a year now. He's racked up over 13,000 edits across the article, Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, user talk, template, template talk namespaces. He has previously run under RfA in March 2006, September 2006 and most recently in January 2007. In his last RfA, nearly two months ago, most of the opposition he received was based on the answers to his questions, which appeared to be too short, and made the user seem like he was not fully knowledgeable about adminship. I feel that AzaToth's attitude, and his work since last RfA have shown that he fully understands and can demonstrate Wikipedia policy, when needed in XfDs, AIVs, etc. AzaToth has also made many valued contributions to the article namespace, which his lack of had been a concern in the previous RfA. AzaToth made one of the most widely-used RC patrol tools called TWINKLE and he has effectively demonstrated his knowledge in his hundreds of AIV reports that he has made using the tool. AzaToth is a valued contributor to Wikipedia, and I feel that the tools will be of more use to him when working with templates (btw, he's a template wizard :-P) and dealing with administrative duties such as RFPPs and AIV reports. AzaToth is definitely qualified, and I think he can really use the admin tools. Nishkid 64 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Once or twice a month an RfA nomination comes along for a user whose need for the tools goes above and beyond the typical RfA candidate—AzaToth is such a nominee. AzaToth, as noted above, is not just a template wizard, but arguably, the template wizard. His work in template space was instrumental behind the development of conditional expressions in templates. His special need for admin tools is to allow him to help maintain the many templates that he both developed and extended that are permanently protected. In addition to being a valuable resource with a special need for admin tools, AzaToth is also an extremely trustworthy and civil user. His contributions have been of consistently high quality and tremendous benefit to Wikipedia. While much of the opposition on his previous RfAs has focused on editcountitis regarding his article contributions, I sincerely hope that people will look beyond article contribution and consider both his special need for admin tools and the complete picture of his contributions to the project. I couldn’t give a higher recommendation. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept _→AzaToth 12:25, 14 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: I would like to help with CAT:CSD, as I have been doing a lot of speedy deletion tagging, I feel I have got a pretty good grip on the WP:CSD criteria. Even though we don't need much more RC patrolling admins, the ability to block vandals instead of filling up the WP:AIV backlog (or even be able to reduce it), could be a benefit. My expertise in the AfD process is somewhat limited, so for the moment, it's perhaps best for me to stay away from it (or at least, don't close grayzone afds). Other places I will keep/am keeping an eye on is WP:TFD, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI. As I have done some maintenance on WP:FP, perhaps I could help on WP:POTD (if they need help that is).

There are lots of things that need to be done, and if I can do my part, then I believe that's good for the pedia. If you grant me this request, I won't let you down!

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

A: I'm pretty pleased with Twinkle, as it may help even non-admins conduct maintenance rather easily, otherwise I'm trying to help people find solutions to problems, for example, when a template is in need of major maintenance, or when something doesn't work as expected. I helped WP:ACID to get back on their legs, and with the help of User:Diez2, articles are starting to get to GA and FA again, though the last month, as I have been somewhat busy, most of my work there has been to spam people once a week with the new article to be fixed. See Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/History for past collaborations.

One article I feel warm about, is Death, and since my start to find the problems, it has become a rather good article, though it still needs to be expanded even more, and is still lacking some verifications. [50].

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

A: I'm pretty sure I have been in some conflicts in the past, but can't remember any specific occasion at the moment though. Those times I have been attacked by vandals/trolls, I have tried to keep my head cool, often I try to post the appropriate warning on the users talk page, and hope they get the message. If not, I'll report them to AIV, and try to go on with my business. Sometimes when RC patrolling, I may make an error in my judgement, and revert wrongfully, and give a wrong warning. On these occasions, I give an apology, and fix the problem as soon as possible; I haven't had anyone not accept an apology as of yet.

In the past there have been some incidents, where I have been a bit too bold in implementing things, without discussing first. Sometimes then I felt some stress, as I didn't know how to proceed, as I didn't want to hurt anyone's feeling, but it usually was possible to resolve the issue with a discussion and a compromise.

Optional question 4 by Gracenotes Under what circumstances would you close a TFD early? This includes: under what circumstances would you snowball close a TFD? Gracenotes^T § 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A: First of all I would close a TfD, if the nomination is defined under CSD. common example would be G7, the only auther posted a non-used template on TfD. Other case of early closure could be if the nomination is clearly a WP:POINT nomination (could be difficult to decide, but if someone nominates {{main}} for deletion, I would call it as a POV-nom. WP:SNOW would I only apply, if there is a clear consensus of the outcome. One example could be that a template has been deprecated, and no one is contesting the replacement template.

Optional question 5 by Gracenotes How often do you think you'd go through Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests? Gracenotes^T § 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A: Probably randomly. once a week perhaps, or more or less.

General comments

6. Optional question by Wizardman: As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? If so, how high? Actually, this is Eagle's question from the previous RfA, but you did not provide an answer, and I would like to see where you stand on this.--Wizardman 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A: Spam is a difficult topic, as it's difficult to identify what's spam and what's a "good" link. As I have never used myspace, I cannot my self assert how notable an entry on myspace could be, perhaps there are some notable groups that have their main web-site on myspace, perhaps there are just junk there. I would say that if the article is about something notable, and that objects officual web-site is located on myspace, then it's ok to link to that page, otherwise not. The same goes for other sites like blogspot, etc...

YouTube is a bit more difficult. The question I ask my self, is what would be needed on youtube to enrich the article? If the article must have a movie about a subject, then it could be uploaded under fair use. If not, it's rather bad to link to a non-good object on an external site.

Lastly, official I'm "against" spam.

General comments

See AzaToth's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Previous nominations: March 2006, September 2006 (withdrawn), January 2007

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Strong Support as nom. Let's go for WP:100. Nishkid 64 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per noms, answers, level of commitment, and overall record. At this point I believe this candidate is fully qualified for adminship. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support my concerns from the previous RFA have been addressed and I wish AzaToth all the very best. The Rambling Man 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support An excellent contributor, will make a great admin. —Krellis (Talk) 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support yes, a great contributor, should be fine. Good luck! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me.--Anthony.bradbury 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support — Lost^(talk) 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I agree, looks good. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support an excellent contributer & template creator. Should be an excellent admin. Best of luck.:)--theblueflamingo^Squawk 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support No problems here. (aeropagitica) 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Mop Support aye. Georgewilliamherbert 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support clear understanding of policy by creating twinkle Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —dgies^t_c 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I've seen this user's edits when I've been reverting vandalism. Acalamari 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. WjBscribe 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This user is a great vandal fighter.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Co-nom support...you snuck it out of the garage while I wasn't looking. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Four edit conflicts Support - amazing job with WP:TWINKLE - the CSD summaries are invaluable for any admin. I looked back at the previous RFA and didn't see any real problems. I remember there was a reason I didn't !vote in it, but since I can't remember what it was, it must not have been important. Thus I support. --BigDT 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good Gracious!!! Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support, should've been an admin last go-around, though at least everyone's voting right this time :P--Wizardman 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, has improved markedly since the previous RFA, with good answers to questions. Great editor all around. --Core desat 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Absolutely! Excellent answers this time. :-) - Anas ^Talk? 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support one more! -- Selket ^Talk 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support-This will probably be edit conflicted, but this user is amazing. He's created the best script ever, with every thing in the world needed for vandalism patrolling. Always helpful and knowledgeable. (Wasn't this RFA 1/0/0 2 hours ago? 25 supports in 2 hours =2700 supports total-unlikely, but then again, there are millions of Wikipediia users). --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Fourth time ze charm - NYC JD (interrogatories) 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
~~llama~~ Support! –Llama man^talk_contribs 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Let the acronym BITYWAA! be born - But I Thought You Were An Admin! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, per this ancient edit -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, clear need for the tools. Neil (not Proto ►) 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - A very Good and Trustworthy Editor...--Cometstyles 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I trust this user with the mop.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Supported last time, and nothing has changed my mind since then. Agent 86 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it is about frak'n time! JoshuaZ 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support (was neutral in last RfA) I still feel that AzaToth can be fully trusted with the tools. I am a bit concerned (and I really hate to say this) with his slightly subpar english. That of course doesn't disqualify him as a potentially great admin but he should probably choose the ways in which he contributes as an admin accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support AzaToth is a great user who we can trust to be a great administrator. Cbrown1023 talk 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support of course, will make a fine admin.--Hús ö nd 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If you've been here since 2004, you're ready. Go for it. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support Incredible user. Made a great script and will make a great admin. -Mschel 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Twinkle is awesome. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I am very comfortable with the idea of AzaToth as an admin. --Xnuala 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. I hope you will succeed throughout this RfA nomination. zero » 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Impressive user. Impressive admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Very helpful in vandal fighting. Twinkle is cool, too! Real96 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I trust this user's abilities, knowledge, and intentions. He hasn't shown much bad faith so far, unless he's waiting to be an admin to add #globalWrapper { display : none; } to Common.css. But I doubt that (and don't get any ideas!) Gracenotes^T § 02:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I don't normally join these pile-ons, but I'll make an exception for a candidate like AzaToth. Rje 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very worthy candidate and great vandal fighter. Will (aka Wimt) 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
irc cabal support--Random832 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This user is ready for the tools and responsibilities of adminship Gutworth 02:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Of course. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support AzaToth is quite a multi-talented user (referring to his great scripting abilities of course), dedicated vandal fighter, and seems fairly well enough aware of policy. Would use the tools fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Per nom, I'm surprised it's taken this long, definitely a worthy candidate-Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Garion96 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support · j e r s y k o talk · 03:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, I like his Twinkle. ^_^ Apple •_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. Long overdue. Khoikhoi 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I see you in a lot of places doing a lot of good work.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak support as in the last RfA, I would've been all for this nomination if the answer to question #1 had been "edit protected templates", which is clearly this user's major area of expertise. It's a bit worrying that so many people commented to that effect last time. and yet question 1 still includes no mention of such work and is just the usual 'speedies, AIV, etc.' pablum. But on balance I think he would use the tools productively, so I'll support. Opabinia regalis 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that this is more or less what he said in his first RfA, and people opposed because of that position. So it just proves you can't please everyone. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but that was a year ago. Opabinia regalis 05:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. About fxn time. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, Trustworthy, dedicated contributor. I also trust that Aza will maintain the wisdom to avoid admin-areas he is uncomforable with, I normally don't !vote for admins seeking the role for limited purposes but this ones a no-brainer. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Richard Cavell 05:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, we should have made him an admin a year ago. Kusma (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Would make an excellent admin. Actually surprised he wasn't admin already. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Full Support Great template work, great work on mediawiki development, and active in many mediawiki fields (spamfighting, vandalfighting; is there a mediawiki IRC channel that you are not on?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Damn wish I'd seen this earlier. He's done some excellent insightful work on the warnings templates and it's about time he was given the ~~ball & chain~~ mop and bucket. I'm sure he will make a fine admin. ^Khukri 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A fine editor in every way, even finer if sysopped. (so I hope, anyway) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per noms. Sarah 10:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Twinkle, twinkle, little star. Bubba hotep 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
73 As per all the above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI. >Radiant< 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Although I didn't recognize the name at first, I recognize what he's done. Deserves to be an admin. —davidh.oz.au 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Absolutely... - Denny 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Terence 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Vandalfighter plus toolmaker. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support What else needs to be said? Sxeptomaniac 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support of course.-- danntm ^T _C 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as it comes as a shock that he wasn't already. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Super contributor, good judgment, recent incident on IRC mentioned by opposer seems an aberration not the rule. Pig^man_dialogue 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Lectonar 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --light darkness ^(talk) 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support *definitely*! Yuser31415 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Patstuart^talk·edits 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support (with an LOL at the below oppose; that's why RFA sucks.) Jon Harald Søby 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Kyle Barbour 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Late to the party support. – Steel 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Let's go for 100! Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent user. 6 more to 100. Also agree with Jon Harald Søby. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Great, great user. 5 more to 100. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You already supported... See #46 above. WjBscribe 04:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per marked improvement since last RfA. I believe AzaToth will do a good job and not abuse the twiddled bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Chacor's mention of the IRC incident raises a slight concern, but really it doesn't sound like it was that big a deal. Aza Toth says that it could have been handled better and so that shows a maturity and sense of responsibility to learn from whatever mistakes were made, and that is always impressive. Plus, with 13,000 edits, if this is the worse then Aza Toth has done then I say no problem. Please pass the bucket, the mop, and the flamethrower. (But please don't become reliant on IRC. On wiki discussions are best precisely because the leave a record which is important for understand, accountability, and precdent.) Johntex\^talk 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Absodamnlutely per previous nomination. -- nae'blis 02:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support WP:100 -- Avi 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. It's been a while since I've interacted with this user, but the name brings up positive thoughts.--ragesoss 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Gogo Dodo 03:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, a hundred times over. – riana_dzasta 06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongest support possible Why on the earth isn't already an admin? ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 07:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support because of your failure to discuss the change for nominations at WP:FPC. It turned out being just fine though! :) · AO ^Talk 11:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ab-so-friggen-lutely James086^Talk 12:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support per nom gidonb 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. --Ligulem 16:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Everyone else seems to be supportign but I have noticed this user around in many places before, just one of the is leaving messages on the WDefCon, I think he/she could benefit the tools greatly.Telly addict 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Let's do this. --Silverhand^Talk 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support! —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:32Z
Support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope you have dropped your topic changinating habits on IRC by now. Poor judgment on canvassing though, next time use PMs or /query, and people wouldn't indulge in sanctimonious bullshit^TM :) Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support AzaToth=Twinkle...Twinkle=Adminship :). ~ Arjun 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I've seen AzaToth around and was impressed. Will make a good admin. -- Jreferee 18:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Everything looks good--better than good. IronDuke 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support AzaToth has always been a good contributor and will use the admin tools responsibly. --CBD 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Agree with above. S.D. 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support good editor, will be good admin --rogerd 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Cleared for Adminship User's improved and hostility level's gone down. —Pilot guy (go around) 03:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support User looks to be headed, although needs to learn from mistakes. Bigman17 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --MONGO 08:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —Ruud 13:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support semper fictilis 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Yet another !vote. Broke the WP:100 barrier! ffm ^yes? 18:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Shoop da Woop support: strong candidate, will do great things for the project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Wait, did I already support? Just H^{editor review} 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. And, by the way, great tool! --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support An amazing candidate in terms of template experience. The canvassing incident seems like an honest mistake to me and not sufficient reason to oppose his RfA; any shred of doubt regarding the canvassing is easily outshadowed by his expertise on templates. And of course, TW is fantastic. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Why not? Sounds like a great person. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support John Reaves (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support > Kamope < 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Valuable contributor. New tools will make him more so. -- Satori Son 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A valued contributor, I can't see any reason to oppose, and thanks to AzaToth for that TWINKLE script! Will make a great admin. --sunstar net^talk 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Bandwagon per nom. No questions asked per Nishkid and Doug Bell. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Twinkle ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support again. NoSeptember 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Excellent candidate, have seen them around. No reason to believe they would misuse the tools. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Will likely use tools to good effect. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --MoRsE 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Everything looks good indeed

Oppose

Sorry to be the first opposer. I don't like the recent incident on IRC where you tried to canvass for an FP review, when there were no responses you asked if we were ignoring you, and when I said that we'd look if we wanted to you said that people were "!voting wrongly" on an FPC delist candidate and asked for "help". Not behaviour I want from an admin. – Chacor 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I tried to canvass. I had the impression that the featured picture criteria clearly stated such an image couldn't apply the first exception, as it wasn't a "one of a time" image. I'm really sorry if you got that impression of me. _→AzaToth 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't be so bad if you didn't keep asking why we were "ignoring" you when no-one responded to you. Your persistence in chasing it until someone responded was not good, imo, and even after I responded you continued to point me there even when I said that if we wanted to we'd look. It's not solely about the canvassing, as I see it, but also the way you handled the incident. – Chacor 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are totally right that I didn't handle that good. _→AzaToth 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Should isolated IRC incidents be brought up in RfAs? Not a statement, just a question. Nishkid 64 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would they not be? If someone is going to use IRC for wiki-work, then their actions on IRC become relevant. Johntex\^talk 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any diffs or recordings to supply evidence of inappropriate behaviour on IRC? If such evidence can't be supplied then it makes it difficult to base an opinion on testimony alone. (aeropagitica) 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree that it is difficult to substantiate what happened on IRC.

Having said that, the nominee has not contested the mention of the discussion. So there is currently no reason to doubt the version of events that has been presented.

The phrase Live by the sword; die by the sword comes to mind. If one wants to treat IRC as a valid tool for wiki-work, then it is fair for that activity to be mentioned on wiki.

Personally, I think use of IRC for Wiki-work is problematic for the very reason that accontability is difficult at best. For that reason, I believe IRC should never be used for important matters pertaining to Wikipedia. On-wiki conversations are best. If someone is afraid of a record of what they said, then they were probably saying something they should not have said.

I would be more comfortable if the candidate were to take a vow that they will not carry on important Wikipedia-related discussions on IRC. Johntex\^talk 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do have logs, but am unaware of the exact procedures to go through if anyone wants to see them, given the sensitivity about logging #wikipedia for public usage. – Chacor 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the !voting is at 107/1/1 and the incident seems to be of peripheral importance, I don't think it would be worth the effort to get special permission from every participant in the discussion to quote from the logs. I think you've made your point and can let this one go. Newyorkbrad 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That comment was meant to be in response to aero. It wasn't my intention to offer to make them public, and only brought it up in case "anyone wants to see them". Like you said, it should not make any difference. – Chacor 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

JohnTex, what you do on Wikipedia and what you do on IRC should be separated. Anyway, if you want to contact users quickly, the best method is by IRC (instead of spam-bombing user talk pages). It might not be on-wiki, and of course that could be a problem, but it does offer the best method of communication. Also, it's not like AzaToth went onto IRC to start that whole commotion. He went there to ask people to help with an FP review. I do agree that the situation could have been handled better, though. Nishkid 64 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What one does on Wikipedia and what one does on IRC cannot be seperate if you are using IRC as a tool to work on Wikipedia. Spamming IRC to get people to support you is no better than spamming Talk pages. In fact, it is worse, because it hides your spamming from the scrutiny it deserves. (BTW - I should point out that I have already voted to support the candidate despite this one IRC incident). Johntex\^talk 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe stuff done off Wikipedia that relates to Wikipedia is fair game for an RfA. That includes IRC. The broader issue of behavior on IRC (not AzaToth's) is worth a discussion elsewhere since it has broader implications than just this RfA for Wikipedia's transparency.--A. B. ^(talk) 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Moral Oppose This is a very tough decision for me, as I LOVE LOVE LOVE TWINKLE, have told people about it, and wish I could use it as an admin. I was there on IRC, however, and it was canvassing. That the candidate tells Chacor in this RfA he was not - well, it tipped the boat for me. I'm casting "moral oppose" because in this case, it's not the candidate that needs support. Other than this one convo, there's no reason to oppose. Xiner (talk, email) 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The nomination statements and the answer to Q1 really don't add up. Either the nominators are pulling our legs, which I doubt, or the answer to Q1 is less than frank. Under other circumtances this might be a rather WP:POINTy oppose, but given the current status of this RFA there's no danger of disrupting anything. The canvassing stuff doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy either. I share Xiner's liking for TW, but I just don't feel comfortable here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. His name sounds like a dreaded character's name from Lovecraft's works. Just joking. I agree with trialsanderros below, although he choose to be neutral.--Kamikaze 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I was ready to support, but WP:CANVASS is a directive that needs to be understood by admins, and from your comments above I don't get the impression you do, even now. ~ trialsanderrors 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral As above, I don't feel confident that the candidate fully understands or supports WP:CANVASS, which, in my view, any potential admin should. --cj | talk 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Hasn't written any featured articles, after all – Qxz 03:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Alison

Final (92/1/2); Ended Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:04:06 UTC

Alison (talk • contribs) - Nomination: I have decided to nominate Alison for adminship because I feel she could do a great job with the administrative tools. Until a few hours ago, her username was actually Ali-oops, but she made a decision to change her name.

Alison is an active vandal-fighter, and her user page is semi-protected as a result. Alison has many contributions to Wikipedia, including setting up Wikipedia: WikiProject Irish Maritime; and she has contributed greatly to articles involving Ireland, pharmaceutical, and LGBT issues. Her Wikipedia-edits include her input on WP:RFCN, WP:AIV, and WP:AN/I; as well as input on several WikiProjects; not including the one she set up. She has been here since 2004, and very recently passed the 7000 edits mark. Alison is level-headed, and likes working with other users; she is also extremely friendly, and has a sense of humor; qualities I think more admins should have. Acalamari 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I am able to co-nominate Alison to become an administrator, I actually encountered her when she reverted some vandalism on my userpage, at the time I thought she was just another one of those RC patrollers, but after delving deeper into her contributions, she is also a very accomplished editor. During correspondence with people, she tries to add a bit of humour into the wiki - something which is all to often lost here. Her wikipedia space contributions are also very good, and she is always very reasoned in her arguments - most probably because of her excellent knowledge of policy (which has probably come because of her length of time on and dedication to the project). Alison would use the tools extremely well, although I doubt very much that it would change her, it would only add to the work she is able to carry out Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept - Alison^☺ 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I'm on Editor review. As there are some important comments over there, I'm going to keep going at both for the moment. Adding it here so people are aware and can view its content for themselves.

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 participants:

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

A: I spend a lot of my time on WP reverting vandals and have been involved in this since I started here. As admin, I'd spend quite some time monitoring WP:AIV, WP:RPP and clearing admin backlog. I'm a bit of a wikignome (un)fortunately and that kind of work I find to be very satisfying. Lately, I've been contributing on WP:RFCN where I've found it fascinating as it's an excellent place to see subjective interpretation of policy in action. I also regularly patrol Lupin's Recent IP Edits and revert vandalism where I can. Everyone gets fair notice and not always simple boilerplate {{uw-test}} text. I like to take the opportunity to help someone who may be just new at editing. I love to help where I can and my edit history tends to show that I readily get involved in all sorts of issues.

I've not been as active on WP:AN/I as I'd like to be. In the future I can see that changing, admin or otherwise.

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

A: I recently spent a gruelling few hours straightening out all the citations and references on the Transsexualism article, as well as providing journal citations for critical areas. I'm proud of the way it looks and reads now. Also, I worked hard on the recent Steve Stanton article (which, incidentally made DYK shortly after. The collaboration involved in rapidly bringing that article to fruition was intense and highly enjoyable. For me, the pleasure is in working together with others & this is why I focus my article creation work on Irish and Pharmacological matters where editors work closely together. Recently, I created WP:IMAR which, though in its infancy, is up and running already. We are planning targetting articles for GA status and having a COTW. Starting a project that other editors enjoy and contribute to has been amazing!

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

A: Yes, I have. I was deeply involved in dealing with the RMS troll back last year. A blocked user created an entire range of socks [51][52] and began hitting controversial articles and edit warring again and again and again for months on end. I found myself becoming frustrated by the endless reverting/reporting/discussing and spent little time on article creation. To counter that, I set myself a target of a certain quantity of article creation and improvement just to 'come down' from reverting Robert's vandalism. Ultimately, RMS gave up.

Recently, due to my work on reverting vandals, my userpage became a vandal magnet [53]. When that got sprot'd, they turned to my talk page [54]. I don't stress on it any more - in fact, it shows I must be doing *something* right! :)

It needs to be pointed out that I ended up in conflict with one of the main editors of the Steve Stanton article. This has been resolved now & details can be found about that on my current editor review.

General comments

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

Some coments, I wish Ali all the luck she needs to be an effective admin. Viewing some of her edit histories, she is strong on the programming side of editing, cleaning tags etc. Although she generally comes across as wp-positive, I do notice some failings in her approach to some editors. She has a tendency of not being autonomous, and will rush to support an "old pal", then she plays the little "miss fix-it" roll, trying to conciliate etc. This approach has no place on WP and can cause the obvious probs etc downline. Also she called someone an idiot lately, well an admin should never use that word. Maybe that idiot is empowering Ali by being an idiot, so making Ali appear so high on her horse. Maybe this Ali should thank the idiot. Also she should read WP:PEACE. Otherwise, I wish her good editing, and a good admin. And generally I like Ali, which of course is neither here nor there in this poll..86.42.148.197 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. Yes, I called an anonymous vandal an 'idiot' yesterday.[55] Said IP-hopping editor has vandalised User:Gwernol's userpage maybe 50 times over the last few weeks. [56] (the 128.186.xx.xx IP) as well as doing the same to mine, including making some increasingly nasty edits to my userpage. I'm not sure if this qualifies them for Idiot or not but I certainly take your point - Alison^☺ 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can I withdraw above, I was being graciously puerile, and selective. 86.42.157.10 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

First to get here support. I have seen Alison around doing great work and believe she'll make a fine admin. Most experience in vandal areas but has enough XfD contribs to show understanding of deletion policy. Will use the tools well. WjBscribe 04:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Indubitably, one of the greatest uses here, based on Talk responses, XfD contribs, and dispute resolution. ALTON .ıl 04:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems have very well-rounded contributions and a good attitude. John Reaves (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Unabashedly Support. Alison would make an ideal admin, and her ability to find good venues of compromise and a lack of arrogance and hostility are traits that I think all editors should aspire to. She exhibits a perfect balance of boldness and discretion. - WeniWidiWiki 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Never had the pleasure but all the boxes appear to be ticked, and good editors good admins usually make. Best of luck! Rockpocket 06:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support++ ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, excellent editor, no concerns. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support works for me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Out-of-the-box support The Rambling Man 07:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - But of course. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. The kind of editor who will make a great admin. auburnpilot talk 08:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support May I compliment you on the thoughtful and tolerant way in which you dealt with a difficult problem relating to User:Manopingo. Clearly will be a great admin.--Anthony.bradbury 08:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

CommentUser:Manopingo is not a real person. He was just a caricature, and tested this classy Wikipedian, I knew she'd win hands down;)-Manopingo 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support without any reservations, a fine user, will make a fine sysop. --Matthew
Strong support as co-nom, great user Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support should be fine. Good luck! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support definitely admin material. - Anas ^Talk? 11:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportWill be a great administrator. Good luck. --Meno25 11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Clear and fine. Just like the Emerald Isle. Bubba hotep 12:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Been around for a while; good editor and vandal-fighter.↔NMajdan•talk 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, yeh, I'd support Alison. Although I had my disagreement, I carry no irk!-Manopingo 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - One of my favourite Editors...--Cometstyles 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Appears to be a well rounded experienced editor. Would put the tools to good use. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support as nominator I'm late; and since I am the nominator, I should have been blocked indefinitely if I had opposed. Acalamari 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Instant support Hang around Alison's talk page for a couple of days and you'll see why she would make a great admin. She happily tackles controversial topics, accepts constructive criticism and coolly bears trolling, is a major vandal-fighter, highly active on all projects she is a member of... and already provides input in admin-oriented areas of WP. No-question support. Fvasconcellos 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. We've never crossed paths, but after a review of Alison's talk page (see here and here) and some of her recent contributions (examples here and here), I'd gladly give her the mop. -- MarcoTolo 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Coming out of wikibreak support I know Alison slightly and have been impressed by her contributions. Here is civility, here is welcoming, here and here are effective uses of vandalism policy (vandal reversions are common and easy to find). If she has any dark secrets then she has hidden them very well. The fact that she is Irish, and that I like Irish people will not influence me. --Guinnog 16:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. From what I've seen, Alison has been an exemplar of editorial sageness. Strong writing, plays well with others, and reasonable in disputes. Aye, I say, aye. Pig^man_dialogue 17:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've been watching several articles she has been invloved in and observed her calmness and sensible dealings with many other editors. ww2censor 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above, an excellent Wikipedian. Regarding Dragons flight comments, in my very limited understanding, copyright infringement would be a very big deal, however this is a different concept than plagarism. Addhoc 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per the nominators. Yuser31415 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. Alison is a well-rounded Wikipedian with an excellent grasp of policy. Calm in the face of vandalism and trolling, she manages to AGF when mere mortals give up in frustration. I have no reservations in giving her the tools - she knows how to use them, and will use them to protect and improve the 'pedia. Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Her posts exhibit careful thought of the issue before her and regard for the feelings of others. Along with her experience, she will make a fine admin. -- Jreferee 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good answers and edit history. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I agree with Kathryn, although the mustache-twirling ABF side of me [probably resembles Terry-Thomas] wonders: "Maybe she's too nice, too reasonable". Still, if Alison is willing to do the unpleasant work, that's fine by me. I slightly shared in Dragons flight's concern, but the answer below settles that for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good record and clear that there is no concern that there will be any misuse or abuse. Agent 86 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I've seen you around in many places, and can definitely trust you. You also (seem to) have a good grasp of policies and Wikipedia in general. I think you will make a fine and productive administrator. Cbrown1023 talk 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. A prolific contributor, seems well-versed in policy, good record of civil interactions, and if you will forgive the allusion, an insanely great admin candidate. --Kyoko 00:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I wonder about the semi-protecting your user page, but that is no reason to oppose given the reasons to support. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the sprot on her userpage is a badge of honour. There is always a certain percentage of vandals, no matter how politely you warn them, who lash out and retaliate when warned. Alison does such a good job of protecting the 'pedia from vandals, and has stopped so many, that her user page gets hit a lot. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As Kathryn said. My page went through three sprots in rapid succession [57] over the period of a month. As each semi ran out, the page was hit again and the semi got longer. It got to the state where one IP-hopping vandal was hitting the page maybe 10 times a day and editors were just wasting their time reverting. Per WP:PROT, I decided myself that it should be sprot'd to put paid to that time wasting. Of course, my talk page gets hit instead but I get over it :) - Alison^☺ 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That makes sense. I stand corrected. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. zero » 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support very balanced contributer with no problems on her record. I have often noticed her to be very civil. I doubt this user would abuse the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Garion96 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —Moondyne 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Ryan. I've seen Ms Ali-oops around and am confident she has the skills and knowledge to be an outstanding admin. Sarah 10:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Even though there were the odd bumps in the road, she's a fine candidate for adminship. James.Spudeman 10:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Acceptable, but please make more judicious use of the 'minor edit' checkbox in the future. >Radiant< 11:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Terence 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Excellent candidate. Xoloz 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Gogo Dodo 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support; Slade (The Joker) 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Appreciate all you do to fight vandalism - WP will be even better-defended against vandalism when you have the tools. —SaxTeacher (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good editor, shows extreme patience in difficult situations. Sam Blacketer 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - looks like a great editor who already does admin-type work. Give her the mop and bucket. Johntex\^talk 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as I can find no evidence leading me to believe Allison will abuse the twiddled bit. She seems very well-rounded in her experience on WP, and I trust her with the mop. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support → I haven't found why I shouldn't ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good users, no qualms. James086^Talk 09:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support based on her contributions .. definately trust Alison with the extra buttons - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Outstanding editor. A Train ^{take the} 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very good editor. I've liked what I've seen. ElinorD (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support The bitchstar says it all. ;-) Well-rounded in her contributions, very civil with other users (and vandals). ShadowHalo 06:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support! —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:32Z
Support Real96 09:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support have seen her around doing everything, great worker, would do well with the tools. WP:100 please! :) – riana_dzasta 10:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I have only good thoughts about Alison ... except why did she move from Ali-oops? I loved that name Abtract 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, deserving the mop and bucket. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Thoughtful and smart. And I do love me some vandal-fighting troll magnets. IronDuke 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Everyone agrees on this one. I guess... --- SAndT ^{Lets Talk} 21:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably unnecessary pile-on support per all above. The response to the ~~oppose~~ neutral down there clinched it for me. Core desat 23:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I think she will do well with the tools. The need for vandal fighting is something that will only exponentially grow and will get worse as Wikipedia keeps on moving. Yes, please… Give her "The Mop" JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Necrowarrio0 00:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Three years of experience and balanced contributions show that this person is ready for the administrator tools. Yamaguchi先生 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per everyone else.--Wizardman 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Looks like a mature, balanced, intelligent editor who will make a great admin. semper fictilis 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support 7000 edits, friendly, serious vandal fighter, mainspace, RFPP. Almost all the qualities of an admin.--PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great user! -Mschel 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I think Alison is a great candidate for adminship. Her contributions indicate that she has no problem performing repetative tasks and she will only do good with the extra tools. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
omg oppose. --Deskana (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Pile-on of-course support. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support -- ideal candidate. Lots of experience dealing with contentious people and situations yet has shown good judgement. Thanks for serving. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- we had a conflict with the Steve Stanton article, but that was much more my fault than hers, and has been resolved amicably (see here & here. Everything else I've seen on her talk page reflects dedicated, good service to Wikipedia. I would urge care regarding issues brought up by opposing & neutral voters here. But mostly -- good on ya, Alison. --Yksin 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- good editor, and experienced. Djegan 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. See no issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Support; everything looks good. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This editor's edits actions reassure me that she has, and will continue to exhibit trustworthiness and good judgement. Good Luck! -- Avi 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, per Xoloz. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Will be a good admin. Dionyseus 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Rye1967 11:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Sorry, but you're not experienced enough yet. I'm not one to talk, but there's a lot of administrators who face problems quite early. J O R D A N ^[talk ] ~~17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)~~ (re-inserted by User:MarcoTolo at 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC) per J O R D A N's comment on the talk page).

Hi Jordan, may I ask why you think the candidate hasn't enough experience? She has 3 years experience and 7,000 edits Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JCraw has clarified his position on my talk page here. Mystery solved - Alison^☺ 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

'crat comment: I am invalidating this vote per this =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Dragons' flight. Copyright apathy is very bad. — CharlotteWebb 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

I can't recall every interacting with you before a few days ago, but I found those interactions very off putting. Ryanpostlethwaite was revealed by me to have plagarized. The identified problems were addressed, which is a good thing; however, I was surprised by the way you jumped to his defense. Your attitude suggested you thought it all no big deal. No, I don't think one should "presume innocence" [58] when it comes to the question of whether or not there were additional acts of plagarism. Clearly that is a circumstance that warrants close scrutiny and investigation of past contributions. (For the record, after investigation I don't think there were other problems, but it is not something to just assume away.) And later you were the first to defend him again when I mentioned that I would give his future edits closer scrutiny, as if his being "contrite" [59] was more than enough reason to ignore the past pattern of bad behavior. I am stunned that the community would promote someone (i.e. Ryan) who had recently committed plagarism, and quite disappointed that some members of the community, including yourself, seem to act as if plagarism is no big deal. Dragons flight 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me state clearly first that I believe that plagiarism and copyright infringement are both far from being "no big deal". I often check suspicious article text for violations and regularly use {{copyvio}}. Here's just one example that comes to mind; there have been many others. What Ryan did was clearly wrong. However, I don't believe he did this for personal aggrandizement. Furthermore, not only his contrition but his efforts to repair his damage and to neither make little of it nor attempt to cover it up speaks volumes in itself. That's where my reference to AGF comes in. However, that I assume good faith does not make me naïve; I personally dug through much of his edit history myself just to be certain (sorry, Ryan!). In short: copyvio is a big deal and I remove it where and when I see it. - Alison^☺ 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bravo. The Rambling Man 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral leaning to support - I really really really want to support you, but I've already put off my RfA standards once this week already for another brilliant editor, & don't want to do it again just in case some cataclismic event occurs. I think you'll understand... Well, you've had a long history here (early 2004! wow!), but you've managed to rack up very few Wikipedia namespace edits & very little in way of its talk either. You have a high percentage of user talk edits & you also have no GA's or FA's. But as I said, you are brilliant & I don't think you'd ever abuse the tools. I just thoguht I'd express my sall concerns as you are in no danger of losing this RfA. Don't hold it against me... Gulp... :) Spawn Man 08:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Shimeru

Final (62/0/0); Ended Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:57:46 (UTC)

Shimeru (talk • contribs) - Shimeru is a prolific and productive editor with slightly over 3000 edits(this total is somewhat misleading since he often greatly expands an article with a single edit). I first encountered the editor in the ongoing school discussions where although I sometimes disagreed with him I found him to be civil and insightful. As one can see from his userpage, he has helped substantially rewrite and expand many articles including the recently featured article Kitsune. He has contributed substantially and helped start a wide variety of articles, ranging from Japanese cultural and religious topics to literary socieies, to poets, to 18th century proto-feminists. The user has a large amount of experience both in article space and Wikipedia space and has a healthy understanding of policy. JoshuaZ 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Shimeru 21:20, 8 March 2007 (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 participants:

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

A: I intend initially to help deal with the backlogs at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and WP:XfD, since those are areas where I've had a fair amount of involvement. I've recently been trying to help close overdue AfDs, but as a non-admin, I obviously can have only a very limited impact; most of the unambiguous keeps tend to be dealt with early. I also monitor WP:AN and the related noteboards, and help out where I can; with the tools, I might be able to do more. I keep an eye on WP:RFPP, WP:Requested moves, and WP:CP as well. I anticipate continuing RC and new page patrol, as well, but I find I rarely am in the position of reverting vandalism following a final warning, so I probably wouldn't be employing the block button very often.

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

A: I'm very happy with kitsune, which I took to GA and then FA over the course of two months or so; I think our article may be one of the best sources of information about that mythological creature that exists on the web, and I'm glad to have contributed a substantial part of it. I'm always pleased when I'm able to contribute a new article, which I've done with subjects such as Harvey Littleton; my biggest contribution of this sort has been a string of articles relating to Ainu mythology, centered around the article kamui. There's much still to be done with those, but before I began, our entire coverage of Ainu mythology was limited to two sub-stubs, one of which was apparently incorrect. Outside of the mainspace, I was fairly happy with some of the discussion at WP:SCHOOLS, although the proposal has evidently failed to reach consensus, and I'm now helping out with WP:AI, which is in its early stages but appears promising.

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

A: Yes and no. I think it's inevitable that anyone who edits Wikipedia for very long will be involved in a conflict of some kind. However, I try not to let these conflicts cause me any stress, and I think for the most part I've succeeded. I'm capable of arguing my points forcefully, when I feel it's warranted, but I try my best to maintain a level of emotional detachment while doing so. I try always to remain civil, to discuss clearly and rationally, and, if I begin to feel too stressed or emotionally involved in the debate, to "walk away" and do something else for a little while. In the interest of full disclosure, I have had others "read" me as upset when I was not; since then, I've been trying to watch my choice of words so as not to come across as too heated.

Optional Questions

4. You said that you are interested in closing AfD's and your edit history clearly indicates that you are in the "most schools aren't notable" camp (feel free to disagree with this). WP:AFDP points out that most school AfDs result in no consensus. Will you be trying to change that? Why do you think it has been so hard to get the community to agree on an objective school policy? --Selket ^Talk 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty fair statement of my position. Will I be trying to change the fact that many school AfDs end in no consensus? In a sense, yes, but not through the admin tools. It's my hope to see a guideline in place for notability of schools, and I intend to continue working toward that as an editor. Short of that, I doubt there's anything I could do to change the lack of consensus; consensus isn't something that can be imposed by fiat. In the meantime, any school-related AfDs I might close would need to be evaluated solely in light of our current policies and guidelines; WP:ATT, WP:NOTE (though that one's in question itself, at the moment), and perhaps WP:ORG (which is the closest thing we have to an accepted guideline that might cover schools) would be most relevant if notability were in question.

Now, for the other part of the question... there are some editors who feel strongly about the inclusion of schools, even to the point of proposing "all schools are notable" as a guideline. (Many of these point to our standing "exceptions" for towns and villages and the like.) Others feel that a majority of schools is notable. Others, including myself, feel most schools are not notable, although many are. Some feel that very few schools are notable. Reconciling this broad a spectrum of opinion is not easy. But when I look at what was going on when I first registered on Wikipedia at the end of 2004, and compare it to the recent discussion of late 2006 until a few days ago, I think significant progress has been made even if the proposal ultimately failed. It appears to me as though the largest hurdle now is addressing which sorts of sources can be taken as evidence of notability. This isn't a school-specific issue, but many people with an interest in schools have very definite opinions on the matter, so the discussion there has been rather vigorous. It may be that we'll never reach consensus on what a "non-trivial" source is (or however it might be phrased), but I prefer to think we'll continue to make progress, even if it continues to be slow. Since consensus doesn't require unanimous agreement, it seems a realistic enough goal.

Optional question from Eli Falk

5. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?

A: If the vandalism isn't ongoing, there's no need for semi-protection. If the vandalism is from only one or two IPs, a block would be a better approach. If the vandalism is from registered accounts, semi-protection won't stop it; full protection might be necessary. Even if there's ongoing IP vandalism, if it's occurring at a slow enough rate (say, once or twice a day), semi-protection might not be called for, because the benefit of preventing the vandalism needs to be weighed against the cost of preventing potential good IP edits to the article.

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Support as nominator. JoshuaZ 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I like the user's answers to the questions, and I know of this user's good work on Wikipedia. I see no issues or concerns that are particularly worrysome. Nishkid 64 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support good candidate. Trustworthy and level-headed. Good article work. No problems here. - Anas ^Talk? 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good editor - if he wants the mop, I see no reason to object. -- MarcoTolo 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support After reviewing your talk pages and contributions, I see you are an active vandal fighter, take part in a healthy amount administrator noticeboards discussions - I am confident you could blossom as an administrator. --Ozgod 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Thanks for your answer to my question. I disagree with you when you said, "I doubt ... I could ... change the lack of consensus." When an AfD comes down to 5 deletes and 3 keeps, the closing admin, in practice, has considerable discretion, and consequently an ability to shift the standard over time. But you have a very solid track record, and I believe you when you say you won't. --Selket ^Talk 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Terence Ong 07:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Impressive answers to questions and seems a dependable user. Will (aka Wimt) 10:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Way to vandal-fight, you deserve it. Please don't abuse your new position. StayinAnon 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Another good candidate and there is always room for help at AIV. auburnpilot talk 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Very good editor, obviously will not misuse the tools. Rje 12:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Dorange 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support for one of my favorite editors. Go for it! (^^) Dekimasuよ! 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
support :) --dario vet (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - It Experience which matters..--Cometstyles 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - An great example of effective distribution of edits. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Everytime I've encountered Shimeru, I've found him to be intelligent, trustworthy, and thoughtful. He's an excellent contributor who has a need for the tools and will use them well. -- Kicking222 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support excellent user with excellent record.-- danntm ^T _C 20:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This a great user who I see often and I was even considering nominating the user for adminship.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Can't really say anything that hasn't already been said. -- Nick ^t 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Great user; nothing that concerns me.--TBCΦtalk? 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Kicking222. Will do great work —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A great, great user. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportAll looks good. Dfrg.msc 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - good answers to questions, can't find any problems here. Insanephantom 23:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Richardcavell 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good editor, no concerns. utcursch | talk 06:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. – riana_dzasta 07:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I don't know the user, but he looks like a good candidate.--Danaman5 08:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no problems with this user, seems he/she will newver mis-use the tools, excellent and accurate answers to questions, would benefit the tools greatly! Good luck - Aquasplash 12:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Good editor, long active in AFD, countervandalism and other work. Dragomiloff 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Reedy Boy 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Substantial edits, balanced answers about use of the tools. Brain says "Yes." Pig^man_dialogue 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:21Z
Support - And shimeru is the verb to close, correct? I hope this RfA is closed in favor of Support quickly, if only for us new page patrollers' sanity :) -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support without reservations. Yuser31415 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support appears to be a solid canidate. - Denny 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support based on answers to questions - user seems to be mature and considered based on this and a random review of contributions, and very unlikely to abuse tools. Orderinchaos78 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportGood luck! --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--MONGO 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support; this editor clearly has already been a huge help to Wikipedia and will be an excellent admin. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks good. --Tbeatty 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good contributions in XFDs. --Meno25 08:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Mature and capable. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per all above. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks like a good choice.-jufam
yay number 50. You'll be a good admin, support.--Wizardman 04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support (not that you need it), every time I've seen Shimeru around I've been impressed. No concerns at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. WjBscribe 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no prob. with this user.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Cliched "isn't-he-one-already?" support. Metamagician3000 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Mop. Georgewilliamherbert 22:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've reviewed his posts and found him to be civil and insightful, too. He will be a good admin. -- Jreferee 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I finally realized where I recognized Shimeru from! Admins who are willing to step-up and help inexperienced editors with dispute resolution is exactly what Wikipedia needs.--BirgitteSB 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support You seem like a good user that we can trust to (not ab)use the tools. Cbrown1023 talk 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Garion96 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 06:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Trustworthy and definitely ready. James086^Talk 09:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
An admin who will delete lots of copyvios? Sounds good to me. >Radiant< 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Seems lilke the kind of admin who would delete lots of factual articels just because of slight notablity and copyvioissues. 24.126.170.194 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to participate in an RfA, please get an account. -- MarcoTolo 19:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Or remain anonymous and participate just in the comments section and ask questions there --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point - participation is encouraged by anons. Mea culpa. -- MarcoTolo 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm jealous. --– Emperor Walt e r Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no holes to poke ;) AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Marking it as invalid. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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

[edit] Natalie Erin

Final (79/0/1); Ended Wed, 14 March 2007 23:18 UTC

Natalie Erin (talk • contribs) - I happened upon Natalie Erin's contributions while browsing the noticeboards and feel she would make an excellent admin. Indeed, she has proven herself to be a prolific vandal-fighter (always leaving warnings and using edit summaries) who shows civility and consistently good judgment across AfD discussions as well. She has been a steady and dedicated contributor with over 6000 edits since June of 2006, and has put together a particularly impressive level of contribution over the past several months. Given her level of activity, particularly at WP:AIV, I feel she would make an excellent admin and would benefit greatly from having the tools for rollbacks and blocks. I also feel her judgment indicates she would close discussions and make deletions with speed and care. She also has solid article contributions and is a member of a Wikiproject (no, I am not so biased that I only nominated her because she also liked the Simpsons... :-)), and is member of the Cleanup taskforce as well, for those who desire evidence of encyclopedia-building. IronGargoyle 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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 participants:

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

A: I initially plan to use admin tools to continue activities I already do: recent changes patrol and new pages patrol. I am very comfortable with the policies and processes for these two activities, so I feel like it would be a good place to get use to admin tools. I already read WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and other noticeboards, and would certainly continue to do so, as well as help out with problems brought to those boards when possible. I am also comfortable with closing many XfDs (especially AfD), although I can't say I would be comfortable closing a particularly close XfD or one that seems to fall into a gray area, at least for now. Once I had some more experience, I would be more willing to close close or controversial AfDs.

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

A: I must admit that I am not an FA writer, mostly because I am currently in college and have to do a lot of writing for school, which kind of burns me out on writing. Also, I am a historian-in-training, which involves a lot of what Wikipedians call OR. But I have been able to work with several very bad articles and turn them into what I would consider average articles, including Antioch College, Aryan Brotherhood, Elizabeth Van Lew, and Myrtles Plantation. I was also able to contribute to Sean Bell when it was a current event and have updated it once, although it probably needs updating again.

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

A: I haven't been involved in any content disputes that I can recall during my time here. I have been the target of vandalism, personal attacks, and whatnot in my RC patrolling. Mostly I just ignore this, as these users are usually blocked within minutes and all is well. But occasionally I've been targeted and have been the only person to notice or warn that particular user. In the past I have alerted admins to the situation and let them make decsisions. If given admin tools, I will block if it is a very obvious disruptive spree, and otherwise will continue my practice of alerting others to the situation.

General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Support as nominator. IronGargoyle 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support hey I thought you were one... I should study the admin list more often... :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support —dgies^t_c 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support User:brianherman
Support Rlevse 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support everything I've seen has been good. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes: Seems to already do quite a bit of admin-related stuff and does it well. Heimstern Läufer 00:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support- looks okay to me :) --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems likes a person who would use admin tools well Gutworth 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks like a fine, fine admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - did she do all those vandal-reverts manually? Crikey. - Richardcavell 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Yes please, should be a splendiferous admin. – riana_dzasta 03:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good! -Mschel 04:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - A very good Editor plus also a good vandal fighter..--Cometstyles 08:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support A fine editor, indeed. IrishGuy ^talk 09:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Excellent RP patroller who has answered the questions well. Rje 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support no problems here. - Anas ^Talk? 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Encountered a lot lately, and always leaves a good impression. Bubba hotep 11:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Experience of vandal stopping alone is good enough for me. Seivad 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, all seems fine. Neil (not Proto ►) 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support because of their good edits and vandalism fighting though the lack of experience. We all know that experience comes quickly w/ time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Garion96 (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Qualified and able. Agent 86 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support qualified candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 20:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportDina 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support No worries here, very worthy editor. SMC 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Everything checks out, trustworthy. Cbrown1023 talk 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support John254 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Dorange 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Nice user, I've seen her around; well, I edited her user page for her too. Acalamari 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Seems nice, she would probably use admin tools in the right fashion Shindo9 Hikaru
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I've seen good things from this editor :-) --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Solid vandal fighter. She does not have many content contributions but what she has contributed to content has been good. --Selket ^Talk 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I've never had any interaction with the user other than edit conflicts in rollbacks, and I've watched her for months. Mop worthy for certain. Teke^(talk) 06:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, this looks like an old skool RfA, and I like it. Taxman was a random user with that old style RfA that I came up with off the top of my head Teke^(talk) 06:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, dedicated users make good admins Alex Bakharev 06:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I think some vandals are about to be whacked. James086^Talk 07:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
support :) --dario vet (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good. -- Infrogmation 18:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Have seen Natalie doing good work and have had positive interactions with her. Her contribs show her to have the necessary experience (particularly in relation to the vandal whacking stick...). Trustworthy candidate who will use the tools well. WjBscribe 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Obviously working hard to make Wikipedia a better place. Will use vandal-thwacking stick for the good of the community. Pig^man_dialogue 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Kafziel ^Talk 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Erin seems to have done a lot of great work as an editor, and will continue to do so as an admin.--TBCΦtalk? 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. She helped me understand what's going on here, hehe! TheFuzzyFive 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support yes, helpful and skilled editor. Was thinking about nominating her Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Strong anti-vandal candidate and experienced editor, no concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the tools, Natalie. Rockpocket 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Will do fine with the tools.-- Dakota 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support From what I see, even though she's greenish in other places, if she was granted the mop, she'd double her capacity as a WikiPolicewoman(my new term for a user who concentrates on Recent Changes, New Page, and of similar kind). Great user, she will do great with the mop. The Evil Clown 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Bandwagon support per nom and all of the above. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support S. Miyano 18:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per wiki gnoming and patrols. Addhoc 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support! —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:23Z
Support per above. Yuser31415 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Not much more to add - a great all-round editor. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Even a brief scan of her contributions reveals that she is a valuable vandalfighter and civil even in the face of provocation ... an admirable feat given how hectic and stressful RC patrol can be. -- Black Falcon 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support seems to be a good, balanced across the board canidate... - Denny 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Will definitely make a great admin. Will (aka Wimt) 23:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support; Why not? Someone who already reads WP:AN would make a good admin, and she seems to have a very good perspective on the function of administrators. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 01:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good. --Tbeatty 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, good accross the board. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Per AIV contributions and in general I think that this user would be a good administrator. --Meno25 08:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good answers to the questions and solid contributions to the project. No reason to think she would not handle the extra tools well.--Kubigula (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Already using available tools to perform admin type tasks with civility. She can be trusted with the extra tools. -- Jreferee 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great use who deserves tools. Shows knowledge of all processes on WP. Definite sysop material. Imageboy1 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)←
Support like everyone else.--Wizardman 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - although this candidate has no need of my vote; there's no opposition at all so far. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I see no problems. Darth griz⁹⁸ 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Support She needs the tools and she will use them well. -Mschel 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting twice is not permitted in RFAs.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

AGF? I'm sure he knew that and just forgot he'd !voted before... WjBscribe 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Mschel > Kamope < 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I support this user, because she has demonstrated that she doesn't lack the needs for these tools. Again, I Support her. Zazzer 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great work on AIV (but enough said above) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support This user welcomes out new admin overlord. ~ trialsanderrors 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. — S.D. 12:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Support I simply think she'd make a great admin.Rlevse 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually you've already supported :-). See #5.WjB scribe 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Final support under the gun. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose 82 01:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why? WjBscribe :01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, too? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I looked at her contributions more and found that she is worthy. 82 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral due to general lack of experience in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. While she's off to a good start, I think a little more experience is necessary before I support. I would support if the current level of activity is maintained for another 2-3 months, especially if more focus is given to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, which is where many admin duties are found. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Xiner

Final: (64/5/2); Ended 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Xiner (talk • contribs) - I am very pleased to introduce a model of a modern Wikipedian, Xiner. Xiner has achieved a good 9381 edits as I am writing this, for those afflicted with editcountitis. To start off, Xiner is a very active participant in XfD's, where I first met him. He is also very active at the help desk, as well as having contributed to WP:ANI. This background of participation gives him a good place to exercise the self-control he would need as a sysop, and he's even written a subpage on the issue of editing conflicts. Also worth reading is his Thoughts on Wikipedia section. In addition, Xiner is broad in his article writing, and has worked in articles from Baiji to the Big Bang. Very importantly, he interacts with other users in a composed manner. As a role model, he has adopted 6 users, all of whom I'm sure will greatly benefit from his ways. But enough with my rant; the show must go on. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Please allow me to serve as an additional nominator. I had urged Xiner to stand in the past for Admin, but he felt that he needed more time to pass, for fear that he would not garner widespread support. Given how many people keep nominating him, I am glad that he's finally relented and agreed to stand. I have no qualms about Xiner as a Wikipedian and an Admin. He is the sort of person that we should eagerly allow to share the burden of administrative duties. Giving him the powers to "tidy-up", as it were, to delete articles, to fix improper article moves, to block vandals... it will make him all the more valuable of a contributor. I first encountered Xiner due to a (looking back on things) entertaining little "mix-up" over at the Baiji article. Thanks to some VERY shady moves on the part of a crypto-porno site, Xiner was convinced (and rightly believed, given the information that he had) that I was attempting to add a very strange link to the article. Despite my rapidly increasing frustration with the situation, he managed to keep a cool head and was able to explain his side of the story. Once we both realized what had happened, we both realized how easy it would have been for both of us to be "righteously indignant" and assume that the other person was up to no good. It is a testament to Xiner's sensibilities that he handled the whole situation with aplomb and even apologized profusely (when he really hadn't done anything wrong... which I tried to convince him about) at the conclusion. Xiner is a solid Wikipedian who has made legitimate contributions to this project and will only be able to be more helpful if we give him "the ol' mop and bucket". I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I didn't plan on thinking about RfA until April at the earliest, but it has become clear that people are noticing my work, and it would seem almost rude to turn down four and a half nomination offers. I thus accept this RfA. Xiner (talk, email) 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Optional statement: Since my last RfA, I have made a conscious effort to not only edit any article I come across, but greet new users, facilitate their growth via standarized template messages, and participate in XfD's. In the last four months, I have grown as a Wikipedian, and my edits have helped me understand what admins do, and why and how candidates for adminship should demonstrate the need for sysop tools. For example, to clean up disambiguation pages sometimes requires deleting a holder page and moving an article onto it; effective participation in deletion reviews requires the ability to view the original item; and dealing with pages under heavy vandalism requires finesse. Not to mention the large number of image discussions and simple renames. I like to help others understand the procedures and organization of Wikipedia so that they can edit the encyclopedia most effectively.

We need more admins. But what makes a good admin? I've seen numerical targets, but what do 900 edits say about the candidate? Has someone with 6k edits contributed more to the project than someone who's started 100 articles?

It's more important to consider three aspects of good candidates. First, they must have demonstrated reliability and calmness under pressure. Second, the candidate must demonstrate an open mind and understand their own limitations. Third, they must demonstrate a need for at least two admin tools. The first two requirements should establish sufficient faith in the user to wield those tools.

That's the yardstick against which I'd like my Request for Adminship to be measured. I believe I fulfill them. I've never made, and would never make, a bad-faith edit. Second, I have learned the rules and followed them. Through it all I have gained a much better understanding of Wikipedia processes. I've helped out at #wikipedia-bootcamp and the help desk - it's true that one only truly learns something when they have taught it to someone else. Third, I participate in XfD's to assess the community's heartbeat. I also do my best against vandalism, and report to AIV and request RFPP when necessary.

Finally, as an editor, I would like to be bold with edits to the main page from time to time.

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 participants:

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

A: Anti-vandalism work can be tiresome, but rewarding when done properly. Like any good teacher, discipline tools are not meant to punish, but to help maintain an environment conducive to learning (or editing). That means every mistake - grammatical, behavioral, or otherwise - must be noticed, even if no action is taken.

Much of an admin's job seems to be delete/undelete and protect/unprotect, though. Some users need to be alerted to their behavior, fewer be blocked. I'll visit WP:RFPP, but having watched vandalism die down after I requested protection for a few pages, I'd be careful about acting aggressively there. There's often an alternative to protection.

XFD's should be closed only after careful consideration. I know how to close XFD's, but some of them do not end in Keep decisions and I'd be more useful with sysop tools there. I will tread carefully before I begin closing more involved discussions as well as speedy nominations. The Wikipedia community seems to have a way of reaching consensus on most nominations.

WP:CSD isn't really my thing, but I have tagged nonsense and spam articles.

To be honest, a big part of my day as an admin will be at WP:UCFD, the forgotten sibling of CFD. The neglect of the page breeds more indifference in a vicious circle, and I hope to help change that. Right now, the two or three admins there are often forced to close their own nominations, an inoptimal situation to say the least.

I will venture into other areas as time permits.

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

A: I am pleased with my overall contribution to the project. In my first two months, I contributed mainly to WikiProject Buffyverse, writing the bulk of many of the articles and substantially editing the rest. It taught me a great deal about the technical aspects of Wikipedia. Had the pages been deleted for fancruft, I might not have stayed. I keep that in mind when I vote to delete pages for fancruft or non-notability -a healthy dose of caution should be applied when deleting someone else's work.

Anyway, I've since fallen in love with Baiji. Not only did I help resolve edit wars and defend against anon-IP attacks, I also used my Chinese and general editing skills to clear up a few questions there while adding substantial content. Watching the article grow from little more than a stub before my eyes was one of my best experiences thus far.

My next target will probably be Manchukuo, a subject I've only heard of. The article is in dire need of citations. Anyway, my main space edits now consist mostly of copyediting, and less frequently finding references for unsourced statements. I'm no longer part of any WikiProject; my interests - the sciences, football, social sciences, literature (mostly dead authors), technology, film and music, among others - have made me a generalist.

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

A: Policy helps people stay on track, but I have also learned to walk away if the issue is not that important, vandalism notwithstanding. Emotion can escalate the situation unnecessarily otherwise. To recount specific disputes takes a backseat to the axiom "forgive and forget". Where I have wronged, I have apologized.

The key to conflict resolution is common ground. Praise the other party for something tangible, remind them of your good faith and acknowledge theirs. A sure way to lowering the heat is to assume good faith.

Additional questions from User:Clayoquot

4. Could you explain what you mean by "helping to resolve edit wars" at Baiji?

There were many revisions back and forth about the status of the animal, whether it is extinct or merely thought to be so. Every time someone made a change in the infobox, I alerted them to the debate on the talk page. I ended up refactoring the discussions, among other moves to help along discussions, and well, as a relative newbie at that time, I'm quite proud of the fact that no one complained or undid my moves. I'd like to think that showed a little finesse. I was also referring to off-topic conversations such as this one, which sometimes degenerated into name-calling and other personal attacks.

4.1 Please explain why you consider this: [60] to be a legal threat.

"...This imposter is a criminal and if you have any dealing with him we also consider you to be dealing with a criminal. Report any of such correspondence to..."

4.2Please explain why you gave this warning: [61]. What did the editor say which constituted a personal attack or an AGF violation?

Please review the comments he left on this page as well as on my user talk page.

Additional questions from User:MacGyverMagic

5. What would you do if you were investigating an article on AFD and found the subject to get less than 50 hits on Google?

I'd try to think up reasons why the subject doesn't seem to exist on the internet. I'd try to find WikiProjects that may be more familiar with the topic. I would check who created the article and when, what links to it, and who made it look so irrelevant that someone would AfD it. I would read it to determine if it is salvagable and notable. Each case should be investigated using Wikipedia's yardsticks tempered by admin experience. Now, there is WP:V, which says that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and I'd want myself and other editors to try other venues of fact-checking if possible.

6. How would you have responded to WP:HD#Bircham_International_University?

I have followed the discussion with interest, but due to a real-life event, I haven't participated in it. I did put it on my watchlist, because I will have grown that much more as an editor when this complaint is resolved one way or another.

In particular, I'd thank Mr. Martin for not editing the article directly (wait, I just did), and review the points he raised. It's true that the Oregon site no longer seems to call his institution a degree mill, but the article is sourced, and I find it very troubling that he has now released information about a former student in an apparent attempt to discredit her, when she doesn't even appear to be the a major player in the case. I agree with how it has been handled so far. Xiner (talk, email) 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Eli Falk

7. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?

A: An article should not be semi-protected for vandalism if it is the feature article of the day; it is leaving the main page soon; the vandalism is localized to one or two IPs; or if the vandalism isn't heavy enough - I've now set a tentative personal rule of thumb of 10 acts of vandalism in one day, or slightly less per day over a period of a week.

General comments

Wikipedia is knowledge balanced by responsibility. I am grounded and ready for sysop duties, and have the requisite technical ability. I look forward to serving Wikipedia with the tools that will help me serve our community.
See Xiner's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

Support as nominator. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as co-nominator. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Xiner is great, he is frequently found everywhere and I was surprised he wasn't one already! (so cliched, I know) He is also a great contributor. :) Cbrown1023 talk 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Heywool 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This was Heywool's 3rd edit to Wikipedia -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support: Xiner's a great Wikipedian. It's about time they got the tools. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Seems to have a good record, good answers to questions, and plenty of positive feedback. Besides which, I take issue with that extreme editcountitis oppose. In actuality, only about half of his edits are to various talk pages. :-) Grand master ka 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Looks like lots of work at the Helpdesk and XfD and when I look at the last 500 User talk edit, I see lots of welcoming and messages about edit summaries, etc. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You're almost up to 10000, fully support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support - We could use his help at WP:UCFD where him having the tools will come in handy. VegaDark 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: I'm shocked Xiner isn't already an administrator, and was the impression that s/he was. Judging by my interaction with Xiner, I'm sure a s/he'll be a fine administrator and continue as a fine community leader. --Iamunknown 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support well-qualified.-- danntm ^T _C 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. G.H e 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me. auburnpilot talk 06:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support as I believe this editor will use the tools wisely. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Anas ^Talk? 08:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Been here long enough and over 9000 Edits--Cometstyles 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, I knew this person from WP:UCFD and I absolutely trust him. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Helpful, positive, responsible editor. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom and all of the above. We all started out as beginners, this user started out as a bold beginner. I see no reason to oppose any user based on some minor issues from quite a while ago. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support From the few weeks I have known this user he has always being extra polite and replies quickly to comments, I too regularly see him at WP:UCFD and I was going to nominate him within the coming months as he has shown a need for the tools and greatly deserves them, I would always trust him with the extra tools, I know for sure he would never mis-use them. I wish you the best of luck!! Tellyaddict 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
22 -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support an excellent user, who can certainly be trusted. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support. Not sure what you mean by "Like any good teacher" though. Voice-of-All 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Like the Wikipedia sysop, a teacher has disciplinary tools, too, but neither should wield their power to punish, but rather use them cautiously to help maintain an environment conducive to editing in the first case, and learning in the latter. It's just a parallel I noticed as a former teacher. Xiner (talk, email) 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. But what makes a Sysop analogous to a "teacher"? I suppose they should set a good example, but I wouldn't compare them to teachers. Voice-of-All 17:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but that, I'm afraid. It's not a complete analogy. Xiner (talk, email) 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. I would not compare sysops to teachers. I would compare us to ninjas. Or maybe pirates. Either are awesome. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Definitely Support. However, I am leaning slightly toward neutral. I reviewed this user in his first editor review, and the only problem I could find at that time was his philosophy on Wikipedia was dedicated solely to achieve success in his RfA. This has changed tremendously, and this user has evolved from a good contributor to a great, helpful Wikipedian. The emphasis on RfA in user's userpage is a bit uncomfortable for me, but it's rather irrevelant when the user's ability overwhelmes everything else. Good luck! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. High-quality user doing fine job at Wikipedia and also always willing to help at #wikipedia-en irc channel. West Brom 4ever 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support with absolutely no reservations. Yuser31415 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Dedicated, civil, unlikely to abuse tools. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Hendry1307 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support- Have seen him around. Great user, civil, helpful. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 21:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support, Xiner seems to be everywhere he goes, he gets around. Also a great helper! Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I think we have another excellent candidate here. James086^Talk 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
SupportUser:Brianherman
Support 82 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Great candidate, unlikely to abuse the tools. Hello32020 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Looks good and I'm not sure the oppose concerns are sufficient to oppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Helpful, great user. This is what admin should have. --Aleen f1 04:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support. The candidate is so kind and helpful, and very active at the HelpDesk. Arfan (Talk) 11:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
'Support Strong and experienced user. Seivad 12:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Not likely to abuse tools, good user. – riana_dzasta 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support everything I have seen of Xiner's work has been good, the comments in the oppose section are IMHO too minor to stop Xiner being sysopped - though (as Xiner as already noted) they can be taken as learning points. Good job. Cheers Lethaniol 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support → fine wikipedia, which has significantly contributed to XfDs. Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Good candidate, friendly fellow. Not to be overlooked is his wonderful taste in the alphabet! Xoloz 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
support --dario vet (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - very helpful at various WP:AN channels. Doesn't bite newcomers - on the contrary, smothers them. :P x42bn6 Talk 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I trust Xiner. Another one of those "I thought they were already an admin" types. --MECU≈talk 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Support: Xiner is an exemplary wikipedian, who is very knowledgeable about this project, and I fail to see why people below are opposed to an intelligent editor becoming a sysop. ~Step trip 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support per nom. > Kamope < 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Xupport ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Denny 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support (but remember, RFA sucks.) Jon Harald Søby 12:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - As I said below, oppose for now. Don't see any real reason to oppose this user now & I don't think he'll abuse the tools. ;) Spawn Man 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Seen him do lots of good work at the help desk — Lost^(talk) 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. WjBscribe 15:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, obviously. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Can we give him the tools yet?--Wizardman 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support I'd be mad to oppose, with so many good reasons to support as described above. Corvus coronoides 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Corvus coronoides. Acalamari 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Having looked at this user's contributions and his edit count, I believe that he fully deserves this position and all the tools that come with it. Zazzer 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Was very helpful when I requested help via helpmes; guided my initial growth to the independent Wikipedian I am today. Will do well as Admin. Ronbo76 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Better late than never Support —dgies^t_c 23:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

I generally resent wikipedians who spend 85% of their edits in talk pages. Our primary goal is creation of encyclopedia, not socializing, nor WikiLawyering. First three months them was a good contributor, and then turned into a politician. `'mikka 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you give examples? The talk page edits I saw myself appear entirely appropriate for creating an encyclopedia and his deletion and vandal hunting show he's not just talking, but actually working on the pedia too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask how you reached that conclusion? Over 3,000 of my edits are in mainspace and article talk. Xiner (talk, email) 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has made plenty of article edits (2329), many of wich appear useful. The high talk page edits are not that much of a problem. Would it be better if he made strictly less talk edits, thereby reducing the ratio? If a user makes many valuable contributions, whether they then make a large number of talk page edits on top of that (more so than some roughu minimal level), it doesn't seem to matter. Voice-of-All 17:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I was also editing Baiji last December, and Xiner's edits alarmed me on several occasions. 1) There was a discussion on whether to move the page. The desired destination already had a page with history there, so I put in a request at WP:RM. Xiner concurred, but he just did not get the mechanics of moving pages. Here: [62] I have to explain to him why we can't just move it as ordinary editors. (He does say above that he understands it now, which is great.) Here [63] [64] he copies discussion from the article talk page to the Requested Moves page. 2) In this discussion, I feel he failed to distinguish scientific from political statements. He then goes on to soapbox. 3) He has probably annoyed several editors with mass distribution of canned notices to "please use edit summaries." I got one even though I nearly always use edit summaries; I think he might have wanted me to add something to the default section header when adding comments to Talk pages. Having said all this, Xiner is a very hardworking editor and I feel he is an asset to the project. I don't think any of my objections are a huge deal individually, but put together they leave me with the feeling that this is someone I'd rather work with as a co-editor than as an admin. Kla'quot 08:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

About the page move and the edit summaries, anyone on the help desk can hopefully assure you that ~~6,000~~ over 7,000 edits later, I have a much firmer grasp of Wikipedia. Similarly with #2, I responded to your message without reading the revision first - again, almost four months and 7,000(?) edits ago. And for all the soapboxing, I did not change your version. Clayoquot, could I ask you for a favor - could you please review my more recent talk page activities? I would love it if you could change your mind about me. I will, for my part, keep a record of everyone who has disagreed with me from now on, so that I can ask them for an editor review periodically to try to address precisely these concerns. I have undertaken two editor reviews since mid-December, and I wish I had gotten comments such as these. Xiner (talk, email) 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen Xiner's work on the help desk and it shows a very clear understanding of WP policy. If this was not the case at one point, it certainly is the case now. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The incidents I was referring to are from less than three months ago, not four. You respond to constructive criticism very graciously, and I have reviewed your recent talk page edits as you requested. Looking only at your User Talk contributions from the past few days, I see several errors in judgement which have probably offended good, new users: 1) You removed this: [65] and left a "legal threat" notice on the user's talk page, even though it is very likely to be a good-faith notification to Wikipedia about someone who may not even have contributed yet. 2) This: [66] could easily be a good-faith edit and did not warrant a level 1 vandalism warning., 3) You warned an editor [67] who had passionately-expressed some opionions at the PRC page, but I cannot see how they constituted personal attacks or AGF violations. When I asked you above to explain your reasoning, your response was basically, "look at the user's contributions to the article." When asked to explain their actions, administrators should be much more clear and explicit. The No Personal Attacks policy covers interactions between contributors; edits to an article may be POV editing but are almost never personal attacks against a contributor. 4) As you know, I had to go into damage control mode here after your inappropriate warning yesterday. I would not oppose based on a few mistakes scattered across your edit history, but these are all things from the past four days, and taken with previous similar errors such as this one [68], I feel they demonstrate a pattern of admonishing users inappropriately. And I feel like nominating {{Template:Editsummary}} for deletion. Kla'quot 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:LEGAL again; edit warring and calling other users Communist censors stopped after my intervention, but you have provided valuable inputs which will be considered and implemented. Xiner (talk, email) 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Xiner. OK, now I see the where you got the "communist censor" idea from. Kla'quot 18:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)However, the editor didn't use those words and didnt' make any blatant personal attacks. For borderline things like this I think it is better to actually write a message than to use a canned warning template. Kla'quot 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You say you will be careful not be aggressive at WP:RFPP, which suggests you will be aggresive elsewhere. We don't need more aggressive admins. Tim! 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to give that impression; I didn't mean to imply that. Xiner (talk, email) 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that oppose vote is based on nothing except a play on words. Thedreamdied 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the fact that Tim! is an administrator and engaging in this sort of nonsense is upsetting. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not call other peoples comments nonsense. Tim! 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what it was... and by the way, my comment didn't come CLOSE to being a personal attack. Please don't vandalize my talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose for now~~→Changed to support above↑ - Edits like this worry me, especially if this user is going to be dealing with new editors as an admin often does. He later brags about it to another user here. Although the comment was made in a good humour, more sensitive "newbies" may take offense to its sexual connotations. In his optional statement, he says he would never make a bad faith edit or comment - "...Look, I'd have had a higher opinion of you if you didn't, say, insist on referring Cremepuff as a girl. Name-calling, with all due respect, is childish..." - Xiner made this comment to myself on the 3rd of March. I consider this bad faith as I was accidentally mistaken in thinking the user Cremepuff was a girl. I have a history of mistakenly calling girls boys & vice versa, yet the user condemned me before knwoing the full story. Indeed, the user was compelled into that thread of discussion by Cremepuff himself as per WP:CANVASS. Also, over 4K of his edits are made to user talk pages. It would be no problem for me if either his Wikipedia or main space edits were higher than his user talk edits, but this is not the case - Xiner has around 2K mainspace edits. I don't care if he's warning vandals or the like, other admins manage to keep their talk edits way down & main space edits way up - we are here to write an encyclopedia. Also, the proximity of this RfA until his last is too close for my liking. What has changed since the last RfA? Has the user learnt from it? With the RfA's this close, it's too hard to say... Thanks, Spawn Man 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is noted and appreciated. Xiner (talk, email) 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Mikka and others above. Xiner seems as focused on harassing people about edit summaries as actually contributing, if not more so. — CharlotteWebb 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is noted and appreciated. I've been including the short edit summary reminder along with greeting messages to new users only, and have been encouraged by responses about how they were unaware of the guideline. However, your comment provides fruit for thought and learning.Xiner (talk, email) 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To address this concern, please see this link as an example of the only kind of edit summary reminder I send nowadays. Xiner (talk, email) 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - First couple of oppose comments left me cold. I can't fully justify the adminship of someone who spends all their time arguing out changes in talk pages. I dislike that behaviour.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

My first impression of the user was not positive. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of KTVX translators, where sen nominated a page for deletion without notifying the original contributor, who is still active on the project. Debate then ensued on AfD, which would have been better suited for a talk page.) This isn't a good reason to oppose, however, and I have an open mind either way. Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(for reference, the AfD listing procedure)...As I'd explained in the AfD, I only put the article through AfD because 1) only three people had been participating in a merge discussion that'd impact multiple articles, the author nowhere to be seen; and 2) Cool Hand, you were the one who'd suggested AfD in the first place; and 3) after the AfD had started, it'd have been unwieldy to again move the discussion back to the article talk page. I'm really sorry you feel that way. Xiner (talk, email) 04:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, there were suggestions that the AfD be dropped midway through the discussions. I believed, however, that it'd have been more beneficial to talk it through, to find a compromise, and we did. Here is the message the author of the article wrote me after the debate. Xiner (talk, email) 12:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I answered you then specifically saying that I didn't blame you for nominating it, just your ongoing crusade to have it deleted even though it was easily going to be a no consensus. The end result to merge (with better format) was the original suggestion on the talk page. It's strange how personally you took the prosecution of that AfD (and continue to, apparently), but I've no doubt that you've learned from the experience which is why it's not reason to oppose. Cool Hand Luke 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I could do it again, I'd have tried harder to convince you of my good faith. I still do, and if I have to use this RfA or my talk page to convince you of that, I will. And as I said many times in the AfD, I didn't see it succeeding early on, and all I wanted was a good solution, which did emerge - based on a proposal I made. Xiner (talk, email) 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just please don't use hopeless AfD's to force debate; I've no doubt of your good faith. Cool Hand Luke 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is duly noted and much appreciated. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I sought out Xiner and asked him to "adopt" me because I was impressed with the answers he provided to me and others on the Help Desk. He has been a great mentor ever since. Given our "adoptor"/"adoptee" relationship, I am not formally registering a vote of support; I do not want there to be the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, I do think Xiner will make a good admin.--Vbd (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

COI is really another thing, at least in my opinion. Instead, since you probably knows Xiner well and you think he would became a good admin, support him formally ;-) Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Snowolf—COI is not an issue in this case. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Rklawton

Final (49/6/2); Ended 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton (talk • contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate Rklawton for adminship. He began editing on January 4th, 2006. I personally welcomed him and helped him on his way. Since then he has made over ~~15,000~~ 16,000 edits, and uploaded over 140 photos. He is currently active "sacking vandals" as he calls it, along with tagging articles and images for deletion as you can see here User:Rklawton/Tag. He is active on AFD and AIV. He has always been evenhanded and given everyone a fair chance. I think he is an excellent editor and will use the janitorial tools provided by adminship to the utmost. Ravedave 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept

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 participants:

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

A: I have been working with WP:CSD and WP:AFD for many months. Recently I've started reviewing images in the album covers category and related article pages (over 1,000 images to date). I've found many orphaned images and many more instances where these images have been used inappropriately. I've logged much of this work here. I haven't a clue why I take satisfaction in these efforts, but I do. Sysop privileges will allow me to complete these tasks without piling them onto another admin's plate.

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

A: I am most pleased with my original photographic contributions. When vandals start to get me down, I find digging through my archives an excellent remedy. I have received requests from publishers to reprint my images, and I'm always thrilled to stumble across an image someone else thought worthy.[69]

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

A: Yes. Early on I found conflicts very stressful and responded accordingly. With increasing familiarity with policies and guidelines, I've been able to more effectively communicate with fellow editors. Most significantly, however, I've learned to trust Wikipedians. That is, if I'm really sure of myself and I express myself clearly, then obviously other editors will agree, and it's only a matter of time before consensus swings my way. Trusting Wikipedia also means eating crow when that doesn't happen. The "Unwatch" feature can be a great stress reliever, too.

Optional Question(s) from Kuru ^talk

4. What is your current position on the domain of the G1 criteria for speedy deletions? How would you assess an article that was borderline G11?

A: G1 - Patent nonsense: G1 serves a useful purpose, but editors (myself included) often use it in cases of WP:SNOW rather than define the actual problem. I found myself using G1 less frequently as my familiarity with WP:CSD grew. Admins familiar with the CSD process shouldn't have difficulty sorting out improperly tagged articles, and they can help educate novice editors as needed. More significantly, Wikipedia might benefit from an interface enhancement that would allow editors to nominate recently created articles for deletion using a point-and-click interface and without having to read the CSD project page.

A: G11 - Blatant advertising: I think speedy deletion should only be used in obvious and not borderline cases. When evaluating a G11 candidate, I would prefer to either remove the offending material myself or evaluate the article under G12 (copyright violations), A7 (notability), or A1 (empty). If the article can't be deleted under any of these three, then the offending text may represent a difference of opinion. If so, it can be tagged for advertising and resolved editorially.

General comments

See Rklawton's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
I have been primarily active here at Wikipedia. However, I also have a few thousand edits in Wiktionary, Commons, and in Wikipedias spanning over 40 other languages all under the user name Rklawton. While I'm not fluent in anything but English, I am fortunate that a picture is worth a thousand words in any language. I won't clutter your talk pages with thank-you messages, so thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my RfA. While the tally for this RfA will be interesting, your comments will have by far the greatest impact on my work, and so thank you again for your comments and suggestions.
I'm unclear about exactly what objection Zleitzen has to Rklawton. The discourse he posted is civil, as far as I can tell. Civil disagreement is not against any Wikipedia policy or guideline. It doesn't make much difference, since it seems Rklawton will pass the vote easily, but I just wanted to voice my confusion as to Zleitzen's objection.K. Scott Bailey 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish to point out that Zleitzen's comments refer to a matter occurring 3,600 edits ago. Xoloz's objections concern a matter occurring 9,100 edits ago. Rklawton 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does this mean you would have handled the incidents differently? If so, how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cool Hand Luke (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
  - Yes to both.

Zoloz's case: had I to do it over again, I would have cited WP:SNOW in the AfD because that's shorthand for what I was trying to communicate and taken no further action. I didn't know about SNOW at the time, and my experience since June has shown me that while one admin may want to see an AfD go all five days, there are many others who would not.

Zleitzen's case: this has two main components. The first was the creation of a new category. I assumed the category would be discussed on its talk page and renamed if desired. I didn't expect to see the opening discussion take place on a CfD instead. However, Zleitzen (below) is correct. I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia's categorization efforts. Since this incident, I have refrained from creating any categories pending further effort on my part to learn more about the process. The second component, a tangent to the category I created, regarded a disagreement over whether or not Castro had been diagnosed as terminally ill. I thought then that "western intelligence sources" constituted a more reliable source than state run Cuban media. I still do. However, I found myself working against my own definition of the category I had just created – that a terminal condition be verifiable - in order to make a point about Cuban media, and that was just dumb on my part. What would I do differently regarding this point? I could promise not to make any more dumb mistakes (if only). The best I can muster with sincerity is a general assurance that I tend not to make the same mistake twice (800+ skydives notwithstanding). - Rklawton 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that most of the people in the opposition to Rklawton have little basis in anything other than very civil disagreements they had with him. If we disallowed every admin who had had some kind of civil disagreement with another Wikipedian, we would have no admins. Keep that in mind when you post opposition messages such as the ones below.K. Scott Bailey 04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given the user's 16k edits, I would be more surprised if there weren't any disagreements. User seems to have expressed his opinion in a reasonable, non-confrontational way. I'm satisfied with his response and have changed to support. - Meersan 17:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

IvoShandor, 6 March 2007 (UTC): I would say Strongly Support. Rklawton has been a pleasure to have around the wiki. His photographic contributions invaluable. Hey is an excellent dispute settler and manages a cool head when even the seemingly coolest Wikiholics lose their minds, I am, of course, talking about myself. Lawton's sufficient knowledge of WP policy has also contributed to his ability to settle disputes with otherwise annoying spammers and the like in a civil fashion. In addition he uses that knowledge not just to speak in others stead but to show other users what they need to know to explain policy in a rational manner.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
K. Scott Bailey 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Count me also as a Strongly Support. In my brief dealings with him, have found Rklawton to be a fine editor--very clear-headed and rational--and I feel he would make a superb admin.K. Scott Bailey 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Yup a really Good Choice..--Cometstyles 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Absolutely.↔NMajdan•talk 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Rklawton had shown a real dedication to the project, there is no question about his trustworthiness. Rje 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep on Ramblin' support The Rambling Man 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Geez, I thought I was going to get to nominate you. alphachimp 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Too slow! You can add a co-nominatorship above if you like. :) -Ravedave 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh, that's alright. Yours is just fine :) alphachimp 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support looks like an excellent candidate. Particularly liked the answer to Q3, though never heard of "eating crow"! --Dweller 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support. Xoloz makes a good point, you're argumentative. But that's a good thing in moderation. I looked over the your talkpage and think that for the amount of work you do you have had an acceptably low amount of controversy. Mind the deletion and copyright policies, and you should be fine. - NYC JD (make a motion) 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Support. An experienced photographer with excellent knowledge :-)--NAHID 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Michael 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Dedicated to the project, unlikely to abuse admin tools. I read through the CfD links Zleitzen mentioned; I believe civility was maintained throughout. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Impressive contributions, cool demeanor. Sandstein 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This was Heywool's 4th edit to Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support - Looks OK, but Xoloz's comments worry me a bit. While I hate process wonkery, you need to be clear about CSD reasons as its such a rapid process and can leave new users confused and frustrated. Linking to the right CSD policy is very helpful.Voice-of-All 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, Xoloz's issue, as he noted, seems to be quite some time ago. Mr. Lawton seems to have much more experience at this point with minimal conflicts. I must be missing something in Zleitzen's oppose - that looked like fairly civil discourse. A ton of vandal mopping and a regular at AIV, along with significant encyclopedia building to balance it. Kuru ^talk 02:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Kuru.-- danntm ^T _C 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support -- "Support" because he's been a steady, civil contributor to Wikipedia and "strong" because of the kindness and encouragement I've seen him give in the to newcomers discouraged by their articles' speedy deletions. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised by Zleitzen's oppose comments below, so I read the diffs and the CfD discussion. While I don't totally agree with Rklawton, I thought he had a reasonable position which he asserted civilly in the talk page discussion with Zleitzen. As for the CfD, the majority consensus was "delete", but it was not unanimous. Several other editors wanted to keep the category but just rename it. I wouldn't have thought we needed a category for dying people but Rklawton did offer some interesting reasons (besides ghoulishness) why certain niches of readers could use such a category and I probably would have recommended keeping the category (but renaming it). (As for Castro, I agree with Zleitzen -- people have been wishing him a terminal condition for 50 years and he's still around.) --A. B. ^(talk) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: A good user and very active in XfDs and AIV. --Meno25 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support: Upon review of your talk pages and contributions, I feel you would have adequate use for the administrative tools. --Ozgod 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Anas ^Talk? 08:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Very strong support, I have had some conversations with this user and he impressed me by his profound knowledge, experience and kindness. He deserves to use the sysop. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support Rklawton does great work at WP:AFD, a very reasoned user who has done tremendous work on the wiki (I actually offered a nomination for adminship a few weeks ago). Regarding civility, he has been aware of this issue for some time and has made a very active step to stop this which can only be commended Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support per above. Yuser31415 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per above. Jonathunder 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I have seen his work and approve accordingly. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support Good user, but some big concerns raised. However, the concerns do not warrant opposition. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I'm not holding previous disagreements noted below or 800+ skydives against him. --Dual Freq 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Confident he'll use the tools wisely. Seems to have learned from previous situations mentioned by opposers. Be a swabber and handy with a mop. Pig^man_dialogue 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Per answers to questions on speedy deletions. Seivad 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - Per response to items raised by User:Xoloz and User:Zleitzen. Occasional disagreements between editors are inevitable for someone who's so active. Key is that the user consistently handles himself in a low-drama, professional way and is willing to listen and learn. Impressive contributions; promotion will benefit WP. - Meersan 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Reasonable answers to concerns which kept me neutral. -- Renesis (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Support John254 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
support --dario vet (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support User:ronbo76 - Rklawton's edits are trusted ones in my journeys across Wikipedia; does great work for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois; and, been kind to me on WikiCommons. Ronbo76 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Rklawton will make an effective admin. I have interacted with him a number of times and have generally been impressed with his work. The one area he should be careful of is knowing when a disagreement isn't worth continuing. Sometimes its better to make your case and walk away rather than continue a discussion when it becomes obvious you are not going to change the other party's mind. If you can curb the tendency to always want the last word, you'll be a better admin. Good luck, Gwernol 20:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Terence Ong 14:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - I've disagreed with him before myself, but he strikes me as someone with good judgement who wouldn't abuse his admin tools in disputes. Savidan 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per Meersan now. feydey 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Support per the above; a good well-rounded person, it appears. - Denny 09:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
support because of many beautiful images uploaded and hard work to clear away vandalisms he will be a good administrator yuckfoo 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Incident raised by Xoloz was nearly 9 months ago. I think its fair to say Rklawton has learned from the experience (see general comments). Recent contribs show no problems. WjBscribe 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support With his solid contributions and good answers, I feel comfortable handing Rklawton the big, shiny buttons... -- Scientizzle 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Patstuart^talk·edits 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support, let's just give him the tools.--Wizardman 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm an hour and a half late, but as the crats haven't closed this yet, I'll just sneak in another support :) – riana_dzasta 16:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Back in June, editor misunderstood deletion criteria, and engaged in a brusque discussion with me over why "hoaxes" are not speedy deleted [70]. I certainly hope he has gotten a firmer grasp of deletion policy since then; but that isn't the reason for my oppose here. Mr. Lawton demeanor is more my concern, especially his attempt at rules-lawyering. I realize this was some time ago; and so, I'm open to persuasion. Generally, however, editors who become so irritated over simple deletion questions do not make good admins. Xoloz 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose My only interaction with Rklawton makes me question this editor's judgement. Rklawton recently created the clearly unencyclopedic Category:Dying. When I offered it for discussion, Rklawton proceeded to my talk page to demand that I retract the CFD. Having challenged the category, and the placement of Fidel Castro within (where I spotted the ill-placed category), Rklawton reverted to restore the misplaced cat with a bad faith edit summary, and I was tersely informed by Rklawton on my talk that Castro was indeed terminally ill, that I was wrong to contest this whole business and that I should "take official Cuban statements with a pinch of salt"; which I found pretty patronising given my 10,000+ edits to the complex subject so far. Various unnecessary, timewasting exchanges ensued. Anyway, the category was rightfully deleted and universally opposed - also, of course, Castro is not and has never been diagnosed as terminally ill. I was left with the impression of an editor who makes some erratic and poor judgements, and when challenged is very reluctant to back down.
To clarify (given some of the comments above); Poor judgement, whether civil or not, is still poor judgement.
- Creating a really poorly defined Category:Dying
- Not accepting its entry to Category for discussion and demanding its removal
- Reverting and restoring the inclusion of an obviously contentious figure to the obviously flawed category showing a hazy view of category policy
- Arguing the toss about it on my talk page for some time and not at the appropriate forum.
I view all these elements as evidence of someone whose judgement I do not trust when trying to compile an accurate encyclopedia.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Poorly defined" is a quality judgement on your part (and the category was NOT "universally opposed, by the way), and your disagreement with User:Rklawton on this ONE MATTER hardly seems adequate to oppose a nomination. I have read through the discussion you posted, and I did not see any hot-headedness from User:Rklawton, nor even any points that could accurately be described as him "demanding" you do something. He was simply disagreeing with you, which is not against ANY policy here at Wikipedia. However, you have chosen to oppose the nomination of User:Rklawton, and that is your right. I simply respectfully--and adamantly--disagree with your choice.K. Scott Bailey 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am perfectly within my rights to oppose a nominator because I believe he made a series of poor judgements in the past. By the way here's where RKlawton demands that I retract a perfectly reasonable and successful cfd - "Now, would you please retract your CfD nomination?". But that whole exchange, initiated by Rklawton was so strange - at one point he was quoting WP:V at me over Castro's supposed terminal illness [71] - at another he asks me "Do you accept only the Communist Party line?"[72] after my insistence that Castro has not been diagnosed as terminal, which is quite uncivil to be honest given the circumstances of the subject matter.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to reconcile "Will you plese retract your CfD" with your claim that he "demanded" you do so. The former is civil, the latter less so. Again, it seems that you may be constructing the proverbial mountain out of a molehill. That's unfortunate, but certainly within your rights. As it appears it will be impossible to convince you to reconsider your vote, I retire from the discussion. K. Scott Bailey 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessing an editor's judgement concerning categories and WP:V in respect to the editor potentially being an administrator is one reason why we are commenting here. My opinion is based on my subjective assessment that this editor didn't have good judgement re:categories and WP:V and I have provided examples. You are well advised to retire, because your arguing against my subjective assessment has served no purpose.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The only point I wish to make is to show objectively (not subjectively) that Rklwaton's actual WORDS don't match up well with your subjective INTERPRETATION of them. He chose very mild words ("Would you please retract") while you choose to interpret them in a much more harsh way (as a "demand"). My point is that non-vested reader of the discussion would not interpret his words as a "demand." You're within your rights to misinterpret his words. I'm also within my rights to point out what he actually wrote as opposed to your categorization of what he wrote. (And for the record, I had no prior long-standing friendship with Rklawton. I've been simply trying to approach this RfA from as unbiased of a viewpoint as possible. In so doing, I've come to support his candidacy, based solely on the facts at hand.)K. Scott Bailey 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - the above diffs demonstrate that the user is heavy-handed and is searching for a fight, when all along the category that he attempted to create was inappropriate and would not have gained popular support. - Richardcavell 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The above diffs demonstrate nothing of the sort. They simply demonstrate a civil disagreement between two Wikipedians. Nothing more, nothing less. I would also advise this opposer to abide by the initial request for the comments to be constructive and polite.K. Scott Bailey 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. My decision to oppose remains. - Richardcavell 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, based on the incidents above and my own experiences with this user. — CharlotteWebb 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my RfA. In order to gain a better understanding of your objections, I searched Google for instances where our user names might appear on the same Wikipedia page, but I found nothing relevant.[73] Could you perhaps point to some diffs related to your objections? Rklawton 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your search is unreliable (not to mention slightly creepy). For example, the Google results do not seem to include any of your spurious AFD nominations, of which I remember this one most clearly (though, with nearly 30,000 edits between us, surely other examples exist). So the AFD didn't turn out the way you wanted, opinions differed and nobody shared yours, nor did they share your desire to continue the debate on the article's talk page [74] [75]. Your overall deletionism, combined with your inability to accept defeat with some degree of grace, combined with the trigger-happy attitude you exhibited in your discussion with Xoloz, combined with the fact that your RFA will probably pass regardless of what I have to say, makes me uncomfortable. — CharlotteWebb 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "creepy" about trying to get to the bottom of a very vague statement of opposition.K. Scott Bailey 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Other people have concerns of this editors personal demeanor and I share them.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per the above, specifically the concerns addressed by Xoloz. Perhaps later. RFerreira 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral, concerned about the candidate's demeanor per Xoloz after reading the situation on Zleitzen's talk page, and the RFA answers have not given me enough to feel better about it. Article and image contributions, however, seem outstanding. -- Renesis (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Switched to support following reponses to various concerns. -- Renesis (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. Seems to have very little activity in Wikipedia talk space, which is where a large amount of admin work is done. While the User talk count is quite high (about 1/4 of total edits), I also have some concerns about issues raised by Xoloz. Therefore, I can not offer support, but I don't find anything worth opposing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Won't go so far as to oppose neutral per concerns raised by Xoloz and Zleitzen. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - I would like to see Rklawton's response to the items raised by Xoloz and Zleitzen, what he would do differently in hindsight, if anything, and how he would react to similar situations now. I'm prepared to change to a support once that occurs. - Meersan 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed to support - Meersan 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral per the suggestion of Meersan. feydey 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed to support feydey 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to earlier successful nominations

In chronological order, newest first

Orderinchaos78, Seraphimblade, John Reaves, Ryanpostlethwaite, AuburnPilot, Veinor, Jesse Viviano, Harryboyles, Bubba hotep, Adam Cuerden, Georgewilliamherbert

[edit] February 2005

Timrollpickering, Utcursch, 21 February 2005 Improv, 19 February 2005 Rje, 16 Feb 2005 Grutness, 15 Feb 2005 Dbenbenn, 13 Feb 2005 refdoc, 11 Feb 2005 Rich Farmbrough, 9 Feb 2005 Icairns, 3 Feb 2005

[edit] January 2005

Omegatron, Piotrus, Curps, Alteripse, Jni, Gabbe, Dbiv, Vague Rant, Fvw, BrokenSegue, Watpohl, Edward, Sortior, Rholton, Tim Ivorson

[edit] December 2004

Urhixidur, Premediated Chaos, Mackeriv, Duk, Geni, AllyUnion, PedanticallySpeaking, Brockert, Solipsist, Tkinias, PZFUN, JonMoore, Gadfium, Ferkelparade, Rfl, Taxman, GeneralPatton, Malcolm Farmer, Wernher, RedWordSmith, Mustafaa, Woggly, Dino, MacGyverMagic

[edit] November 2004

Jpgordon, Dmn, Timc, Zoicon, CSTAR, KF, Maury Markowitz, Gamaliel, ClockworkSoul, Jeronimo, Aris_Katsaris, Karada, Wapcaplet, Derek Ross, DanKeshet, Ortolan88, Joy Stovall, DF08, Hyacinth, Ran, COgden, Dbachmann, Lachatdelarue, duncharris, Violetriga, Aranel, SWAdair

[edit] October 2004

Ludraman, Spencer195, Cool Hand Luke, Ffirehorse, Rhobite, CyborgTosser, Ta bu shi da yu, Hawstom, Gwalla, Neutrality, Slowking Man, Jallan, Fire Star, ALoan, Matt Crypto, Rdsmith4

[edit] September 2004

CryptoDerk, Mackensen, Postdlf, Golbez, Chuq, Benc, Nichalp, Proteus, Chmod007

For earlier successful nominations, see Archives below

[edit] Candidacies not promoted

These are now on their own page, in alphabetical order, at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies

[edit] Archives

Older nominations are not archived, but can be found in the page history:

RfAs before 14 June 2003 were done on the mailing list and are listed at RfA chronological.
All post-Mailing list RfAs (starting 14 June 2003) are listed and linked at RfA chronological.
27 Jul 2003 - 3 Sep 2003
- jlk7e, Paul A, Modemac, Nanobug (Wikiquote), Jwrosenzweig, Dysprosia, Patrick, Dgrant, Noel, Viajero, Alex756, Marshman, Adam Bishop, Heron, Nanobug, Llywrch, Vancouverguy, Schneelocke, Ahoerstemeier, Pcb21, J.J., Cyan, Tompagenet, Stevertigo, Chadloder, Mintguy, RickK, Zippy, Fantasy
Sep 17, 2003 - 13 Nov 2003
- Ihcoyc, Morwen, Dori, Pratyeka, DavidLevinson, Christopher Mahan, Secretlondon, Tristanb, Muriel Gottrop, Daniel Quinlan, Evil saltine, Arwel Parry, Snoyes, Jakenelson, sugarfish, Stan Shebs, Ark30inf, Efghij, Fuzheado, John Kenney aka jlk7e, Paul A, Modemac, Nanobug (Wikiquote), Jwrosenzweig, Dysprosia, Patrick
3 Oct 2003 - Dec 10, 2003
- Andres, Bcorr, Timwi, Raul654, Evercat, Ugen64, Pakaran, Dieter Simon, WhisperToMe, 168..., Michael Hardy, Khym Chanur, Ihcoyc, Morwen, Dori, Pratyeka, DavidLevinson, Christopher Mahan, Secretlondon, Tristanb, Muriel Gottrop, Daniel Quinlan, Evil saltine, Arwel Parry, Snoyes, Jakenelson, sugarfish, Stan Shebs, Ark30inf
2 Dec 2003 - 4 Feb 2004
- RobLa, Noldoaran, Hemanshu, CatherineMunro, ike9898, Roadrunner, Meelar, Sarge Baldy, Seglea, Kaihsu, Jamesday, Danny, Morven, Imran, LouI, Lord Emsworth, Silsor, Caltrop, Silsor, Salsa Shark, Optim, Bmills, Maximus Rex, Docu, Finlay McWalter, SimonP, Andres, Bcorr, Timwi, Raul654, Evercat, Ugen64, Pakaran, Dieter Simon, WhisperToMe, 168..., Michael Hardy, Khym Chanur
3 Feb 2004 - 10 Mar 2004
- Pollinator, Hajor, Chris Roy, Moncrief, Dale Arnett, Mic, moink, Seth Ilys, Gaz, Fabiform, Flockmeal, Alex S, Merovingian, Jay, Lexor, Visorstuff, Wesley, pfortuny, Isomorphic, Yacht, Mkmcconn, Texture, David Newton, Arvindn, RadicalBender, Hadal, Francs2000, Tillwe, RedWolf, ChrisO, DavidWBrooks, Jengod, RobLa, Noldoaran, Hemanshu, CatherineMunro, ike9898, Roadrunner, Meelar, Sarge Baldy, Seglea, Kaihsu
17 Feb 2004
- Mikkalai, KRS, Stewartadcock, Charles Matthews, Warofdreams
10 March 2004 - 6 Apr 2004
- UtherSRG, Cecropia, Exploding Boy, Sj, Sverdrup, Decumanus, Fennec, Andrewa, Mkweise, DJ Clayworth, Bearcat, Pollinator, Hajor, Chris Roy, Moncrief, Dale Arnett, Mic, moink, Seth Ilys, Gaz, Fabiform
Apr 10 - 20 Apr 2004
- Mark Richards, Rbrwr, Chancemill, Dcoetzee, SD6-Agent, Catbar, Hcheney, XJamRastafire, Michael Snow, Earl Andrew, Gentgeen, UninvitedCompany, Nohat, Zero0000, Roozbeh, Ww, Stevenj, Dpbsmith
20 April 2004 - 31 May 2004
- Dwindrim (Denni), VampWillow, Davodd, OldakQuill, Johnleemk, JCarriker, AndyL, Oberiko, Diberri, David Gerard, PMA, Elf, Jrdioko, Niteowlneils, Mirv, Bkonrad, Tom-, Jerzy, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Lowellian, Nunh-huh, Wile E. Heresiarch, Guanaco, Andrew Yong, Jfdwolff, Everyking, Jmabel, David.Monniaux, Cyrius, AlainV, MykReeve, Chris 73, Mark Richards, Rbrwr, Chancemill, Dcoetzee, SD6-Agent, Catbar, Hcheney, XJamRastafire
2 June - 22 July 2004
- Stormie, DropDeadGorgias, Kim Bruning, Robin Patterson, Lupo, Snowspinner, Andris, Ed g2s, Thue, Hypernovean, Ssd, Quadell, Ambivalenthysteria, Mark, Markalexander100, Cutler, Blankfaze, Rmhermen, Davidcannon, Fredrik, Dwindrim (Denni), VampWillow, Davodd, OldakQuill, Johnleemk, JCarriker, AndyL, Oberiko, Diberri, David Gerard, PMA, Elf
23 July - 28 Aug 2004
- Jayjg, Academic Challenger, Kate, Gtrmp, TheCustomOfLife, Frazzydee, Siroxo, Rossami, PFHLai, Grunt, Ezhiki, Sewing, Rhymeless, ContiE, Geogre, Shallot (Joy), Topbanana, Rlandmann, Stormie, DropDeadGorgias, Kim Bruning, Robin Patterson, Lupo, Snowspinner
29 Aug - 29 Sept 2004
- Postdlf, Golbez, Chuq, Benc, Nichalp, Proteus, David Remahl, CJCurrie, Zoney, Gerald Farinas, Andrevan, Arminius, Jayjg, Academic Challenger, Kate, Gtrmp, TheCustomOfLife

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/c/Wikipedia%7ESuccessful_adminship_candidacies_3360.html"

Categories: Successful requests for adminship | Wikipedia logs

Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Most recent successful nominations

[edit] Waggers

[edit] Casliber

[edit] WJBscribe

[edit] ^demon

[edit] SGGH

[edit] Michaelas10

[edit] MichaelBillington

[edit] Oldelpaso

[edit] CMummert

[edit] Rebelguys2

[edit] Wafulz

[edit] AzaToth

[edit] Alison

[edit] Shimeru

[edit] Natalie Erin

[edit] Xiner

[edit] Rklawton

[edit] Links to earlier successful nominations

[edit] February 2007

[edit] January 2007

[edit] December 2006

[edit] November 2006

[edit] October 2006

[edit] September 2006

[edit] August 2006

[edit] July 2006

[edit] June 2006

[edit] May 2006

[edit] April 2006

[edit] March 2006

[edit] February 2006

[edit] January 2006

[edit] December 2005

[edit] November 2005

[edit] October 2005

[edit] September 2005

[edit] August 2005

[edit] July 2005

[edit] June 2005

[edit] May 2005

[edit] April 2005

[edit] March 2005

[edit] February 2005

[edit] January 2005

[edit] December 2004

[edit] November 2004

[edit] October 2004

[edit] September 2004

[edit] Candidacies not promoted

[edit] Archives

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search

In other languages