Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Asturianu
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs) at 12:30, 7 February 2007 (rm Somitho's rfa. candidate withdrew). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gay Cdn | 43 | 35 | 0 | 55 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Moreschi | 72 | 17 | 0 | 81 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Garion96 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Shadow1 | 68 | 16 | 0 | 81 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
MER-C | 100 | 57 | 0 | 64 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
AnemoneProjectors | 46 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 01:29, 10 February 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Arjun01 | 111 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Geniac | 28 | 3 | 0 | 90 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Carabinieri | 54 | 4 | 0 | 93 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Kafziel | 98 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gay Cdn | 43 | 35 | 0 | 55 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Moreschi | 72 | 17 | 0 | 81 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Garion96 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Shadow1 | 68 | 16 | 0 | 81 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
MER-C | 100 | 57 | 0 | 64 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
AnemoneProjectors | 46 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 01:29, 10 February 2007 | 0 hours | no | report |
Arjun01 | 111 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Geniac | 28 | 3 | 0 | 90 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Carabinieri | 54 | 4 | 0 | 93 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Kafziel | 98 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
The Night Watch | RfA | Successful | 11 Feb 2024 | 215 | 63 | 13 | 77 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 10:07:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Gay Cdn
Final (43/35/6); Ended Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:00:35 UTC
Gay Cdn (talk · contribs) - I'd like to nominate Gay Cdn for adminship. He is a hard worker on Wikipedia and does an unbelievable job with images. Patrolling unused images is largely a thankless maintenance task and Gay Cdn's work does a tremendous service for Wikipedia. I have found him to always be polite and have found him to have a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures, as demonstrated on WP:IFD. Gay Cdn would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an admin and his adminship would give us another person to help out in an area that is in dire need of knowledgeable admins. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, BigDT 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination
- 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:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I anticipate there will be three main areas I will work on initially. First, dealing with the backlog of nominations at WP:IFD given that as a nominator, I have helped contribute to that backlog. Second, I will work on speedy deletions, especially around the issues of {{db-attack}} images and articles. I believe that these attack deletions are paramount given the potential harm. Third, I will work around the backlog of nominations at WP:AFD.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: The contribution to Wikipedia that I am most pleased with would be the admin-like work I have done around the IfD, AfD, Prod and New pages patrol. These contributions are more "administrative" and play to my organizational and process skills. The article I am the most pleased about my contribution would be Foundation for Equal Families. This article was one I created from scratch and I will freely admit it is less then feature status. My strengths are not within the writing and composing of articles.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: There have been a couple of conflicts earlier in my time at Wikipedia. These conflicts generally dealt with my nomination of an article on AfD. The main discussions which appeared on my talk page I moved to a sub page, User:Gay Cdn/archive uncivil, a page I set up early in my time here and discontinued quite a while back. The article and Afd at the base of the main issue are List of people associated with San Francisco and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from San Francisco between myself and User:Badbilltucker. The interactions, which were 6 months ago, between the two of us did get a bit out of hand, but I did tried to suggest we take a step back in my note in the Afd. My main mechanism to deal with stress and conflict is to make sure my thought process is based on policy and guidelines.
Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. What are each of the five pillars of Wikipedia and why is each one important?
- A: The five pillars are the underpinning processes that allow for consensus and growth of Wikipedia.
- First and foremost, is that WP is an encyclopaedia. It is a tertiary source – it is not about publishing your thesis or reporting on the news. Second, is a neutral point of view. Understanding there is no right or only way. Different and at time opposing views on a topic can and should exist in an article. The main thing to remember is the need for verification and to have reliable sources for that verification. Third, that WP is free. That WP is for everyone, by everyone. People can use the content of WP, including your contributions, for any purpose. Fourth, there is a code of conduct expected of all. The community operates by working together. Activities and contributions that are not in the best interest of the community simply disrupt the work being done. One point to remember is that the written word only conveys a fraction of the message. Fifth, there are no firm rules. Consensus is the basis of WP and only works when people can challenge and discuss the status quo. The way the content expands and grows is by people being bold, but at the same time willing to work towards consensus in the face of objections.
- 5. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
- A: Wheel waring is bad for three main reasons:
- First, just like any edit war, it makes the article or subject difficult for others to work on or with. Second, it can become externally divisive and counter-productive to reaching consensus. Third, while in fact admins have no elevated status to any other user, they are sometimes seen, especially to newer users, to be the face of decision making. Given this image, it is difficult to convince users to build consensus when admins can not do it themselves.
- 6. Who has the authority to ban users?
- A: The authority to ban a user is primarily done by the Arb Com as a remedy in arbitration. As I expected, as the founder Jimbo Wales also can ban a user. It is equally unsurprising that the Foundation can also ban users, but as stated it has yet to happen here at English Wikipedia. While possible, a community ban is unlikely to happen organically on an article talk page; it would likely form around a request for arbitration.
- General comments
- See Gay Cdn'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: I've had the pleasure of observing the work of this individual, and he has always shown great diligence in the tasks he takes care of. He'd be a great administrator. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seen him on AFD, and liked what I've seen there. Wouldn't it be nice for someone who adds so many {prods} to have the chance to clean it all up as well? I trust him with the tools, and as we all know Adminship is not a big deal. --Mnemeson 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support as nominator. Gay Cdn does a ton of great work now with some of the backlogs. Take a look at that administrative backlogs - we need more administrators with experience in this area. He would be a valuable asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --BigDT 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Writing articles has nothing to do with adminship - dealing consistently with hundreds of problem images does. It sounds like this user will be a great asset to the admin ranks. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the comments in the oppose section, the scope of his editing is not what we should be judging; it is his capability to carry out the things listed in q1 that we should be judging. And he looks capable, so support. Picaroon 01:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What someone says in Q1 does not always replicate when he/she becomes an admin. I know for a fact that many admins have dabbed into other territories when they had stated in their RfA that they would not participate in X.X section. Nishkid64 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to look at where this user has contibuted. S/he is doing admin work currently, work that needs more people working on it, but without the admin bit. I see lots of RfA nominees that primarily focus on vandalism, and while they get many of the same complaints about lack of article contributions, there seems to be less resistance to giving them the mop than for people who specialize in more neglected areas, such as the image backlog. This is too bad because while we have an army of vandal fighters (good thing) and lots of tools to make non-admins pretty efficient at it (good thing), the project is sorely lacking in other areas, such as the image backlog (bad thing) where not being an admin adds a great deal of inefficiency (bad thing). Also, from the nominee's extensive experience, I certainly feel comfortable that if Gay does dabble in other admin areas s/he will do so with care and restraint. —Doug Bell talk 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What someone says in Q1 does not always replicate when he/she becomes an admin. I know for a fact that many admins have dabbed into other territories when they had stated in their RfA that they would not participate in X.X section. Nishkid64 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Good user, but needs to step it up in article contributions. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In my dealing with this user thru IFD, I fully trust them with the mop. --MECU≈talk 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm not so fussed about article-writing given that he shows a need for the tools. I would be more hesitant if there was some evidence of true deletionism, but tagging lots of speedy deletions is not inherently deletionist. —Cuiviénen 03:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work. WP:IFD and WP:AFD surely need more admins.--Húsönd 04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I can edit count with the best of them, but I also recognize where some users provide needed contributions in narrow areas that would benefit from the admin bit. The focus on dealing with the large backlog in images is certainly one of those areas. His discretion between tagging items with PROD or speedy tags shows an understanding of the relevant policies. Frankly, although I haven't interacted with this editor before, this is exactly the type of admin we need more of. Not every admin needs to participate in all areas. Give him a mop. —Doug Bell talk 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support article writing is not a part of admin work, dealing with the stuff you do is. Good luck ViridaeTalk 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Husond. riana_dzasta 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This user concentrates on the tasks he does best, and I see no evidence that he is not qualified to be trusted with tools. - Gilliam 09:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, will make an excellent admin. —Angr 10:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 10:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seen his IFD stuff from time to time, and it always seems sensible. And I usually trust Angr's judgement. Proto::► 11:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I like your answers. I also like your edit count. You seem determined and willing to go the extra mile (even though you forgot to sign your acceptance). I also trust BigDT's judgment. Best of luck. Ganfon 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.irony mode on:....if you pledge to help to bring down the image backlogs irony mode off; Lectonar 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Willing and able to put his nose to the grindstone, concerns raised below are trivial or counterfactual. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nothing but positive experiences with this caring user. I also trust his judgment more than I trust that of many of the other people who tag IFDs. Dekimasuが... 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - someone with over 13000 edits, strong experience of policy, active participation in AfDs, prods etc? How can anyone not vote Support on this RfA? All of the criticisms given by opposers, so far, are downright trivial and petty. Walton monarchist89 16:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - most admins don't help out with the image backlogs, so there is a strong need for people in this area. 100,000 images are not going to tag and delete themselves and bots can only do so much. BJTalk 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - We don't need admins to write impressive articles, take nice photos, or participate in AfD; regular users can do that. We need admins to do the tedious stuff that he's willing to do. There's nothing wrong with a specialist. Kafziel Talk 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I'm willing to support the nominee. I had certainly noticed the candidate in the first few months since the account was created, it doesn't surprise me to now see this nomination. I agree that the low number of mainspace edits may be of some concern, but on considering all the circumstances, I think the nominee's overall contribution demonstrates that the candidate is trustworthy and will use the tools properly. Agent 86 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and there's nothing wrong with a specialist. Nothing left to add to that.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have no problem with a specialist becoming an admin, as long as they promise to use their powers mainly in their "home" area. I see no reason to question that here. People should to contribute how they best see fit. Royalbroil T : C 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I would prefer more article writing but as far as I can tell the user is trustworthy, won't abuse the tools and won't use them outside his narrow domain. Within his domain the user has a large amount of experience and so far has been using tags fine. JoshuaZ 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Article writing is a plus but not a litmus test. Gay Cdn seems trustworthy and wants to work on a backlogged area. —Celithemis 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, focused editor would make focused admin, I have much trust in nominator and see no real reason to oppose Gay Cdn, after all, this is no big deal, right? The Rambling Man 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -- I don't see how a lack of article writing should have anything to do with whether someone is made an administrator or not. Sysop abilities have nothing to do with article writing. In fact, this user would probably make more use of sysop tools than someone who spends more of their time writing articles. Neither does edit count have anything to do with whether someone should be given sysop. RfAs are meant to be about whether someone can be trusted with the tools, and this user obviously can. I do not believe that this user being given the tools would detract anything from Wikipedia, and so I obviously support. Anyone else find the tradition of bolding opinions rather strange? Oh well. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- based on BigDT's comments below[1] about his extensive experience working with Gay Cdn on IfD. --A. B. (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, we could need an image specialist as an admin. Can't see any evidence that tools will be abused. Kusma (討論) 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gnomes tend to make good admins. We should not a priori assume he's going to abuse anything since there's no evidence of that at all. >Radiant< 09:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on his experience in the deletion process. YechielMan 04:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- eSupport- an excellent editor, good username also Astrotrain 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I do not understand the oppose votes - this is about adminship and not an competition to select a new renaissance genius. Without GayCdn IfD would be moribund. If that's not enough I can't imagine what kind of miracle is expected from a would-be admin. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Doug Bell and Christopher Parham, albeit without much enthusiasm for the reasons noted by Blnguyen (and Jeff); there's nothing wrong with specialisation and, per Q1, the candidate proposes to stick largely to their speciality. Still, all IFD and no article writing makes even the Gayest Cdn a dull editor. Try adding a bit of variety. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - I'm not going to oppose because the % in mainspace edits is low, but focus on the actual number itself. It could still be better, but I don't take that as an indicator that I won't be able to trust him/her with admin tools. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Gay Cdn work at WP:IFD is greatly appreciated. He has tagged many orphan, unencyclopedic and incorrectly tagged images for deletion. I believe his work is fair and even-handed and his discussions on the deletions are intelligent and civil. We can sure use more help on keeping up with all the non-sourced, non-copyright tagged, orphan and/or encyclopedic images that come in every day and I believe Gay Cdn would be an asset in that area. -Nv8200p talk 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I've seen this user at WP:IFD regularly and I'd defiitely trust him with the mop, the user always seems to be polite and Civil.TellyaddictEditor review! 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why The Hell Not? Ral315 (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per user:.V. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Trustworthy contributor. He will no doubt do good work on the various backlogs, allowing others who want to develop mainspace conent to have more time to do so. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and his contributions seem to have been valuable. Adminship is no big deal. WjBscribe 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose sorry, but [2] speaks volumes to me- the only interest taken in articles is to delete them, or put tags on them and Wikipedia is already flooded in tags. I've deleted hundreds of articles myself, but constructing articles is important. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an Admin, I delete at least 100 times more content then I add, probably much more. To me that's what being an Admin is about. We've got a few hundred thousand people adding content and only a few hundred Admins to keep it all in balance. I believe Gay Cdn has the temperment and enough experience to do the job. -Nv8200p talk 14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. 2300 edits in "main" space, if one includes images; only 600ish edits of actual articles. Only uploaded 2 images that I can easily see. Not enough expereince dealing with what most editors have to deal with all the time, including working on controversial articles and attempting to obtain quality images which meet Wikipedia's rather difficult and overly-narrowly interpreted requirements. GayCdn does seem to reasonable about his IfD nominations, and willing to discuss reasonably, which puts him ahead of many WP deletionists. Spend some time editing articles and finding images for them, and I'll support later. Argyriou (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per CanadianCaesar, good np patroler, lack of article writing, the answer for number 2 is very poor. Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. --Peta 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per CanadianCaesar. Everyking 05:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Lack of article writing, and lack of RC patrol, which is even more important than NP patrol (any new articles are logged on RC, in case you are wondering). That besides, I don't (pardon me) appreciate your answer to q2. You don't seem very apologetic about your lack of article writing; if you were, I might have considered a support. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering all the other admin related tasks he takes on, why is RC patrol so important? Article writing is something some people don't enjoy. I myself have only started a few stubs, done a couple of merges of articles and started the article Brooke Brodack, which has taken on a life of its own because of her publicity. The only major major article edit I have done was of Gene therapy. However I don't believe that has meant I have suffered as an admin. Wikipedia has grown to the point that we no longer need every single user to be reguarly editing articles/adding content. Indeed, these days we have more of a need of admins who know what they are doing with images than article writers, there are admin backlogs all over the place (and I confess I haven't been doing much to help out these days, honours has started and I generally devote most of my time to that) and having admins that are prepared to use the tools doing menial tasks is very much required as most admin tasks involve just that, we do not/cannot use the tools to write great articles, we use them to keep the encyclopedia free of debris, be it vandalism, backlogs of unfree images or whatever. ViridaeTalk 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry, but 6% mainspace edits (and 600 odd not particularly big ones) combined with Q2 is not satisfactory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Massive disapproval! — I've seen your rude attitude first hand. I've also seen you wade through peoples upload logs applying tags (in some cases that are not even appropriate). You show little knowledge of our actual fair use policies, You also (not long ago) tagged an image to which I did not upload, however, you saw fit to notify me. I also believe your name to be inappropriate still . Also your lack of contributions worries me, remember "adminship is no big deal" at present I can't see a reason as to why you'd need the tools, you do fine at present without them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Original)
Absolutely not! I've seen you go through peoples upload logs to enact some sort of "revenge", you have a rude attitude and in my opinion you do not understand the image policies. I also think your name is inappropriate. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- What is the problem with the user name? Maybe his/her name is Gay and Cdn is for Canadian or an abreviation of the last name. Please be civil. Also, with strong condemnation comes strong requirements for evidence...would you please provide some diffs of the revenge and rude attitude? —Doug Bell talk 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could also mean Cardinal. (Rewrote disapproval reason due to it being slightly convulsed) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide us with diffs of the rude attitude? If it exists, we should all have a chance to see it here. --Mnemeson 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen Gay Cdn at IFD and, since becoming an admin, have looked at his contributions in the course of closing IFDs (one of the requirements is to make sure the uploader is notified). I have never seen anything that approaches rude. FYI, for Matthew, most of us who work with images use a tool created by User:Howcheng that reduces the time it takes to tag an image. Until recently, there was a ... umm ... "feature" where it would always notify the most recent uploader of an image, even if that individual were only reverting to a previous version and not the actual author. So that may be what you are seeing - if you got a notification, it wasn't anything rude on Gay Cdn's part - it was just a quirk in the tool. Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you consider who needs the tools. Someone who has shown a willingness to work on backlogged areas (we have over 100K orphaned images) has an obvious use for the tools and we would be shooting ourselves in the foot not to grant him the tools. --BigDT 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide us with diffs of the rude attitude? If it exists, we should all have a chance to see it here. --Mnemeson 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could also mean Cardinal. (Rewrote disapproval reason due to it being slightly convulsed) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the problem with the user name? Maybe his/her name is Gay and Cdn is for Canadian or an abreviation of the last name. Please be civil. Also, with strong condemnation comes strong requirements for evidence...would you please provide some diffs of the revenge and rude attitude? —Doug Bell talk 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I want to see policy discussion to be able to tell you're familiar enough with policies, which I am not seeing. And no, IfD does not count, it involves next to no discussion. Plus, given your lack of substantial AfD discussion, I can't really trust that you'll close AfD nominations well, like you say you intend to. -Amark moo! 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Original)
- Oppose per answer to Q2, especially the only article you mention isn't very well sourced. Also, only 55 talk page edits appears to indicate a lack of consensus building and dispute resolution. Addhoc 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per many of the comments already stated, but unarguably lack of talk page edits (essential for an admin) and arguably all-too-apparent preference for deletion over building an encyclopedia ([3]). --Dweller 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It's become increasingly clear to me that the worst administrators are the ones that do not actually write articles. Thus, I can't support you at this time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't have a big hang-up about candidates who focus on administrative tasks instead of article writing, because admins have to focus on administrative tasks, but if your proudest accomplishment is deleting articles, you should get a more diverse experience.-- danntm T C 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Firstly, I see nothing wrong with Gay Cdn's username--it may mean "gay" as in homosexual or as in happy, but I don't see it being inappropriate in either case. Secondly, if anything, I think the justified deletion (including speedy) of images is a plus. However, and thirdly, having <700 mainspace article edits also makes me reluctant to support (although the number of edits in only 7 months is impressive). I think admins should know through extensive firsthand experience the process of working on and creating articles, verifying sources, building consensus, etc. Finally, the explicit partisan identification on the userpage bothers me. It can be hard(er) to trust an admin if he or she specifically identifies as a deletionist or inclusionist. If you remove that explicit identification and work more to contribute content to articles, I will likely support you in a future RFA. Sorry, no hard feelings I hope. Black Falcon 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per insane proportion of User Talk edits (compared to Main) -- Renesis (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are opposing on the basis of the ratio of two numbers that to all appearances were arbitrarily selected. It would be nice to hear more about why you feel this candidate cannot be trusted with the tools. Failing that, it would at least be interesting to know how many fewer User Talk edits he ought to have made in order to bring his ratio to a level where you could support him. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Main space and user talk are hardly arbitrarily selected. Normally I wouldn't oppose for a reason like this without close inspection of contribution patterns, but at 6461 User talk edits to 630 main space edits, I see an editor who spends far too much time on the social side at Wikipedia, and far too little on the encyclopedia itself (that's a 10 to 1 ratio!). I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. This is my main concern; however, I wouldn't likely support with only 630 main space edits no matter what. -- Renesis (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I can't see any evidence that Gay Cdn spends time on the social side of Wikipedia at all. Almost all of his last 1000 user talk contributions are warning users about image deletions.Kusma (討論) 06:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's hard to understand is that according to your oppose rationale, you would be more likely to support had he made less useful contributions to the User_talk namespace. Your comment boils down to, "you are doing too much work on IFD," which is a very mysterious reason for opposing. Your further explanation underlines the fact that by basing your assessment on edit counts, you were dramatically misled. This user spends effectively no time on the social side of Wikipedia -- virtually 100% of his user_talk edits have been, as Kusma said above, process-related warnings. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Main space and user talk are hardly arbitrarily selected. Normally I wouldn't oppose for a reason like this without close inspection of contribution patterns, but at 6461 User talk edits to 630 main space edits, I see an editor who spends far too much time on the social side at Wikipedia, and far too little on the encyclopedia itself (that's a 10 to 1 ratio!). I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. This is my main concern; however, I wouldn't likely support with only 630 main space edits no matter what. -- Renesis (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are opposing on the basis of the ratio of two numbers that to all appearances were arbitrarily selected. It would be nice to hear more about why you feel this candidate cannot be trusted with the tools. Failing that, it would at least be interesting to know how many fewer User Talk edits he ought to have made in order to bring his ratio to a level where you could support him. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Yuser31415, and others. I know writing articles is not a requirement to be an admin, but it is at the heart of what we do here, and understanding that process first-hand matters. Try your hand at composition, and come back in a few months. Coemgenus 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, no hard feelings -Yuser31415 hit what I was thinking on the nail. Adminship does not hang on article writing alone, its about the tools and wether he/she needs/can be trusted with them; however Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and I have a much higher regard for someone who actively makes it better on the front side. Visitors to the wiki looking for information will not notice the blocks, warnings, and cogs in the background; they will notice the content. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per CanadianCaesar and Jaranda. Dionyseus 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per CanadianCeasar's brief by to-the-point summary. Writing and heavily contributing articles demonstrates talent and intense interest in presenting information. Right now, this editor has mostly demonstrated the opposite. Contributions is one thing, but spending most of their time maintenence tagging images and articles, prodding and nominating for AfD aren't really showing administrator skills.--Oakshade 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per CanadianCaesar. Jahangard 05:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose lack of user talk edits at only 55 (discounting the image warnings which are greatly in the majority) shows a lack of interaction with the comminity, a skill that admins need and the answer to question 2 is not satisfactory. Improve on communication, article creation, mainspace edits, some RC patrol and try again in a few months.--Dakota 06:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per lack of mainspace edits. Arfan (Talk) 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. 630 article edits, frankly, suggests that you've only explored a tiny sliver of Wikipedia's vast topical range of coverage. For a self-proclaimed "self-proclaimed deletionist", that sounds like a fiasco waiting to happen... "Liek whut? We have articles about Farm to Market Roads?" Whatever the silver bullet for you would be (that example was my own), I hope it strikes you before you become an admin rather than afterward. Also, the 10-to-1 ratio of user_talk edits to article edits makes me want to scream "shut up and edit something, please...", —freak(talk) 15:51, Feb. 8, 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. < 700 mainspace+article talk out of 8000+ edits? I don't normally oppose for numerical reasons, but I'd sentimentally prefer admins with article and dispute experience to those who basically just delete things. Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose, improve your article-writing game and try RfA again at a later date. I mean, except for one 20-edit article, you really haven't worked on anything...--Wizardman 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, can you imagine what Wikipedia would look like without people quietly cleaning all the crap? If you are not willing to appreciate that at least try to keep your merciless judgement to yourselves, plase. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you seriously turn down the scathing comments a few notches? It is not helping anyone when you are berating another user for their vote. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 11:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, can you imagine what Wikipedia would look like without people quietly cleaning all the crap? If you are not willing to appreciate that at least try to keep your merciless judgement to yourselves, plase. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The lack of talk page edits is a major concern here. Do not be discouraged because of this and improve the scope of your edits. Then try again after a few months. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Opppse per CanadianCaesar and Yusar31415 You are not admin material Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Please pick an article that interests you and help construct it. Whether you agree with it or not, merely finding articles or images to delete is not going to get you adminship. Quadzilla99 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Your are not admin material --My Name Is Not Earl 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this coming from a user whose contributions appear on newbie's contribs page, 12 total edits, most of which are redundant RfA contribs - Gilliam 05:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Opppose The only article this user wrote, Foundation for Equal Families, shows that he is not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He filed a request for feedback on the article, but does not appear to have addressed the concerns raised there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Does not demonstrate proper concern about assuring full and complete process for editors whose work is subject to deletion.Edivorce 02:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some examples, given one of the reasons for oppose above are the large number of usertalk edits resulting from notifications. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your nom, your optional statement (which I believe you declined the opportunity to make) and the answers to your questions. You self-identify as a "Deletionist." I do not oppose
AfDRfA merely because of this self identification, but once made I look for affirmative statements of the candidate, on the face of theAfDRfA, that the Nom will assure fair process. I didn't see that here. See my user page. I hope this is helpful. Edivorce 18:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your nom, your optional statement (which I believe you declined the opportunity to make) and the answers to your questions. You self-identify as a "Deletionist." I do not oppose
- Could you provide some examples, given one of the reasons for oppose above are the large number of usertalk edits resulting from notifications. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Quadzilla99. Dhaifley 05:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose. While it is quite possible you could do well as an admin in your area of interest (deleting images), the rather low amount of experience in writing of articles is going to make me oppose unfortunately. Admin tools have a broad range of application, so I'd like to see that an admin has had a broader range of experience than the average user rather than less. Mathmo Talk 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But he never said he was going to apply them broadly. He intends to delete things, and he has plenty of experience in that. Why is his lack or article-writing relevant? Without specialization we'd never get anything done - on Wikipedia, and on this planet. Picaroon 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have been much happier if he'd even had much experience in contributing images. But he's shown no appreciation of the difficulties and possible gray areas which can trip up users trying to add images to Wikipedia. A deletionist with no sympathy for people trying to build isn't someone I want as an admin. Argyriou (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Picaroon, I understand your objection to my vote. And if I knew he would only be using his admin abilities in those areas then I'd quite possibly be supporting. But unfortunately there is no way we can know this, and I feel it would be unreasonable to assume this. There is a quite significant chance he could decide to use his admin abilities in say a few months from now in an area which he has next to no expertise. This is why all admins should have shown at least a basic understanding across a broad area. Giving broad powers naturally requires that. If there was such a class as an "Image Admin" then this would be a totally different matter. But there isn't, instead we have only one type of admin. So we should look at the candidate across the entire range. Sorry if this comes off harsh, it really is not meant to. The threshold is low. Mathmo Talk 11:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have been much happier if he'd even had much experience in contributing images. But he's shown no appreciation of the difficulties and possible gray areas which can trip up users trying to add images to Wikipedia. A deletionist with no sympathy for people trying to build isn't someone I want as an admin. Argyriou (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But he never said he was going to apply them broadly. He intends to delete things, and he has plenty of experience in that. Why is his lack or article-writing relevant? Without specialization we'd never get anything done - on Wikipedia, and on this planet. Picaroon 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Caesar and Fenton. Tomertalk 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Due to lack of content development experience. I believe a candidate should have extensive article writing experience to understand the challenges of the task when making admin decisions to use the tools. Alan.ca 11:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Quadzilla. Juppiter 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral The user would be be quite useful in dealing with image backlogs and such, but I still feel a bit worried about the low mainspace-edit count. An admin doesn't just deal with deletions and such; they also deal with dispute resolution and try to help other users with problems. The lack of mainspace edits seems to show that this user is not entirely experienced with article editing, and may not be able to help other users in times of need, as said in the previous sentence. Nishkid64 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I have seen him around before and think he is a good editor, but his mainspace contributions are very low (and no other compelling reason to support). Cbrown1023 talk 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I think he could assist with the image backlog, but I can't support due to the very low mainspace experience. I've looked through his mainspace contributions for the last 5 months or so and I could only find a handful that weren't minor or deletion related. ChazBeckett 10:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral basically per Nishkid. You look like a dedicated user though. I would gladly support in a future RfA if you have some articles in your pocket by then. Good luck. - Anas Talk? 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral A bit worried from some of the above comments, and i've found that disproportionate edit tallies can be indicative of somewhat overbearing behavior, and I haven't been dissuaded of that here, but i'm not sure enough to oppose yet either. Just H 02:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, not this time. I would glad to see your next RfA with more mainspace edits. Shyam (T/C) 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Moreschi
Final (72/17/6); Ended 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Moreschi (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate User:Moreschi for adminship. He has been with us since late March 2006 and has a total of over 4,000 edits across all namespaces. Moreschi specializes in classical music related articles and has several GAs and Did you know? including Agrippina (opera), The Fairy-Queen and William Savage, has over 1,000 wikipedia namespace edits including involvement in the esperanza mfd where he tried his best to keep the calm there. I think Moreschi would make an good admin. Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conomination by Blnguyen
In addition to the exploits noted by Jaranda, Moreschi also help to guide Pro Milone to GA status and helped extensively with List of major opera composers, which is a featured list. He has a demonstrated ability to work with others, as shown by his working through various issues in improving various opera articles collaboratively ( Talk:List of important operas, Talk:List of major opera composers, Talk:Agrippina (opera), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Opera). He has a record of reverting vandalism ([4]), enforcing BLP violations ([5]), thinly disguised advertising prose ([6]), spam ([7], [8]) and has a good understanding of NPOV, the fundamental pillar of the encyclopedia ([9]). This is a strong history which allows him to deal with all the possible issues which can arise in article space. Moreschi is also strong with policy and identifying sockpuppeteers, helping to deal with banned user Jacob Peters ( [10], [11], seeking appropriate action [12], Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jacob_Peters, [13]). He has made many reports to WP:AIV and is active in Good article process. Moreschi's work at AfD (examples: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RGC-83_GM_Cannon_II, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Penn_Singers, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lord_of_the_Goblinstone) shows a strong and detailed understanding of AfD process, and criteria for encyclopedic merit, such as WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V, etc, which is required of an administrator, and also shows extensive debate rather than simple voting, a strong sign of an effective debate closer. his work at the Esperanza MfD is another prime example. I think that Moreschi would be a very good administrator, and he has proven good judgment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
With gratitude to my nominators, accept. Moreschi Deletion! 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Meh, whatever. This is a waste of my time on a spectacular scale. Articles need to be written, this is merely a distraction. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I've done chunks of RC and NP patrol from time to time, so I would anticipate in particular keeping on top of CAT:CSD. I live in the UK, and would be able to slay the backlogs while my comrades in America are asleep. I also would expect to keep on top of the expired WP:PROD nominations - where backlogs have a tendency to build up - and closing WP:AFDs, where I've done a fair amount of work, and I believe that I thoroughly understand the policies that apply to that particular area of deletion process. More specifically, none of us who have been monitoring the visitations of banned user Jacob Peters are sysops, which has proved just a little annoying at times. More generally, where backlogs build up, I will try to remove them: I am familiar with most aspects of Wikipedia policy and process and can pretty much help out wherever.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: On the articles side, the ones that particularly rock are The Fairy-Queen, Agrippina (opera), and Pro Milone, all GAs. Orfeo ed Euridice is coming along very nicely, and William Savage and Gaetano Berenstadt are good models for articles of that length. I put extensive work into List of major opera composers - including, as I remember, a reference on a blurb for a sound clip - which was rewarded when the list got WP:FL status: List of important operas is only about a weeek, in my opinion, off being put up for FL as well. In particular, I think that Agrippina is really not so far off FA for the future.
- So much for articles - of contributions to Wikipedia I suppose that my co-nomination of Esperanza for deletion is worth mentioning - not something I'm either proud of or pleased with, but it certainly deserves mention, and recently I've been doing some work with trying to improve WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:Notability (news). But really, the articles are far more important for the benefit of Wikipedia than the process, and this is true for admins as well: how can you possibly mediate and help out with article-based disputes if you don't know what a quality article should look like?
- On the image side of things, I'm not hugely experienced, but I know my way around image issues on a basic level. I have an account at Commons, where I've uploaded aboout a dozen {{PD-Art}} images thus far, and will doubtless continue to do this.
- 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: The biggie here was the mess at Talk:List of major opera composers and its archives that eventually led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau. The talk page archives can provide the full details more effectively than I possibly could. I believe that I handled this dispute fairly well and fairly civilly up to a late point in the dispute, but eventually Boisseau's behaviour became truly outrageous - allegations of female administrators having internalized sexism and, to a certain extent, soliciting harassment on external websites - and the case was put into arbitration.
- More recently, there was the Gundam mess. Just to get this off my chest, but one thing that especially infuriated me is the constant assumption of bad faith that I utterly abhor Gundam and have a vendetta against all Gundam articles, when this is patently not the case. The only axe I have to grind is against articles that do not assert notability within a fictional universe, let alone the real world, and fail WP:V and WP:RS by a country mile. From that point of view I find MalikCarr's oppose somewhat unfair, but live and let live. But I do not have a vendetta against Gundam: judging by some comments at certain times one would think that my daughter had died of Gundam addiction, and that I am filled with an avenging fury.
- However, it is certainly true that I nominated lots of these fictional weapons articles for deletion. So, it should be noted have others. Again, I did so not because I did not wish my so-called "opponents" to muster "opposition" - and what opposition? Are we all not trying to improve the encyclopedia? - but because these articles formed part of a colossal walled garden which had spiraled out of control. As far as the result of that business, Gundam articles which should have been deleted were deleted, and those which should have been kept were cleaned up and, in some cases, improved beyond all recognition. Now, who could not be proud of that?
- In general terms, all of the dispute I have been involved in have led me to the conclusion that it is far more preferable to work with fellow editors, rather than war against. Wikipedia is itself a meta-assumption of good faith, because the very nature of wiki assumes that there will be more reverters than there are trolls and vandals: from that point of view, I often think that Wikipedia is a fine assertion of the excellence of the human race. AGF is far more important than people realize. It may not always be apparent, but it is necessary to assume that we all have the good of the encyclopedia at heart. From that premise, a lot of disputes resolve themselves.
Optional question from Chacor (talk · contribs):
- 4. Could you explain the sudden spike in your activity in the last few months since October (as shown on the talk page) after it drastically fell from July to August 2006? Just curious, especially about the sudden decrease over those two months last year. – Chacor 10:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A - sure, no problem. Quite simply, I went on holiday to the Welsh mountains - Snowdonia for three weeks in August. That meant no internet access whatsoever, wireless laptops just do not work in the valleys, and signals for mobile phones involve clambering up lots of hills. So, no computer and no Wikipedia. Ever since I got back, it's been back to usual. Breaks of this kind are not going to be common, but I'll probably be off for the same period of time this year. When I get back, it's business as usual. Before going away I try to leave "my" articles - obviously, I don't WP:OWN them but I mean the ones I'm working heavily on - in the hands of users who I trust and admire to babysit for me. Best, Moreschi Deletion! 10:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course, the more I see of Wikipedia the more I like, which is probably why my number of edits has gone up as of late. Moreschi Deletion! 10:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional blether from self:
- 5 - people seem to have this perception I'm an "extreme deletionist". That just really isn't true, though the perception, is, I suppose, quite forgivable. When I see a bad article, my thought process is not "Oooh! Bad article! How can I get this deleted?" My thought process is "Oooh! Bad article! How can I get this cleaned up/sourced?". There is a difference. Of course, there's a different aspect altogether to BLP violations: unsourced, libellous material means the article needs stubifying, not cleanup tags. But that's quite different to the ordinary run of things. And one does have to apply common sense to massive walled gardens of fiction-based material, where the material currently there is not worth salvaging from an encyclopedic standpoint. But otherwise any "extreme deletionism" regards self is more a joke than anything serious: when there's no danger of legal action attempting to source is far better than attempting to get deleted right away. Moreschi Deletion! 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you feel, in retrospect, about nominating RX-78 Gundam for deletion? I'm not asking about the entire Gundam issue, only this article.--SB | T 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But I didn't nominate it for deletion. I voted keep at the AfD!!! Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Moreschi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
It seems to be that an outside forum has attempted to influence this RFA. Going a bit far, IMO, but never mind. Moreschi Deletion! 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Strong support - excellent contributor, excellent judgment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong pre-acceptance support - calm, no-BS approach to his work around here. Thoroughly sound judgement. riana_dzasta 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As nom Jaranda wat's sup 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ral315 (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Best of both worlds. A very hard-working creator/improver of articles with an excellent knowledge of policy.--Folantin 08:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 09:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No-brainer support. Lots of hard work, even disposition—give him a mop. —Doug Bell talk 09:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editor, intelligent contributions to project space, no problems that I can see. And the oppose votes based on his cruft-fighting just work in his favour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Improves the encyclopedia both by adding stuff and by helping remove stuff that doesn't belong. Kusma (討論) 10:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good contributor - I beleive he has enough sense not to go closing AFD debates where he is the original proposer (in all but the most clear cut cases). (double-edit conflict) David Underdown 10:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- I can't see this user misusing the tools. He is level-headed and I often agree with him, even when my opinions are the opposite of his. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)10:31, Tuesday, 6 February '07
- Support I don't know this user and have never met him, but I believe he can be trusted completely with the tools. Also, great article work. - Anas Talk? 12:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Aksi_great (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no evidence that he would misuse the tools. Is an excellent user who has made valuble contributions in deletion fora. I do have some civility concerns per the diff cited below by Zleitzen and my own quick review of contribs where I found several comments more blunt than I think helpful. While I don't see any personal attacks (which helps keep this a support) I still think it's important to maintain civility at all times and not feed any trolls. Eluchil404 12:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I can safely say that I believe Moreschi to be awesome. Proto::► 13:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No brainer. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Blnguyen nominee — Lost(talk) 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ... but I SHOULD add, only if you answer this. Grin. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Would make a good admin - and I really enjoyed your article on The Fairy-Queen. Huzzah for Purcell! Coemgenus 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Editconflict Support per Blnguyen - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Proto and Kusma sum things up neatly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with yet another I thought you already were... The Rambling Man 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support God yes, would be a brilliant admin. Utterly capable, competent, writes very well thought out arguments in debates, and the day he gains the bit is not a moment too soon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I trust this user to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen nothing but good work.--Húsönd 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support solid AfD contributor with some quality article-writing experience as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent to collaborate with on articles, smart, expresses opinions well, just needs to remember to keep any and all biting in check, since the bit tends to help sharpen the teeth. Mak (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My first genuine cliche moment in a long-time: are we sure he isn't an admin already? Xoloz 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a bit excitable at times, but a strong & thoughtfull editor Johnbod 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support,
so he can actually delete articles instead of just talking about deleting them.Just kidding about that last part, I was trying to match the humour of "Delete per nom" above. Seriously, I've found Moreschi a knowledgeable, dedicated user who is genuinely willing to collaborate with others. I would however caution him to avoid using the word cruft, as it does tend to rub people the wrong way. --Kyoko 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support. Thoughtful answers to questions asked, looks fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see the candidate all over the place doing good work. I was surprised to see this nomination, only because I had no idea this nominee wasn't yet an admin. Agent 86 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support solid user, committed to the project. Not likely to abuse the tools. Heimstern Läufer 20:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good answers, can be trusted. Cbrown1023 talk 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Based on my own interactions with him, and my observations of his interactions with others. Would make a very good admin. Jeffpw 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This fellow seems to check out. I don't see much potential for tool abuse. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a fine content editor.--Aldux 23:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellent editor of worthwhile articles, and somebody who can use his head. -- Hoary 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WjBscribe 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. I was concerned by some of the "opppose" comments -- an overly quick-triggered admin deleting articles is not good. I looked at some of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam discussion -- especially the section cited below. Without knowing all the merits of the individual articles taken to AfD, it seemed as if others involved with that WikiProject also thought some pruning was desirable. I don't get the sense that Moreschi was acting in bad faith. In fact, he seemed to spend a lot of time trying to work with the Gundam community while still holding to Wikipedia's guidelines (which represent the broader community's thinking on what's encyclopedic.) --A. B. (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my first thought-he-was-one RfA cliche. But can we give him some pruning shears instead of the proverbial mop? Opabinia regalis 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A fine editor on Wikipedia -- I have no doubt that Moreschi will make a great admin. Nishkid64 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I trust Moreschi. Mallanox 02:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per [14]. I really hate campaigning, especially negative, especially offwiki. Alex Bakharev 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Strong editor, Blnguyen nomination, plenty of experience in admin areas, and I really wish the opposition would provide some diffs of his alleged shortcomings. "Delete per so-and-so" should be used sparingly, but sometimes it's the best way to express one's feelings. I'm not finding evidence that his intention was to form a "lynch mob" like some editors are contending, or of any of the other fantastical claims down there. Grandmasterka 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Moreschi would be an admirable addition to the RfA ranks. Daniel.Bryant 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A creditable record, and no red flags for me. Sandstein 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. We need more administrators who understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a random list of articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Your great answers and 1000+ Wiki edits are proof enough that you deserve adminship. Ganfon 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nomination. Plenty of contributions, check. Head on straight, check. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - user gave me some helpful advice a couple of weeks ago. Lots of experience, particularly with relevant policy areas (AfDs etc). Can't see any reason to oppose. Walton monarchist89 16:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, after reading the "Optional blether from self". That alleviated many of the qualms I had about supporting; it's lovely to see both the consideration Moreschi puts into deleting most things and the fact that he was aware of this issue enough to address it. We might not agree on deleting, but I see him being a responsible administrator, and look forward to working with him. -- Natalya 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Resisted a strong urge for a knee-jerk oppose !vote for a deletionist... on closer look, seems to be a well-balanced candidate with a good grasp of process. --Dweller 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support an editor who is interested in applying Wikipedia's policies, rather than his own view of how Wikipedia should be. This is exactly what we want in an admin. if you don't like policies get them changed through consensus rather than punishing those who abide by them. Gwernol 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, thought he already was one. the wub "?!" 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has made a few mistakes, but nothing that makes me question his ability to serve as an admin. Have faith that he would use the tools well. Shimeru 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent job all around. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Everyone makes a few mistakes, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't see anything wrong. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I like the new signature, which shows flexibility. I guess he's been a bit harsh, but I think that we over emphasize wikilove sometimes when strong direct communication an have its place. --Kevin Murray 05:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as above Bwithh 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominators put it well. --RobthTalk 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We need more admins, and getting more schi is a good start. >Radiant< 09:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Model candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all.--Wizardman 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no, he's not perfect - who is? He has worked hard here (without pay, like all of us), and is sufficiently self-reflective to learn from his mistakes, all of which seem minor to me. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Rama's arrow 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. Has a past history of shotgunning entire sets of articles in an attempt to get some deleted before anyone can comment or muster opposition. Jtrainor 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof of this please, WP:CITE Jaranda wat's sup 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...surely you must know that WP:CITE is meant for articles...? – Chacor 09:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
- Lighten up, Chacor. Of course, Jaranda knows that. The point is: if RFA is a discussion and not just a vote, then it is incumbent on those contributing to the discussion to provide supporting evidence for their assertions. If the assertion is substantiated, it can result in additional oppose votes, some of them even coming from people who had previously supported the candidate. Without such substantiating evidence, the comment becomes more like a vote that provides no basis for others to evaluate the charge. --Richard 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...surely you must know that WP:CITE is meant for articles...? – Chacor 09:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
- Proof of this please, WP:CITE Jaranda wat's sup 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Heavy-handed tactics with regards to slews of articles with little or no regard for opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia needs cool-headed admins, not partisans with an axe to grind. See support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSK-008 Dijeh and related incidents. MalikCarr 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, I don't see anything wrong with his only edit to that AfD. Care to explain what offended you so much? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disapproval - way way way to heavy handed, I do not trust this user at present, AfD participation is mediocre, at best. Also a lot of the deletion reasons users gives would apply to most of the articles the user has created. Also has a rude tone and is to dramatic, in short I believe this user will misuse the buttons. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "AfD participation is mediocre, at best". Moreschi has expressed an opinion at AfD virtually every day for the past four or five months. "Also a lot of the deletion reasons users gives would apply to most of the articles the user has created". Got any actual examples to back that statement?--Folantin 09:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to harass, or anything, but really, the bit about my arguments for deletion applying to the articles I have written is wrong. For starters I almost always reference anything I create to Grove Music Online - thus providing verification from a reliable source, and I actually do bother to assert notability. And yes, on occasion I have not created articles on opera singers of the past because in my opinion, they would be non-notable. But I do not think that any of my articles created thus far violate my own criteria for deletion. As to the rest, well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 09:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult to support a user for administrative positions when huge sections of Wiki projects are cited for deletion with a rationale that leaves us scratching our heads, especially when said user seems to have a small army of people whom will vote for said deletions without fail. Practically an "article lynching" when you get right down to it. As was said here, "Good faith is becoming harder to assume." MalikCarr 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a pretty good rationale for deleting those articles: they made no attempt to conform to any Wikipedia policy. No assertion of real world notability, no sources, no references, no attempt at informing anyone who didn't spend their entire life on Planet Gundam what on earth they were about or why these pages should be in an encyclopaedia. In spite of this and the rampant incivility which ensued, Moreschi went on to collaborate with Project Gundam in a good faith attempt to salvage the articles that could be saved by bringing them up to Wikipedia standards. Personally, I wouldn't have bothered. --Folantin 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult to support a user for administrative positions when huge sections of Wiki projects are cited for deletion with a rationale that leaves us scratching our heads, especially when said user seems to have a small army of people whom will vote for said deletions without fail. Practically an "article lynching" when you get right down to it. As was said here, "Good faith is becoming harder to assume." MalikCarr 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to harass, or anything, but really, the bit about my arguments for deletion applying to the articles I have written is wrong. For starters I almost always reference anything I create to Grove Music Online - thus providing verification from a reliable source, and I actually do bother to assert notability. And yes, on occasion I have not created articles on opera singers of the past because in my opinion, they would be non-notable. But I do not think that any of my articles created thus far violate my own criteria for deletion. As to the rest, well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 09:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "AfD participation is mediocre, at best". Moreschi has expressed an opinion at AfD virtually every day for the past four or five months. "Also a lot of the deletion reasons users gives would apply to most of the articles the user has created". Got any actual examples to back that statement?--Folantin 09:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose. Wikipedia already has too heavy a deletionist bias as it is. The last thing we need is another ultra-deletionist admin. Oh, and Folantin? "Delete per nom" doesn't constitute good AFD participation. It's a pity that admins tend to treat AFDs like a vote (despite official policy saying they're not votes), instead of ignoring "delete per nom" posts. Redxiv 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, someone gets what I've been trying to get across for months. Maybe there is some hope after all. MalikCarr 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I don't know. Seeing a lot of the stuff that goes through XfD, and also looking at some of the articles that survive, I can't say that we're deleting too much stuff. I think the opposite is true at this point—the stuff that should be deleted is growing faster than the current process can keep up. But to each his own. —Doug Bell talk 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense intended, but it's easy to overlook a systematic bias when you're a part of it.
- Wikipedia tilts heavily toward deletion. And somehow I get the feeling that Moreschi would make it worse. In short, I don't trust him to evaluate consensus fairly. I think that, especially on articles he personally would want deleted, he'll tend to discount "keep" arguments while treating "delete per nom"s as solid argument. Redxiv 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, AGF. I can't think of a single article that I have ever personally wanted deleted: those which I want deleted, I want them to be so because they fail the relevant policies and guidelines. It's business, not personal. And I fully appreciate the importance of consensus, and have already stated that admins and crats are servants of the community, not masters over it: they do what the community tells us to, not vice versa. Moreschi Deletion! 09:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I don't know. Seeing a lot of the stuff that goes through XfD, and also looking at some of the articles that survive, I can't say that we're deleting too much stuff. I think the opposite is true at this point—the stuff that should be deleted is growing faster than the current process can keep up. But to each his own. —Doug Bell talk 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, someone gets what I've been trying to get across for months. Maybe there is some hope after all. MalikCarr 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I'm not sure I trust this user to respect and judge consensus neutrally in AfD discussions. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose • I really like Moreschi as a person and as an editor, but RFA votes are about what's best for Wikipedia. Incivility, personal attacks, and systematic bias are NOT healthy things to the project and we shouldn't have admins promoting these. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is he promoting systematic bias? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That "Deletion!" signature of his pretty clearly spells out how he approves of Wikipedia's deletionist bias. But then, I imagine that's exactly why he was nominated. Redxiv 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Systemic bias isn't about deletionism. It's about the demographics of the contributors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Rather like how you discounted the dissenting voices in that AfD because they were members of a given Wikipedia Project? MalikCarr 07:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of you stop it. B1nguyen, I was referring to his extreme deletionist philosophy. Malik, you make the opposers look like idiots with your crazy conspiracy theory mongering. I have an obligation to !vote in the way that betters Wikipedia, and I do not feel that supporting Moreschi would be bettering Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I also have a right to my opinion, and I would ask that you respect it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Rather like how you discounted the dissenting voices in that AfD because they were members of a given Wikipedia Project? MalikCarr 07:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Systemic bias isn't about deletionism. It's about the demographics of the contributors. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That "Deletion!" signature of his pretty clearly spells out how he approves of Wikipedia's deletionist bias. But then, I imagine that's exactly why he was nominated. Redxiv 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is he promoting systematic bias? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Although I have nothing against Moreschi as an editor, I do not think he is ready for admin-ship. My main reason is the "FUCK OFF" edit summary to a vandal just one month ago. That alone, I believe, is enough to oppose this RFA. My second reason is the "Deletion!" link right after his username. Although admins are editors too, it undermines their trustworthiness when they explicitly associate with a particular philosophy (the same would be true of an "Inclusion!" signature). I think he would be a better candidate in a few months (assuming no incivility and no continued partisan affiliations). Black Falcon 17:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That dif was a special case, many users would do it as Elaragirl was having personal problems with the death of her friend and the last thing she needed was trolling in her userpage. The IP who did it should have been blocked indef for fucking around in her personal problems. I agree it should have been better to revert via rollback though. Jaranda wat's sup 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already stated that the edit summary thing won't happen again: and the signature thing is advertising, not campaigning. WP:SCISSORS is about cleanup, not deletionism. But, of course, you are quite entitled to your oppose. Don't know how many times I've had to say "Quit harassing this poor sod of an oppose voter, you lot!" at RFA. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your understanding and not taking my vote personally. I completely understand the situation with the troll and am not claiming that I might not have reacted in exactly the same way (or perhaps more strongly, depending on how well I knew the user (not the troll), my mood at the moment, etc.). In fact, in your subsequent warning to the troll one minute later, you only posted {{bv}}. However, as Redxiv notes below, WP:CIVIL should be applied even to those "who don't deserve a civil response" (rephrased: who are being complete asses). In regards the "Deletion!" signature, I realize that WP:SCISSORS is about cleanup per WP policies and guidelines. However, I think the second-most important quality for an admin is to be perceived as fair and balanced (the first being, of course, actually being fair and balanced). If nothing else, the "Deletion!" signature may lead editors to suspect your affiliations/motives, even if such suspicions are unfounded, and to resent your decisions as biased. If you were to be on RFA again in a month or two, I would seriously consider supporting your candidacy. I realize that the "FUCK OFF" comment was a singular, anomalous episode, but it was one that occured nonetheless. However, given that your comment was limited only to the edit summary (you did not post anything uncivil to the IP's talk page itself), I think some additional time to extend an otherwise good record could outweigh this. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was a rather nasty troll that he made the "FUCK OFF" edit in response to. But as I said, WP:CIVIL applies even when dealing with people who don't deserve a civil response. WP:DFTT would also apply; while not actually a policy or a guideline, it's good advice. Redxiv 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I agree that I should most certainly not have fed the troll. By the way, it may be as well to note that my signature has been changed by self to something equally worthy of attention and a little less controversial. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 08:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a couple of weeks ago I was thinking "must change sig to something less controversial before RFA, not right for an admin" - and then did a typical me and forgot all about it. Moreschi Request a recording? 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already stated that the edit summary thing won't happen again: and the signature thing is advertising, not campaigning. WP:SCISSORS is about cleanup, not deletionism. But, of course, you are quite entitled to your oppose. Don't know how many times I've had to say "Quit harassing this poor sod of an oppose voter, you lot!" at RFA. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That dif was a special case, many users would do it as Elaragirl was having personal problems with the death of her friend and the last thing she needed was trolling in her userpage. The IP who did it should have been blocked indef for fucking around in her personal problems. I agree it should have been better to revert via rollback though. Jaranda wat's sup 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose changed from support, per MatthewFenton, Redxiv and Yuser31415. --Majorly (o rly?) 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm with Yuser31415. I really have trouble trusting this user to objectively close AfDs based on consensus, or even lack thereof. --Oakshade 06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I've been using and editing on Wikipedia for quite some time now, and, honestly, I don't think I can find someone in the community so entirely not suited to not only not be administrator, but not even be allowed to edit. Not only do I think he should be denied administratorship, I believe he should have all editing rights removed. Regarding the whole Gundam scuffle, I believe that he has insulted Japanese culture and has opened up Wikipedia for possible litigation. I say nip this in the bud now, and kick him out. --User:Diablo-D3 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to provide some evidence that Moreschi himself has insulted the whole of Japanese culture, thus opening the way for Emperor of Japan v. Jimmy Wales et al.? This claim strikes me as a bit hyperbolic, not to mention WP:NPAish. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many things I am, intellectual facist or racist bigot I am not. No one is going to sue WP in a million years as a result of my actions: anyone who thinks that needs to listen a tad harder in law class. Perhaps the principles contained in WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF would be a helpful read. Meanwhile, I will leave it to the discretion of the closing bureaucrat as to how seriously they should take this opinion. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to provide some evidence that Moreschi himself has insulted the whole of Japanese culture, thus opening the way for Emperor of Japan v. Jimmy Wales et al.? This claim strikes me as a bit hyperbolic, not to mention WP:NPAish. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Has much going for him, but as some of the comments above suggest, he is not yet ready.--Newport 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose - would probably make a good candidate, but cannot support due to some of the above concerns. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I have serious concerns about his approach and attitude. Everyking 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any examples? It would be nice to know. It's hard to bite down the response that this is a case of the kettle meeting the pot. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, really kettle meeting pot. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any examples? It would be nice to know. It's hard to bite down the response that this is a case of the kettle meeting the pot. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (changed from neutral) On the basis of sharp responses to legitimate opposes above and continued concerns about other responses (see below). Particularly unseemly is bringing up the off wiki-activities one user above, Everyking, who is perfectly within their rights to post an oppose vote here without harassment. The "pot calling kettle black" response to that oppose vote, and the various growing tit-for-tat threads here are not encouraging. --Zleitzen 12:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Zleitzen.--Holdenhurst 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I like the guy, he's one of the more rational deletionists I've encountered but RFA should not be a popularity contest. His responses to issues raised in this RFA are enough to make me vote oppose, but leaning more towards "not yet". Kyaa the Catlord 12:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Needs to get rid of a few rough edges.--Brownlee 13:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
NeutralCan you explain this edit where you appear to be telling a user to "F**k off" [15]?--Zleitzen 11:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - vandals are not users :) O.k, I'll try to respond coherently. To cut a long story short, Elaragirl's real life was in a complete mess at the time due to minor events such as the death of friends and relatives and loss of job, and we've worked together a fair chunk. That kind of malice, probably from some indefbanned Wikipedia Review troll, annoyed me just a little. But yes, I agree, that sort of edit summary is inappropriate from an admin, so if I am sysopped you won't see any more of that.<tongue-in-cheek alert> Having said that, it might not be a bad idea if once a month our admins were permitted to write foul edit summaries to the vandals to blow off wikistress and ensure that they remain civil the rest of the time. Might even prevent cases of adminitis, you never know. But probably not.</tongue-in-cheek> Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL is not an optional guideline, it's policy. There is no "you can be uncivil to those who deserve it" exception. Nor, hopefully, will there ever be. It's bad enough that anonymous vandals troll up the place; the last thing we need is to have admins who troll right back. Redxiv 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- incivility != trolling. the wub "?!" 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL is not an optional guideline, it's policy. There is no "you can be uncivil to those who deserve it" exception. Nor, hopefully, will there ever be. It's bad enough that anonymous vandals troll up the place; the last thing we need is to have admins who troll right back. Redxiv 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - vandals are not users :) O.k, I'll try to respond coherently. To cut a long story short, Elaragirl's real life was in a complete mess at the time due to minor events such as the death of friends and relatives and loss of job, and we've worked together a fair chunk. That kind of malice, probably from some indefbanned Wikipedia Review troll, annoyed me just a little. But yes, I agree, that sort of edit summary is inappropriate from an admin, so if I am sysopped you won't see any more of that.<tongue-in-cheek alert> Having said that, it might not be a bad idea if once a month our admins were permitted to write foul edit summaries to the vandals to blow off wikistress and ensure that they remain civil the rest of the time. Might even prevent cases of adminitis, you never know. But probably not.</tongue-in-cheek> Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I agree with most of this user's AfD judgements, I am still concerned if it will be dropped as a neutral admin upholdng consensus to the fullest. — Deckiller 12:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning weak oppose. I'm not going to oppose someone who seems to be a trusted user - we need more admins - but I have several misgivings that keep me from supporting. (1) the diff provided by Zleitzen - profanities in edit summaries are unhelpful and civility at all times is important. (2) frequent use of the word "cruft" - this word is one that should be stricken from our vocabulary on Wikipedia. Sometimes, a topic is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia because it has little significance outside of the fictional universe in which it exists, but that doesn't mean that it isn't important to someone. Referring to things that are important to someone as "cruft" can be offensive. You are taking what is important to them and calling it "useless junk or excess materials". Nothing good can come from edit summaries like [16], for example. (3) The deletionism Wikiproject concerns me greatly. We don't need political parties on Wikipedia. --BigDT 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've actually been sparking a conversation on that WikiProject, and it's not as political as I thought. However, I am also concerned with the first point, but not so much the second ( I've been using the term 'cruft' a lot recently as well, and it's something I'm not proud of, but I can't hold a double standard). If we can see some sort of answer showing that the user will not use profanities in edit summaries, I might support. — Deckiller 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose the context of the edit summary would be considered mitigating circumstances? Moreschi was responding to a rather inappropriate comment placed on a user's page at a time... well, let's say when they really shouldn't have. I certainly wouldn't oppose for an indiscretion like that with extenuating circumstance. However, I do believe it should be taken into consideration for future conduct. Just a little reminder that we are all human and sometimes we watch each others' backs. Bubba hotep 13:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've responded to most of this with my response to Zleitzen above. As far as regards WP:SCISSORS, it is certainly not about campaigning: our main aim is to save articles from AfD, find sources, and only put forward at AfD those that simply cannot be sourced. If you read the project page in detail, hopefully all of this will become apparent. I've explained in more detail abovr what Bubba hotep meant by saying that that was really the wrong time. As regards use of the word "cruft" - perhaps it is a valid point that the word is inappropriate for a sysop. But just to clarify what I mean by cruft: I have created articles on most of the singers - though not all, some are non-notable - who sang at the first performance at Agrippina. However, I have not created articles on the opera's characters, and I will never do so: that would be operacruft, if you will. As regards that particular AfD, I notified the article creator and he then went on to vote delete at the AfD, so I believe I was sufficiently civil in other regards: and yes, admins cannot be saints:) Perhaps this answers some of the problems? Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 14:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You try to save articles from AfD and only nominate ones that can't be sourced for deletion? That certainly wasn't the case with those Gundam articles; I don't recall any attempt to get them fixed, they just got AfDed as soon as they were noticed. Redxiv 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP Deletion is staying out of the Gundam mess as a WP, since WP Gundam is the proper place to handle concerns. The focus of WP Deletion is different in any case. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet why is it that a fair number of people who swoop down on these luckless articles, doomed because they contain elements of the Gundam franchise, like "encyclopedic vultures" are sporting WP:SCISSORS tags in their user pages? Something foul is afoot. MalikCarr 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. On his merits, I would support, but the claims in the "oppose" section are hard to ignore. I worry about how Moreschi will deal with stress as an admin. YechielMan 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well hey, look at that. The same admin who has most callously set aside the dissenting arguments in this demonstration of perfectly good faith and has deduced that voices of dissent in this "concensus" are "sock puppets" as well is also conominating Moreschi for administration. Coincidence? I don't mean to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts that think Jimbo W. is an alien/government agent/Zionist overlord, but that doesn't mean I'm also going to ignore that which is blatantly obvious. MalikCarr 02:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're indeed sounding like a conspiracy nut. I think it's fairly clear that your problem isn't deletionism, or you would have opposed MER-C, or some other deletion-tendency type admins. This is simply looking like a temper tantrum at this point. Either let your comments stand, or don't be suprised when people start questioning your motives. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no point in opposing an admin who is already an admin; that's a lost cause before it begins. Here there is a slim but definately palpable chance to stop another deletionist from achieveing administrative firepower, and I believe that is a fight worth fighting. MalikCarr 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're indeed sounding like a conspiracy nut. I think it's fairly clear that your problem isn't deletionism, or you would have opposed MER-C, or some other deletion-tendency type admins. This is simply looking like a temper tantrum at this point. Either let your comments stand, or don't be suprised when people start questioning your motives. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well hey, look at that. The same admin who has most callously set aside the dissenting arguments in this demonstration of perfectly good faith and has deduced that voices of dissent in this "concensus" are "sock puppets" as well is also conominating Moreschi for administration. Coincidence? I don't mean to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts that think Jimbo W. is an alien/government agent/Zionist overlord, but that doesn't mean I'm also going to ignore that which is blatantly obvious. MalikCarr 02:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not worthy of my opposition, but I am a bit concerned about alleged deletionism because I've heard about how it's caused many gaps in coverage (even in the "real" topics). —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards oppose - Moreschi is a good person. Deletionists and inclusionists are the yin and yang of Wikipedia; each one balances the other out. However, extreme deletionism bothers me. I'm not going to ramble on about philosophies here, though. PTO 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't oppose, but I have trouble supporting an admin whose signature will contain the word "deletion." I support the principles at the linked site, but I think that there will be an implication of bias which I don't believe is truly present. I am confident that this will succeed and I wish Moreschi great success as an admin. --Kevin Murray 22:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Y'know, I'd feel a lot more confident that this will succeed if you'd voted support, but never mind. Anyway, thanks for the well-wishes, and is this any better? The whole reason why I advertised for WP:SCISSORS in my signature is because, somewhat implicitly, we can't put thousands of our templates on thousands of talk pages. Anyway, that particular project is now up and running, and new one in my signature is equally worthy and needs more attention. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The oppose and neutral commentary are convincing enough that I can't support, but not enough to oppose. Argyriou (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Garion96
Final (53/0/1); Ended 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Garion96 (talk · contribs) - Garion96 has been around since August 2005, and I think he's ready for adminship. Actually, I thought that some months ago, and he declined at the time, but has decided he's now ready. I am familiar with Garion because we have worked on copyright issues together, actually I offered to nominate him after he came to me recently to perform some admin tasks related to replacing a copyright violation with new text. His work with copyright issues alone shows he has a need for admin tools. He seems to be a level-headed editor who does lots of thankless maintenance and cleanup work, which is always a good sign. He was a contributer to an ad hoc project that probably saved Wikipedia from some bad press. He has received at least 3 barnstars from administrators. Perusing his talk and user talk edits show nothing but polite cooperation with other editors, welcomes to new editors, and proper warnings where appropriate. I'm sure he will expand on his contributions below, but he seems to have done some valuable work over time in keeping various articles accurate and high-quality.
In short, here's a guy who has the qualities that are important in a janitor, and I'm glad he's finally ready to be nominated here. W.marsh 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and I'd like to thank W.marsh for his flattering nomination. Garion96 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I hope to help out wherever I can. I have quite some experience in copyright violations, in Wikipedia and in my daytime job, so I will definitely work a lot with those in Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. The admin tools will help the work I already do in cleaning out the copyright violations in Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I also expect to help out in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (articles and images) which lately seems to have an eternal backlog and basically anywhere where there is need for an admin.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Article wise I am, of course, pleased of the featured list List of HIV-positive people which I and a lot of other editor’s cleaned up from an unsourced mess. Also of the work I did to Michael Palin and recently to Reservation (law) (I am still not finished with those).
- Cleanup and maintenance wise, I am pleased of cleaning up or keeping empty User:Bluemoose/Uncategorised good articles (now defunct unfortunately due to Martin leaving the project), as mentioned before Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, keeping vandalism from the articles in my watchlist and beyond and recently cleaning up old vandalism from this list. (that list could definitely need some help btw for people here interested in helping out).
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Luckily I don’t get stressed easily, but occasionally I have been in some conflicts. If it’s from vandals I just deal with it, the kind of vandals who even react strongly to the {{test}} message. In other cases I just keep discussing the issue till all can agree or I just leave the article alone if it’s obvious I am not helping. Unfortunately sometimes conflicts don’t resolve friendly, like the discussion which resulted in the “sort of proud” barnstar I have a link to on my user page and a conflict over a deletion of an article.
Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- 4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
- A: I would point the editor to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and specifically Wikipedia:Autobiography. Advise them to be open about it, that it’s better to only work on small factual problems in the article (with verifiable sources) and discuss any other problems on the talk page of the article in question. I also would advise them to ask for my help if there are issues with the article and the discussion it on the talk page isn’t fruitful. That last especially if the discussion was about unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
- 5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
- A: The most obvious circumstance where it would be inappropriate is of course when I am or another editor is in an contest dispute on the article with an anon. Another circumstance is when it’s only one static IP vandalizing the article, in that case it’s much better to block the ip for a short time.
- 6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
- A: Check how the article is written, see if it’s possible to change it into a nice stub, are there reliable sources about the company other than the website. Does the company pass WP:CORP. Use the “what links here’ button. Depending on those questions it will depend on whether the article should be speedy deleted, prodded (or AFD if necessary) or kept.
- 7. Under which circumstances would you block a user for vandalism?
- A: If the vandalism is still continuing after the user has been adequately warned. If the vandalism has stopped, there is no need for blocking. Although in those cases I do usually make a bookmark of the user’s contributions page and check a day or so later to see if they indeed have stopped. Especially when it’s sneaky vandalism which is harder to spot.
- General comments
- See Garion96's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Beat the nom support - lots of good work on copyright issues, great vandal fighter, obvious need for the tools --BigDT 02:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Beat-the-nom-but-beaten-by-the-nom-beater-edit-conflicted support - there is no reason this user should not be an admin, he has edits, he has experience, he has time, and I like the answers. ST47Talk 02:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator (oh yeah I guess we still have to do this...) --W.marsh 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Definitely need copyright guys — Lost(talk) 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- excellent candidate. Giving Garion96 admin tools will benefit the project. Jkelly 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- I don't really know the candidate, but no major red flags and we need more admins. Selket Talk 04:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. For anyone who volunteers to handle copyright issues, and means it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloody oath ViridaeTalk 05:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Axl 08:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems trustworthy. Drmaik 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrug - again, I'm seeing nothing broken. Looks like another good RFA candidate. Moreschi Deletion! 09:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 09:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues I can see. Seems willing to cut down on the backlog which is a must.--Zleitzen 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support admins needed, give him the tools. - Anas Talk? 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. S.D. ¿п? § 12:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, and out of curiosity - does the 96 indicate the year you were born? If so, blimey. Proto::► 13:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per my struck comment below and candidate responce. Eluchil404 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems like a good editor. No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Coemgenus 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent candidate; excellent nominator. Xoloz 17:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good understanding about the policies. Shyam (T/C) 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, especially as copyright specialist, but in general too Johnbod 18:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Good work on maintenance tasks and copyright problems; communicates and works well with others. ×Meegs 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- seems to be a good user ready to use admin tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Changed my mind. AfD isnot a strict requirement. -- Selmo (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very strong nomination by W.marsh, and good answers to the questions. YechielMan 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Edit history is good, both in quantity and quality, appears to be generally civil to users. Argyriou (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WjBscribe 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --A. B. (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 02:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A great candidate for admin. I feel I can trust him with the tools and he has more than enough experience. Darthgriz98 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Edit count speaks for itself. No possible way to oppose. Ganfon 13:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent candidate.-- danntm T C 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.--Húsönd 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course.--Wizardman 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. I've been noticing his excellent work with copyvios for some time now. --RobthTalk 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per nom. And thanks for the warm welcome! CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good candidate. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. PeaceNT 17:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very good vandal fighter. The added tools given to him would only benefit this project further. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs)
- Support. Everything looks great. --- RockMFR 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong in anti-vandal work and copyright issues are a particular concern of mine. Pigmantalk 08:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rettetast
- Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supportgood chap --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 10:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. Nishkid64 14:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per our recent constructive interaction at reservation (law) and well-thought out answers to the questions. - BanyanTree 15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason to think user would abuse the tools. IronDuke 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I remember you, you were the first person to help me here. You also welcomed me, back in August. Thanks. :-) · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Lack of XfD edits. It;s the only place where we can determine how the "delete" ability will be used (except for contested CSDs/prods). -- Selmo (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- What do you think happens to copyright violations? Do we keep them or do they get deleted? --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- You'll pass despite this, most likely, but I unfortunately don't see much policy discussion (which wouldn't be occuring on the deleted pages). Understand that this is only not an oppose because we do indeed need copyright guys, so I'm going to have lower standards for people who look like they will work on it. Apply caution in places you don't have experience; for instance, don't close XfDs until you've gotten some more participation. And typing this out, I realize I'm convinced you'll pass despite my objection. -Amark moo! 05:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks like a good candidate overall, but I really wanted to query the answer to question 5. Surely it's not appropriate for an admin to protect (including semi-protect) an article in which they are actively involved in a content dispute?Eluchil404 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. To clarify, it's definitely not appropriate to protect an article on which the protecting admin is actively engaging in a contest dispute. Garion96 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No upon rereading you were fine, I was just reading carelessly. Extra kudos though for responding to an essentially unreasonable criticism civily and constructively. "Vote" moved to support. Eluchil404 14:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history of uploaded images by this user indicates that they do not seem to use and/or understand fair use rationales (as they are missing from the uploaded images). I'd like to see some improvement in this area, especially if the editor is going to work on clearing out image backlogs. --- RockMFR 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, it's been a long time that I uploaded images to Wikipedia so I totally forgot about those. I much prefer finding images for Commons nowadays. I did provide them with a fair use rationale now. Garion96 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Shadow1
Final (68/16/5); Ended Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:18:33 UTC
Shadow1 (talk · contribs) - I'm nominating Shadow for adminship. He's created many excellent programs for editing Wikipedia, the most notable of which is Shadowbot. Shadow has proven himself to be acting in the best interests of the project in spending the necessary time to create this bot, he shown himself to be trustworthy in not using the bot or the bot flag to remove links wildly out with community consensus and has never betrayed the trust placed in him by using the account to make any other edits with the bot. In dealing with annoyed and upset editors, Shadow has shown himself to be civil and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy. The net benefit to Wikipedia is that someone who regularly deals with serial spammers and very damaging spambots will be able to deal with blocking editors intent on damaging the project and will be able to easily revert edits containing spam. I do trust the community will see the major benefits Shadow is making to the project and will entrust him with the tools he needs to continue this excellent work. -- Heligoland 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept this nomination. Shadow1 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I would definitely aim to keep CSD as clear as possible, because I've experienced the frustration of having a vanity article stay speedied for over an hour without deletion, and I want to make sure other users don't have to experience the same thing. In particular, I would try to keep categories G11 (advertisements) and G12 (copyright violations) clear, both to keep the encyclopedia in tip-top shape and to make sure that Wikipedia is close to completely GFDL (except for fair use, but that's another discussion), in line with my own beliefs on copyleft. I would also try to keep the block requests page clear, both to keep all articles free of vandalism and other edit-hindering problems, and to ensure that users can edit, instead of watching over a vandal's contributions and reverting when necessary. Along the lines of blocking vandals, I would also assist users reporting sock puppets at the suspected sock puppets page, to ensure that our XfD discussions remain clear of Keep-stacking individuals. The other task I anticipate helping with is the Open Proxies WikiProject. About a month ago, I ran into a rotating-IP spambot operating on over fifty open proxy IPs. I don't ever want to see that again, so I would gladly help to block any open proxies used to edit Wikipedia.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Well, as Heligo said, I'm the author of Shadowbot, an anti-spam bot. I feel that the bot is my greatest contribution to Wikipedia, being the only line of defense (that I'm aware of) which can combat spam. I'm fond of my anti-spam reversions, because I think that most of the links that I removed would have sat in articles until someone noticed them, and they were probably pushing the person's web site up on Google until its removal. Along that line, I really like my anti-vandal reversions, because I think that vandalism is an annoyance that prevents others from editing and collaborating on articles, and that I'm helping to allow others to keep up the great work on building the encyclopedia. Other than my anti-vandal/spam reversions, I like the cleanup I did to John the Ripper and Spectorsoft, which probably saved SpectorSoft from future deletion, and my creation of Spookitalk as a stub.
- 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: Being the author and operator of Shadowbot, I receive messages about the bot reverting users almost every day. I think that, in all cases, I handle the problems in a professional and courteous manner. I've had many users being extremely incivil towards me, but I help them to understand why Shadowbot reverted them, and what they can do to help solve the problem in the future. One of the best tools to stop spammers and vandals is communication, and I believe that my messages to users about what they may have done wrong is effective at building their citation skills, as well as including the citations in a more formal and encyclopedic manner. Besides the users reverted by Shadowbot, I feel that I've handled my cases with the Mediation Cabal very well. In a recent case, seen on the Brett Favre talk page, I think I did my best work, which unfortunately was unable to stop one of the editors in the conflict from leaving the project. Other cases I think I have handled well can be found at User:Shadow1/Nikon_FE2 and User:Shadow1/MLB.com. In the future I don't believe that I will do anything different to solve problems. I will answer questions and resolve conflicts in a professional and polite tone, and I will make sure that the outcome of any conflicts I help to resolve is favorable to everyone involved.
Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. What are each of the five pillars of Wikipedia and why is each one important?
- A:
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--Exactly that. Wikipedia is a place where you can gather information that is organized in a professional and formal manner. It's not a web site where you can put arbitrary, random information about you and your friends, or your web site (although if you're notable enough you can).
- Wikipedia has a neutral point of view--No article on Wikipedia should be biased, period. If you pick up virtually any hard-copy encyclopedia, you'll notice that all articles are written without any bias towards any one view. If Wikipedia is ever going to be regarded as an official source of well-written information, we need to work to resolve disputes and make sure that everyone is editing the best way that they can.
- Wikipedia is free content--Since Wikipedia is GFDL, we need to work to remove copyright infringements, which are starting to become a problem here. It's OK to use information from someone's web site, but everyone editing should probably have a good knowledge of the GFDL and when they need to cite their sources, and from which web sites to cite.
- Wikipedia has a code of conduct--Everyone on the wiki needs to cooperate, no questions asked. If you're an uncivil user and argue with editors whom you disagree with, that's an edit-hindering problem that needs to be addressed immediately, to ensure seamless collaboration on articles.
- Wikipedia does not have firm rules--My favorite. While that doesn't mean you can go off and do whatever you like to any article, regardless of what others and Wikipedia policy say, you can be bold! Add interesting information that Encarta doesn't have, cover what other encyclopedias don't. It's what sets Wikipedia apart from other sources of information, and it's ultimately what will make Wikipedia an ideal encyclopedia to read.
- 5. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
- A: Simply put, wheel warring is bad because it impedes editing. If you have two administrators fighting over, say, the protection of an article, then regular users probably won't be able to edit the article for a while until the "war" simmers off. That's bad. The easiest way to stop wheel wars before they happen is to communicate. If you're going to take action that might be opposed by another administrator, make sure you discuss it on WP:AN or WP:ANI first. Get outside opinion, maybe there's an easier way to fix the problem that you didn't see before.
- 6. Who has the authority to ban users?
- A: The community. The entire point of Wikipedia is that it is community-based, and the community should decide whether to ban a user. While the Arbitration Committee does have the power to ban users, remember that they were elected to their position by the community. Being in ArbCom means that the community trusts you enough to decide on their behalf. Other than the community, Jimbo is the only other person who can the authority to ban users, but he created Wikipedia, he should probably get some say in what goes on.
- General comments
- See Shadow1'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. -- Heligoland 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Was incivil to me on IRC about !voting before all the questions are answered, I'm really sorry I have to do this, but Alex would have made a good admin. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC) PS: just kidding. Support actually. [reply]
- Supportper nom. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Even if Shadow has a low XfD count does that matter? I think I have had maybe 100 XfD edits since becoming an admin. Admin work is far more than XfD's. And I fully support this user Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regardless of "low AFD participation", I think he has demonstrated knowledge of policy in other areas, such as building and operating User:Shadowbot, User:Shadowbot2, User:Shadow1/ShadowTool ect ect. I don't think every admin has to have the same experience before getting the mop. We are all not the same. Frankly this is one hell of a good wikignome laboring in the dark, and certainly can use the tools to do what he does. He is a tool maker, and wikignome. As far as trust goes, I find him trustworthy. Lets all remember that the mop is not a big deal. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - valued contributor, obvious need for the tools, lack of substantive reason to oppose. We need more admins and anti-spam work more than makes up for a lack of XfD participation. --BigDT 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the simple question, would this user as an admin make WP a better place? Yes. Okay, so XFD's are lacking but should that really be the only criterion for voting these days? Good luck Shadow1... The Rambling Man 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- This user's answers to the questions above show that the user would make a good admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Before I became a sysop (only this past July) I doubt I had more than 15 XfD contribs. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I lied, it was seven. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Different editors, and different sysops, have different intersts and different skills. And very few people can spend all day supervising every aspect of the project. This user spends less time than some in AfD. And a lot more time in other places. Needs the tools, and will not misuse them.--Anthony.bradbury 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supportish - low XfD participation and I'm not seeing any quality articles, but we need more sysops and I'm not seeing anything particularly broken. Should this RFA pass it's probably a good idea that the user should wield the tools with care for a while. Moreschi Deletion! 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Low XfD participation is a bad reason to refuse adminship, and the quote mentioned by User:Misza13 (specifically, this) has to be taken with a grain of salt. Veinor (talk to me) 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I want XfD for policy discussion, not just for the sake of being XfD, and he's got plenty of policy discussion. -Amark moo! 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Shadow1 is a great editor and a valuable asset to the wiki. As an anti-spam user, he clearly needs the tools for blocking and deletion, he is almost always on IRC and therefore available should he be needed, and he runs several bots, including a bot which automatically reverts spam. ST47Talk 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Both Shadowbot and Perlwikipedia are very valuable contributions, I guess Shadow1's work would benefit from using the tools. You have a reasonably low experience with the mainspace, so please stay away from attempts to police experienced users, rather use your tools against spammers and to support development. Alex Bakharev 23:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Wikipedier 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Mass AfD participation is not needed here (for case and point, see my own RfA and the concerns and counter points raised, User:Curps had a good explanation) nor is making 50 trillion edits a day, lots of our sysops don't make 50 trillion edits a day and still do a fine job. There is a clear need to utilize the tools in spam fighting. Now, an automated CSD mass delete would be fine, but most pages are a 5s glance over before hitting the delete button, I just don't see it to be a concern in any way shape or form. -- Tawker 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nothing problematic in history, concerns raised by opposition are trivial or irrelevant. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I understand the oppose and neutral comments that you could be more active and have more XfD participation, but your answers show competence and familiarity with the aspects of Wikipedia for which you desire the tools, and I trust you and the other supporters. Dar-Ape 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I don't have to explain this one. Shadow1's contributions, especially the bot, help keep Wikipedia clean so that the rest of us can do our work here. YechielMan 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Argyriou. Jkelly 02:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support his knowledge and experience more than earn my support. he's done some pretty amazing things. he'd be an asset to adminship. JoeSmack Talk 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Lost(talk) 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user knows what he's doing, no question. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support trust-worthy. - Anas Talk? 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I trust this user to use the tools wisely. Proto::► 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Outstanding spamfighter.--Húsönd 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WJBscribe 16:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, -- Shyam (T/C) 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have no problems with this nominee's participation rate, particularly in that most of it has been in the last six months. The nominee demonstrates trustworthiness and potential to be a good admin. Agent 86 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Weak Support I would have liked to have seen a bit more in the nominee's contribution history to demonstrate the necessary foundational experience and a bit more of well-roundedness, but what is particularly important is trustworthiness. I'm struck by Pascal.Tesson's "neutral" comment in which he comments on the nominee's trustworthiness. I think that if we trust this nominee, it very much ameliorates whatever minor weaknesses the candidate might have. Agent 86 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I trust this user and believe he will use admin tools responsibly and reasonably. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Programming a bot to deal with problematic edits, then dealing with angry comments the bot's reversions and warnings generate has probably given Shadow as keen an appreciation of much of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as if he were commenting at AfDs daily -- just a different set of policies and guidelines. Shadowbot's processing about 200 edits/day with a very, very low error, but still non-zero, error rate. Some of the more vocal complaints come from spammers who deserved warnings and reversions. --A. B. (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have shadowbot online more, please. It does good work. alphachimp 01:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support PeaceNT 10:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom--Hu12 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You seem to have a good handle on things. Your edit count is pretty good and so's your determination. Ganfon 13:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like he knows what he is doing.-- danntm T C 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I trust him to make a good use of the tools, although I am not very satisfied of his encyclopedic contributions. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support • The question in RFA is simple and single: do I trust this user? With Shadow, my answer is an unequivocal HELL YES! ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support --BozMo talk 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC). Useful helpful contributor.[reply]
- Support per nom.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Benefit of the doubt. >Radiant< 09:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support: no reasons to oppose. Causesobad --> (Talk) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this great editor. It's sill to demand that every admin be an AfD denizen. Cool Hand Luke 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've seen enough out of Shadow to instill confidence in adding my support. Daniel.Bryant 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 11:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent user, would benefit from admin tools, won't abuse them. --Aude (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I for one am someone who recognises that each editor has different interests around Wikipedia, and therefore should not be knocked for lack of participation in certain areas. I also feel this user would make very good use of admin tools, as part of their continued effort to improve Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! --Sagaciousuk (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Absolutely Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems to be a good contributor. The fact that his opposition seems to be made almost entirely out of editcountitis solidifies my support. If the worst anyone can say about a user is that he doesn't spend half his waking hours on Wikipedia, that's a pretty good sign. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 11:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto Rspeer Spartaz 14:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~ Arjun 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rettetast
- Support Good work with ShadowBot. You will make a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- I'm not convinced. I donm't believe article writing is an important part of being an admin. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)04:11, Sunday, 11 February '07
- Support good admin candidate...--rogerd 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I can only see good coming out of this. If he has low XfD participation, I doubt he'll suddenly jump into it tomorrow and start deleting pages against consensus. Grandmasterka 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent candidate, well-versed in his specialities. J. Spencer 02:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why The Hell Not? Ral315 (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no reason not to :) 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viridae (talk • contribs).
- Support per Ral315. Kusma (討論) 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great admin candidate, and should be given a mop swiftly. Somitho 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NoSeptember 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Infrequent and low amount of AfD participation. The user has participated in about 8 discussions in the past three months. I would feel more confident about this user if I could see a bit more AfD participation in the future. Nishkid64 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I prefer new admins to be more active here. Sorry. --Majorly (o rly?) 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here? On RfA? Why? --Docg 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On Wikipedia in general. His activity level is too low for it to be worth him being an admin, imo. --Majorly (o rly?) 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, he's averaged 449 edits a month for the last 6 months, not counting February since it's only the 6th. How high would you want his activity level to be anyway? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More like this user's and this user's to start with. The amount of edits he makes a month me and most other active admins could make in a week. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arjun appears to have some tools installed in his monobook to make things like reverting vandalism faster, but that doesn't explain AnemoneProjectors' edit rate. I don't think it's reasonable though to expect potential admins to average 2,000+ edits a month. Not everyone has or wants popups or vandalproof installed, and even those who do might not have 7+ hours a day to devote to Wikipedia. Good grief, the last few months have been really slow for me at work so I've been spending 6 or so hours a day on Wikipedia and I'm only averaging 740 edits a month (since October when things at work slowed down dramatically and I acquired internet at home). If I were to run for admin, would you object to me because I'm not active enough? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's like with Werdna, who I also opposed. I would support in the future, but I just get the feeling promoting him would not be beneficial; just another admin who has the buttons but isn't using them. As for you in an RfA, surely if you've been busy at work an RfA at this moment would be bad timing? For me, an RfA should really be the peak of the user's time here, when they are making at least 50 or so edits a day, every day, and I don't think it is Shadow's. And please don't find an exception where I may have voted differently, as every request is unique. --Majorly (o rly?) 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arjun appears to have some tools installed in his monobook to make things like reverting vandalism faster, but that doesn't explain AnemoneProjectors' edit rate. I don't think it's reasonable though to expect potential admins to average 2,000+ edits a month. Not everyone has or wants popups or vandalproof installed, and even those who do might not have 7+ hours a day to devote to Wikipedia. Good grief, the last few months have been really slow for me at work so I've been spending 6 or so hours a day on Wikipedia and I'm only averaging 740 edits a month (since October when things at work slowed down dramatically and I acquired internet at home). If I were to run for admin, would you object to me because I'm not active enough? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More like this user's and this user's to start with. The amount of edits he makes a month me and most other active admins could make in a week. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, he's averaged 449 edits a month for the last 6 months, not counting February since it's only the 6th. How high would you want his activity level to be anyway? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On Wikipedia in general. His activity level is too low for it to be worth him being an admin, imo. --Majorly (o rly?) 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here? On RfA? Why? --Docg 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but oppose. While Shadow1 might be a competent technician/bot operator and well rounded in Wikipedia policies etc, my personal interactions with him do not make me comfortable with him holding a mop. As he himself admits (quote removed here), he's always angry at something and I can only guess he'd have an equally angry approach to "lowly" non-sysop contributors as an admin as well as be careless with the banhammer (Fire in the hole!) and [delete] button (for example, by keeping CSD "as clear as possible" by simply mass deleting everything). Миша13 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Copyright paranoia, and wants to be too quick with speedy deletions. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Low level of participation in wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose while I don't agree with the other delete votes because of lack of AFD participation, there is an obvious lack of article writing, the 3 articles he created are just stubs. Jaranda wat's sup 03:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Low interaction in wikispace. If fixed, looks a goody for a future run, so if you're unsuccessful this time, Shadow1, please drop me a line when you are next nominated. In my flick through contributions, I've yet to see "angry"ness manifest as incivility. --Dweller 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose As per above (fairly low activity) Dinojerm 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Jaranda. Jahangard 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I feel as though potential administrators should be moderately well-rounded in a variety of areas on Wikipedia. As such, the candidate's lack of adding content to the mainspace is a fairly major concern for me and is not consistent with what I look for in a candidate gaillimhConas tá tú? 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This user has no more than 8 mainspace edits to any article, and only 49 total edits to talk pages.[17] Quadzilla99 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose 49 talk page edits is about 1/4 of what I expect as minimum level of interaction. 1500 mainspace edits would be at the low end even if it weren't all mechanical reversions. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Jaranda. Dionyseus 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I don't think 1BOT is any better a rationale for supporting a candidate than 1FA is for opposing them, and that seems to be what the case for mopping Shadow1 comes down to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak oppose I am not, to be sure, in any way disinclined to support here in view of the candidate's being (relatively) inactive in mainspace and article talk or his being innately "angry", and I think Shadow, on the whole, to comport quite well with my conception of a solid admin; there is, at the very least, much to recommend him. I am a good bit concerned, though, by Shadow's avowed intention to work to clear CSD backlogs, his explanation of which leads me to fear that, his otherwise sound judgment notwithstanding, he might be too hasty to delete pages tagged for speedy (for all of which at least a cursory review is in order); in view, then, of my abiding belief that we generally need to be more circumspect in tagging, reviewing, and deleting CSDs, I cannot, I regret to say, support. Joe 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Xoloz and Jahiegel - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral I won't go as far as opposing because I fundamentally trust Shadow1 and I think he has shown sound judgment and ability to interact well with other users. But I think he also has insufficient experience not only at XfD but in the Wikipedia namespace in general. It's good for new admins to have some familiarity with the basic processes going on there and I'm not sure shadow1 has that. I'd be more than happy to support in a couple of months, once that is settled. Pascal.Tesson 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment, I think Shadow has quite some experience in the wikipedia namespace, just check out his hard work on User:Shadowbot2, which was designed to spot unprotected pages on the main page. Of course that is now done by the cascading protection that we have in place now, but it was relativity useful when it was needed. In addition if you trust Shadow1, why not trust him to learn on the job. I'm even willing to help mentor him in a way during the first few weeks, to advise him on what to do and more importantly what not to do. :D —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're saying but since (unfortunately) there is really no way to demote admins unless they are blatantly and repeatedly harming the project, I'd rather see admin candidates show a little more familiarity with process before starting out. I also think it's important for the community to have a good sample of what a candidate's work on the Wikipedia namespace would look like and I find it hard to do with less than 250 edits on that space (and actually much less if you discount the Sandbox edits and the edits related to the approval of the bot). Pascal.Tesson 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment, I think Shadow has quite some experience in the wikipedia namespace, just check out his hard work on User:Shadowbot2, which was designed to spot unprotected pages on the main page. Of course that is now done by the cascading protection that we have in place now, but it was relativity useful when it was needed. In addition if you trust Shadow1, why not trust him to learn on the job. I'm even willing to help mentor him in a way during the first few weeks, to advise him on what to do and more importantly what not to do. :D —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost Oppose Neutral per opposers. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral due to lack of experience. Edits have been consistently rising a little at a time over the last few months, which is great. However, the user has not planted a solid foundation in talkpage experience and a few other minor areas. This would probably be a support by late March if the positive trend continues. — Deckiller 12:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards support. Seems like a good user, but I don't really care for his edits. Lack of XfD participation hurts, and his edits don't make up for that miss.--Wizardman 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards support per some of the concerns raised here. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
MER-C
Final (100/57/10); Ended Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:45:35 (UTC)
MER-C (talk · contribs) - MER-C has been a very, very diligent vandal-fighter, and has shown very good judgment in doing so. His first request for adminship two and a half months nearly passed (and might have passed but for MER-C's own withdrawal of the request), and the opposition at the time generally was in the tenure of "he/she doesn't have enough proven record." Well, it's been more than two months, and I believe that since then he/she (I must say I don't know MER-C's gender -- not that it matters) has shown that he/she can be trusted with the responsibilities and the authorities of being an administrator. The opposition comments from the last RfA, I believe, have also helped him/her grow. Nlu (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. MER-C 11:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A:
- I plan on helping out at speedy deletions, proposed deletions, articles for deletion, miscellany for deletion, Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I also plan to continue my role as an anti-vandal and anti-spam editor, the tools will increase my effectiveness in this area. I also plan to move things along at the conflict of interest noticeboard and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. These are areas which I already have experience in and the tools are a logical extension to my capabilities and would help get rid of backlogs rather than causing them.
- A:
- Note that I edit during the part of the day when America is sleeping, i.e. when the speedy and vandalism backlogs tend to rear their ugly heads.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A:
- Part of building a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is weeding out the things that don't belong. That's right, I am a deletionist. This is a job which is just as important as adding new content. Since my last rfa, I have prodded over 1500 pages, nominated many more for deletion and thousands more for speedy deletion. I am an AFD regular with six months experience in the field. These range from typical band vanity to Gundam fancruft to myspace userpages to copyvios.
- A:
- I play a significant role in vandal fighting, as one can easily tell from my contribs. The retaliatory vandalism has gotten so worse that I have had my userpage fully protected soon after the last rfa. As mentioned in the last rfa, I am among Willy on Wheels' worst enemies.
- I also play an anti-spam role. Not in the field of dealing with external links spamming, but rather corporate vanity and spambots (which I have a zero tolerance towards). I maintain a series of spamtraps at Template:Spamsearch designed to catch spammy userpages, spambot generated vandalism and myspace pages. Literally at least 1000 spam pages would still be in existence if I wasn't here.
- Despite my wikignomish nature and preference to maintainance/deletionism, I have written three articles which have appeared on DYK: Planum Australe, Planum Boreum and Eberswalde (crater). I have also penned a number of non-stub things since my last rfa, mainly lists of geological features of Mars.
- I am also seen over at the list of dead ends, one of my sources of deletable material, and featured picture candidates.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A:
- I've been a relatively uncontroversial editor, generally avoiding conflict and stress. Probably the most controversial thing I've done recently was beginning the systematic purge of Gundam fancruft (which is still ongoing), however the folks at WP:GUNDAM have accepted their fate somewhat.
- When users cause me stress, I tend to walk away for an hour or two and then come back. Of course, unblocked vandals cause me a lot of annoyance... MER-C 12:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A:
Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- 4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
- A:
- It really depends on how notable the person is. For borderline or lower notable people, WP:AFD is the way to go. In other instances, I'd go to the COI noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard (depending on the nature of the edits involved) to encourage discussion on the issue.
- A:
- 5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
- A:
- When it is not subject to persistent vandalism from multiple IP addresses and/or sockpuppets of banned users. Also when an article is linked to but not transcluded from the main page unless when vandalism is overwhelming.
- A:
- 6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
- A:
- An article is unquestionably spam when it is obvious corporate vanity, written in the first or second person and/or it is found in the userspace. For other articles, I'd check to see if it were evaluated by someone else - if so, delete; if not, tag it.
- A:
Bonus question:
- 7. Should every externally linked site in an article be evaluated for possible copyright infringement?
- A:
- No, it's not necessary. In fact, that's somewhat of a slow and silly way of determining copyright status, all you need to do is google a random sentence. It also is a symptom of copyright paranoia.
- A:
Optional questions from Kevin Murray (talk • contribs):
- 8. In your last RfA, you withdrew your acceptance of the nomination part way through the voting citing: "I've just had a spurt of busyness in real life which won't go away for the next month or so." Will this "busyness" business be likely to reoccur and interfere with future consistency in your obligations as an admin?
- A:
- It was a once off due to someone's bad time management dumping a lot of things for me to do in a short period of time. In fact, during that time, my edit count dipped from 250/day to 200/day. However, the stuff I was inundated with seemed overwhelming and so I withdrew the RFA to remove one thing off my plate.
- A:
- There's no guarantee it won't happen again, though I don't see it happening in the immediate future (i.e. for the next four months or so).
- 9. Since you describe yourself as a "deletionist" how can you be a neutral evaluator of outcomes at XfD? And, how do you explain the volume of articles, where you have voted "delete" when the consensus was "keep"?
- A:
- Despite my bias towards deletion, I feel that I am able to evaluate consensus - which is what counts - correctly. There is no such thing as being truely neutral but there are close approximations to it. Experience in seeing hundreds of outcomes reached on AFD and observing (but not taking part in) the controversy that results gives a good guide to how one should act in the future. It isn't philosophy but experience and hindsight that counts here.
- A:
- As for the !voting, I take into account what people have said before me and what the article claims. In my research, I take a representative sample of the stuff out there and estimate the probability of the subject meeting a notability guideline based on extrapolation. Yes, this can be wrong, but it works most of the time. MER-C 12:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Doug Bell (talk • contribs):
- 10. Since you acknowledge that your tendency to delete an article is greater than say the median Wikipedian tendency, how would you apply the speedy deletion criteria? In particular, would you tend more towards speedy deletion or towards listing the page on XfD if the application of the speedy deletion criteria to the page was subjective?
- A:
- General comments
- See MER-C'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, obviously, as nominator, for reasons stated above. --Nlu (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - MER-C is exactly what we should be looking for in an administrator. He/she is knowledgeable about policy and does a boatload of work on backlogs that go much faster with admin tools. I was especially impressed with the technical knowledge here, as the situation was over the heads of many current admins (including myself), and by his calm response to a new sysop's ignorance of policy. Not only will MER-C make a fine admin, we would benefit greatly by giving this user the tools.--Kchase T 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I 100% agree with Majorly on the XFD and other things. However I think that you are a great vandal fighter who could be of good use with the tools, I trust you. ~ Arjun 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - someone I've seen around a lot, almost always doing the right thing. Moreschi Deletion! 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support of someone who is experienced and obviously has a use for the tools. But please be careful with the word "cruft" - it can be offensive to someone when you apply it to a topic that is important to them. Just because something doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines doesn't mean that some people don't consider it important and we don't need to be insulting or perform a victory dance when we delete it. As with StuffOfInterest below, I'm concerned when you talk about someone accepting their fate. This is not an us vs them - we are all here to try and improve the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, you obviously have a use for the tools, so I support, even though I have strong misgivings about your answer to question #3. --BigDT 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-per good vandal fighter.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, we do not have enough administrators who help with the deletion backlogs. MER-C will be an asset for Wikipedia. Concerns from the last RfA seem to have been adressed. Kusma (討論) 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per all above, but you need to take into consideration Stuff0fInterest's complaint. Ganfon 15:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have no doubt at all that this user will use the tools to the benefit of the project --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Lost(talk) 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I believe you are a little too zealous when it comes to deleting, but I'd still trust in you with the tools. -- Anas Talk? 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems trustworthy & has good knowledge of policies. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support while I would prefer isn't as much of a deletionist, he does decent work at AFD.-- danntm T C 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per (may I say this aloud?) AfD history. Regards, Kncyu38 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a great vandal hunter and I think while a little on the deletionist side of life, nothing irreversible. Good luck! The Rambling Man 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. I have had nothing but positive experience with MER-C. VegaDark 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support (see Oppose/Neutral). --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ST47Talk 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I co-nominated this user's first RfA, and was considering nominating again, just recently. This user is a valued contributor to Wikipedia, and definitely demonstrates the need for admin tools, an understanding of policy, and strong dedication to the project. Nishkid64 21:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A user that would definitely utilize the mop in a positive manner.Bakaman 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support just like last time. Outstanding user, knows policies very well and will definitely make good use of the tools.--Húsönd 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support an excellant vandal fighter who would benefit from the tools for that reason alone. ViridaeTalk 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Support- user needs tools, I have attempted to nominate him before. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)00:52, Sunday, 4 February '07
- Strong support congratulations, you found my grandfather clause and didn't even really need it :) Keeping the signal-to-noise ratio in article space at a manageable level is one of things we need more admins to do, and MER-C has an established record of being willing and able to do it. While the plural of anecdote is not data, I've seen enough of his speedy-taggings that I have complete confidence in his deletion judgment. Opabinia regalis 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Would help Wikipedia with the tools.--Wikipedier 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier[reply]
- Strong Support per above and because you a strong defender of wikipedia against vandals. Wikipedia needs more admins in the fight against vandalism. For strong support, would like to see your answers to Malber and his optional questions. Changed to Strong Support. LordHarris 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support This user is the epitome of "showing a need for the tools". I see tireless contributions and I think it would benefit the encyclopedia greatly to give this user the tools. Heck if we were paying him/her s/he should put in a name change request to MER-CENARY. James086Talk 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, trusted and very experienced. Nobody opposing presents a convincing reason for doing so. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support good vandal fighter, the administrative abilities would only increase this user's usefulness on Wikipedia. I also remind the oppose voters that persistence in the pursuit of unencyclopedic material on Wikipedia is no vice.--Jersey Devil 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Amazing at his strong points, maybe not the best at XfD, but at least he participates. I can't oppose him.--Wizardman 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Strong contributor, knows the policies well, there is no reason to believe he wll misuse the tools, his having them will be a positive for the project. NoSeptember 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support Fantastic asset to WP. Not all of us are article writers, but MER-C is civil, knows policy and can be trusted with the tools. Glen 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - one of the best vandalfighters on this project needs tools Alex Bakharev 08:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. He's ready now. Khoikhoi 08:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support RfA cliche #1. More to the point, while Trebor has a point that simple pile-on votes are not useful, I would agrue that "per nom"s after a re-list don't fall into that category. If something has already been relisted, showing that the previous arguments hav wider support can be an important part of moving the process forward. Eluchil404 10:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ther primary function of every editor is, or should be, the improvement of the encyclopedia. And the additional function of an admin is to maintain the encyclopedia, which I am sur MER-C will do brilliantly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony.bradbury (talk • contribs).
- Support per nom, Kusma, Opabinia regalis, Glen... Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Opposes based on "per nom" type AfD comments are especially unconvincing. -- Steel 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, without reservation. Terence Ong 15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suport This user will make a good admin. —mikedk9109SIGN 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful support (switching from neutral) on second thought, my concerns don't outweigh his qualities. Pascal.Tesson 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent vandal-fighter. Hut 8.5 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see MER-C frequently on the AfD pages. I value his nominations and contributions. Some are trivial; others are not. I think there is a critical distinction between one's personal opinion as an editor, and one's application of policy as an administrator. Like MER-C, I am a deletionist, and I nominate articles from the orphaned list if I think they cannot or should not be salvaged. That doesn't mean I would delete those articles without discussion if I had the power to do so. Submitting an article for Afd means that you acknowledge the need for consensus. If it isn't there, you don't delete. Otherwise, MER-C's tireless, varied contributions on fighting spam, cruft, and vandalism convince me that he will make a fine admin. YechielMan 21:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I really do believe MER-C would know when to pull the trigger and when not to if handed the tools. I credit him with some common sense and the ability to confer in instances when he was unsure (including instances of cruft, which let's face it, means all things to all people and little to none). He is an invaluable vandal fighter and also has been very pro-active in the rampant spam area (originator of a spam detector template which I have seen on many user pages since). As for Delete per nom? If there is nothing else to add to the nominator's argument for deletion, what else is there to say? Are we expecting people to make up stuff or waffle? Anyway, on a personal note, I have turned to this user for advice on many an occasion in the past. Also, I would have been further up the list of support if it wasn't for an "inconvenient" wikibreak! Bubba hotep 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MER-C spends lots of time voting on AfDs, is a great vandal fighter and from what I have seen is a civil user. BJTalk 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good candidate to make WP a tidier place --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Moreschi (#4) said it quite well. - Gilliam 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support cant believe I'm supporting an amitted deletionist yet when ever MER-C has crossed my path I havent seen any issues of civility or lack of policy knowledge that would warrant a neutral or oppose vote. Also we need more gnomes Gnangarra 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Though he/she hasn't created many articles, vandal fighting is 75% of what the admin tools are for. Vandal fighters tend to have a strong grasp of policy, so I can fully trust this user with the mop. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Although I agree with Majorly about your AfD habits. Perhaps you should tone your deletionism down a bit? | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support have never faulted his judgement regarding policy. Hit-and-run AfD voting? Sometimes there really isn't much more to say than 'per nom'. No reason to suspect he would abuse the tools. riana_dzasta 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Support, of course. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We need more admins willing to tackle the deletion backlog. It is a shame that this willingness is going to count against MER-C; doing the correct thing upsets people who don't agree. The people who avoid any such issues doing nothing and staying out of trouble get adminned, and the editors capable of making ballsy calls - the ones we need as admins - do not). Proto::► 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see few reasons to oppose that do not boil down to editcountitis. >Radiant< 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --BozMo talk 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC). On the side of the angels, clearly.[reply]
- Support - Excellent vandal fighter. Hope MER-C will fight some of the other backlogs too. Wickethewok 15:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good vandal fighter. PikminloverMeep!|| 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Easily one of the most productive, precise and civil editors around. Criticism seems to be focused on his laconic comments on AfD: If the reason is already explained in a 5 page long policy, why repeat it? yandman 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. More deletionist than I am, but that's not a reason to oppose a good editor and vandal-fighter for adminship. There is room for differences of opinion within the policies. Coemgenus 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Crazy Support Consistantly beats me to the draw while RC patrolling. → p00rleno (lvl 82) ←ROCKSCRS 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Weak to moderate support. I'm glad to see that MER-C writes articles as well as just voting for their deletion. I do think that at times he could more fully explain his reasons for choosing to delete an article, hence the qualifier "weak to moderate". I don't however think he/she would abuse the tools. --Kyoko 21:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Although I have not always agreed with him he has always done good work and would be a real asset to AIV --St.daniel 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Full Support I have seen this user's work many times (often beats me at recent changes) and I approve of his AfD work. ffm yes? 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, we always need more vandal fighters.-gadfium 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - editor is always a pleasure to work with, needs tools, won't abuse them (and some of the oppose votes are ludicrous) 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor who'll help clear the backlogs and make good use of tools. utcursch | talk 12:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust MER-C. --MECU≈talk 14:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I was going to nominate him myself. I didn't realize that someone had already nominated him. Diez2 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Genuinely believed he was already an admin, awesome vandal fighter, not interacted, but seen about a lot and trust him. (My apologies if my gender assumption is incorrect) --Mnemeson 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would abuse the tools. Frise 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, while I can see a slightly triggerhappy tendancy with deletions, the result is based on consensus and not personal opinion. I trust MER-C to uphold the consensus and keep what should the community deem to be appropriate. His vandal fighting is where he shines and I think he will use the admin tools to good effect. Mallanox 02:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stongest Possible Support -- Removing material is a janitorial thing and admins are often janitors. Also MERC does lots of good work against vandals, even keeping his own vandal records, like User:MER-C/Blu Aardvark. SakotGrimshine 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support One of Wikipedia's finer contributors--I've always been impressed by his work. I must say, I find it a rather strange argument to claim that removing more content than he adds makes him a poor contributor--Wikipedia's problem has never been quantity of content, but rather quality; to find quality, you often have to remove a great deal of crap. An administrative role has nothing to do with adding content, but rather with removing content (through rollback and deletion), limiting who can add content (through blocks and protection), and performing tedious, boring housekeeping tasks. I do wish people would get it through their heads that adminship is in no way a reward for fine article writing, but rather that it is a tool to allow trustworthy people to perform tedious tasks that most would never even consider doing without pay, and most of all that it is "not a big deal." I also find it rather strange to criticize MER-C for his "drive-by" AfD votes--is it really a bad trait for an admin to be less opiniated, less stubborn, less wordy (unlike myself...), and less full of himself? If you ask me, this is what we should look for in an admin. Anyway, long story short, it's a pity that this RfA may not pass, as MER-C could truly be one of our better admins if we'd give him the chance. AmiDaniel (talk)
- Support. MER-C's work at XfD is impressive, and I have no doubt that he'll exercise good judgment in closing deletion discussions. His willingness to help at WP:SSP is a plus with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good vandal fighter, have no misconceptions. I know they will become a good admin -- Casmith_789 (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, MER-C would be an outstanding sysop, and should be given the mop without question. Somitho 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I appreciate MER-C's work on the WP:COI/N noticeboard. If he was an administrator he could probably do even more useful things there. EdJohnston 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MER-C refuses to compromise on core policies of Wikipedia such as verifiability and original research. For this reason (s)he deserves our full support. - Chardish 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom :-P the wub "?!" 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definate asset to WP --Hu12 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support does the dirty work necessary for the encyclopedia. Disagreements about what belongs in Wikipedia is not a reason to oppose someone who is clearly working (very hard) in good faith to improve WP. No reason to think he would abuse the tools and no reason to think that denying the tools would somehow shange his current activity. --Tbeatty 04:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We need more admin vandal fighters. alphachimp 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent vandal fighter. Agathoclea 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - seen this user a lot on reverting vandalism and deletion discussions. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor. --Folantin 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think he would be an active admin (which we need), but I do not think he would abuse the tools. Mr Stephen 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dedicated editor, good admin skills. --Soman 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, whether it will matter or not. MER-C is a good editor and would be a great addition to our current administrative team. Catch-22, it seems. Participate in AfD, get opposed, fail to participate in AfD, get opposed! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent vandal fighter. Hemmingsen 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supportˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Aksi_great (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. There is no way I can support someone who's only role is to remove material. Claims in nomination statement that what stopped his first attempt at nomination was tenure is incomplete. A big complaint raised was his tendency towards "ready, fire, aim" when it comes to WP:PROD and WP:AfD nominations. I see nothing in his statements above which show he has taken this to heart and plans to spend more time researching than tagging. His attitude seems to be that the burden is on the community to defend against his nominations rather than him to support them. Finally, with statements like he made in question three above, "however the folks at WP:GUNDAM have accepted their fate somewhat", I fear he will be a bully of an administrator. I've seen too many of those and don't need another one. --StuffOfInterest 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I agree with StuffOfInterest. An administrator should be experienced in creating articles and adding new material, not just reverts. Also, mabye not enough experience in conficts. ~ JFBurton 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Sorry, but we don't need more pile-on !voters at AfD.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] Others I checked were brief "not notable"s or "fails WP:XXX"s. An admin needs to show a good understanding of the policies and guidelines to close AfDs, and I don't trust this user not simply to bean-count. If I could be shown a few AfDs where the candidate has followed-up and argued his position in the face of opposition, or done some research to back up his opinions, I might be convinced otherwise. Trebor 19:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a few I found:[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Nishkid64 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I saw them, but I still don't think they show more than cursory research or a deeper understanding of policies and guidelines. What also worries me is the number of "delete per noms" so recently (indeed, I'm only commenting because I noticed yesterday that a lot of AfDs had his comments on); it's vote. Trebor 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who regularly relists AfDs that don't attract any attention I have to say I'm grateful that MER-C gives the also-rans some attention when almost nobody else does. Fbow, in most of the cases above I don't see much more that needs to be said. If I see a case where a number of editors try to get to the core of the problem and someone just throws in a drive-by "per nom" or "NN" making clear they didn't pay attention to the argument, that would be a reason to oppose. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well maybe I'm alone on this, but I prefer at least a basic rephrase of the arguments to ensure you've read through the discussion and in some cases done some research. I sometimes wonder if anyone would notice if I simply added "Delete per nom" to every discussion. At one point he made three !votes in a minute, which can't possibly be enough time to view the article, the discussion, do any research and write your response. If he carries that on to closing discussions, then I think we'll have problems; an admin is meant to weigh the arguments, not count them. Doing a search through the last 2000 odd contributions, I can only find a couple of times he !voted to keep, and one of them was him changing after first adding a brief comment. Even if you think "drive-by"s are useful, I don't think these are good qualities for a closer to have. Trebor 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I didn't look at the time stamps. ~ trialsanderrors 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to make this thread any longer, but since 'three votes in a minute' also came up below - especially with popups and/or tabs, it's perfectly possible to read and evaluate three AfDs, and then subsequently post comments on all three in rapid succession. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the "Lady of Stavoren" diff that NishKid cites in support of MER-C, it illustrates precisely the problem with his trigger-happy nature. He thought it should be speedied as WP:NFT, when subsequent editors, who took the time to research the subject, found that it was a genuine Dutch folk tale. It may not close as a keep, but MER-C jumped to conclusions. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to make this thread any longer, but since 'three votes in a minute' also came up below - especially with popups and/or tabs, it's perfectly possible to read and evaluate three AfDs, and then subsequently post comments on all three in rapid succession. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I didn't look at the time stamps. ~ trialsanderrors 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well maybe I'm alone on this, but I prefer at least a basic rephrase of the arguments to ensure you've read through the discussion and in some cases done some research. I sometimes wonder if anyone would notice if I simply added "Delete per nom" to every discussion. At one point he made three !votes in a minute, which can't possibly be enough time to view the article, the discussion, do any research and write your response. If he carries that on to closing discussions, then I think we'll have problems; an admin is meant to weigh the arguments, not count them. Doing a search through the last 2000 odd contributions, I can only find a couple of times he !voted to keep, and one of them was him changing after first adding a brief comment. Even if you think "drive-by"s are useful, I don't think these are good qualities for a closer to have. Trebor 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who regularly relists AfDs that don't attract any attention I have to say I'm grateful that MER-C gives the also-rans some attention when almost nobody else does. Fbow, in most of the cases above I don't see much more that needs to be said. If I see a case where a number of editors try to get to the core of the problem and someone just throws in a drive-by "per nom" or "NN" making clear they didn't pay attention to the argument, that would be a reason to oppose. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I saw them, but I still don't think they show more than cursory research or a deeper understanding of policies and guidelines. What also worries me is the number of "delete per noms" so recently (indeed, I'm only commenting because I noticed yesterday that a lot of AfDs had his comments on); it's vote. Trebor 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a few I found:[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Nishkid64 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It looks to me like your XfD participation is almost completely just rapid fire "Delete per X". I want XfD to show that you understand policy, not to show that you can type out "Delete per nom". As above, if you can show examples where you did more, I might reconsider. -Amark moo! 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont know much about the nominee's AFD contribs but his CSD contributions are valuable and in huge numbers. They are not visible because they are almost always deleted. Whenever I dive into CSD to clear backlogs, I find his nominations quite convincing — Lost(talk) 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice... but it's not what I want. I mean, I'm happy that he's conservative enough with speedy tagging that you find them so convincing, but I expect caution with speedy tagging from everyone, admin or not. And speedy tagging is not policy discussion, since they are written in a way such that there is next to no interpretation to be done. -Amark moo! 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont know much about the nominee's AFD contribs but his CSD contributions are valuable and in huge numbers. They are not visible because they are almost always deleted. Whenever I dive into CSD to clear backlogs, I find his nominations quite convincing — Lost(talk) 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I agree with the comments stated above. --ⅮⅭⅬⅩⅤⅠ 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per StuffOfInterest. I have seen MER-C on XFD very often, and although we are grateful for his work with deleting articles, it seems that he A)Racks up !votes though agreeing with others and B) Spends a disproportionate amount of time there. Sorry, dude. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose : The "weeding out the things that don't belong" comment is beyond the pale. Though that's what I'm doing now. No offence. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Trebor. Everybody has to say "per nom" or "per [user]" but it just appears that you use that line too often. Also, the fact that you had 3 !votes in one minute says it all. It is impossible to review the nomination properly in that span of time. Sorry. Wikipediarules2221 02:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all my comments below, and per Trebor. Too trigger-happy. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I had formed much the same impressions as above, but I wanted to put hard facts behind them. I decided to F3 for "mer-c" in the past few days of AFDs, and I found him to be even more ultra-deletionist than I had believed. On February 1, he cast 41 delete !votes, speedy tagging five of them, with NO keeps. The next day, he had 50 delete !votes, with five more speedy-tags. For February 3, he racked up 54 deletes, one merge then delete, one merge, and finally, one keep. I don't see how anyone can properly research and assess that many subjects (a third or more of all articles on AFD), on top of the dozens of others he tags for speedy or PROD. I worry about someone so lopsidedly unbalanced towards deletion closing disputed AFDs unfairly, quick-closing AFDs as WP:SNOW deletes after a few "per nom" dittoes before a defender gets to it, or using "AFD is not a vote" to delete even in the face of a keep consensus. Worse, in reviewing other people's speedies and PRODs, where he would not be checked by anyone else's opinion, I suspect he would not have the judgment to not immediately delete. Any greater effectiveness in vandalfighting and spamfighting he would derive from admin tools would be eaten up in the deletion reviews and undeletion requests he would cause. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I have also noticed the tendency at AfD to say very little (e.g., “Delete per nom”, “Delete per above”, but participate with delete votes frequently to the extent of almost being a rubber-stamp for the nominations. Perhaps this is a result of being criticized for lack of experience in the prior RfA. He/she has also a bit dismissive of attempts to discuss reasoning behind alternate views, and seems to rush the process a bit with attempts at speedy deletes. In many case I see him/her voting to delete in the first few votes, but the consensus of other editors being to keep the article in the end. Does this show an understanding of notability? The answers to questions above make me think that Mer-c is a bit of a zealot for deletion. --Kevin Murray 03:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak oppose. I am disappointed to see the arguments here so explicitly focussed on the specific issue of unarticulated voting comments on AfD's. I think the bigger problem is the stated lack of contribution to article space content. That coupled with proven undiplomatic tendencies, and yes, cursory review of AfD's before voting leads me to believe that this editor, while hugely beneficial to wikipedia, requires more experience in the article namespace contribution competencies before he is given the mop. Jerry lavoie 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per this very recent !vote [37], citing a criterion for speedy deletion that plainly doesn't exist. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose per above and this diff, you closed a RfA without deleting the "voice your opinion" template, and didn't even bother to add the final result, which is a bad action. I suggest that you refrain from doing the bureaucrat's job if you don't know how to do it properly. No need for admins who may take action before having the required knowledge. Arfan (Talk) 11:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I just say that our bureaucrats who don't often close RfAs do that as well? It's not such a big deal for a strong oppose. He was just trying to help out and made an error, an error which is really not a problem. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing someone for a meaningless technical mistake reflects very badly on your judgment. Please consider that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and paperwork skill is not something we ought to value highly in a candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't purely for a technical mistake; he also said "per above". Trebor 16:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaningless? I beg your pardon. I merely judge the candidate based on his action. Surely if he wasn't familiar with RfA closing, he could take a look at another properly closed RfA in advance to learn, clearly it seems he did not. What will you do if it's the first time you close a RfA? Get the hang of it first or just do it and make the mistake? "Trying to help out" is a rather poor excuse. Arfan (Talk) 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't purely for a technical mistake; he also said "per above". Trebor 16:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arfan, I hope you're aware that Redux and Taxman, two of the three active RFA closing bureaucrats, have indicated it's acceptable for non-'crats to close withdrawn requests (here and here, specifically). Incidentally, Warofdreams, a long-time 'crat, recently closed a nom and "screwed up the paperwork" a bit. I really don't think it's that big of a deal. I've made probably a dozen such closures, many before I was a sysop.--Kchase T 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no bias against non-admin closing RfA, as long as the candidate knew what s/he was doing and did it properly. For your information, it's the other way round. As I see it, user Warofdreams (as a 'crat) still took the time to review his action and corrected his error right away, while user MER-C just let his/her mistake stay there until another editor came fixing it. Your comparison doesn't make sense. I voted oppose and stand my ground. Please stop questioning me. Arfan (Talk) 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe people wouldn't be questioning you if it wasn't such a stupid reason to oppose an RfA. -- Steel 17:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very annoying. Arfan (Talk) 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop bashing Arfan for his oppose, even if it may seem a bit "stupid". People are entitled to their opinions, and we shouldn't resort to intimidation or taunting tactics just to get the user to switch his vote. Had we been more civil in response to this user's !vote, he may have reconsidered and supported this user. Nishkid64 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very annoying. Arfan (Talk) 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe people wouldn't be questioning you if it wasn't such a stupid reason to oppose an RfA. -- Steel 17:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This goes beyond just pointing it out, although obviously, an statement on Arfan's part that we aren't allowed to question his vote didn't help. -Amark moo! 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no bias against non-admin closing RfA, as long as the candidate knew what s/he was doing and did it properly. For your information, it's the other way round. As I see it, user Warofdreams (as a 'crat) still took the time to review his action and corrected his error right away, while user MER-C just let his/her mistake stay there until another editor came fixing it. Your comparison doesn't make sense. I voted oppose and stand my ground. Please stop questioning me. Arfan (Talk) 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per evidence of trigger-fingerness. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per CanadianCaesar, and candidate misunderstanding of speedy deletion. The CSDs are strict and narrow. Most things that the community would find deletable in an open forum are not, ipso facto, speedy deletable. The CSDs cover only those matters too definitive to bother discussing. Any candidate must learn the CSDs, and abide relatively strictly by them. Xoloz 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for having too quick a trigger-finger. — CJewell (talk to me) 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I do not have trust in your judgement, I also worry that you would be to "trigger happy" as well. Also your AfD activity while numerous is mediocre, at best. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per concerns brought up above and below. Sorry, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Per reasons stated above--SUIT-n-tie 20:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I've always been impressed with your vandal fighting, but you may want to ease up on the deletions. I really don't see a problem with the Gundam stuff, although that's probably just me. Your vehemence in wanting to delete stuff like that makes me hesitate to support giving you the delete button. – Lantoka (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Items cited by Nishkid above don't really help his case. When policies are cited it seems to be in vague 3-for-the-price-of-one style. Johnbod 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm not sure I'd trust him with the delete button. StuffOfInterest makes a lot of good points so I won't repeat them except to say that I always find the use of the word cruft a little disrespectful when used in regards to good faith editors. If he's purging material from a WikiProject I'd expect him to be active on the projects talk page. But he hasn't made a single edit on WP:GUNDAM's talk page. The focus on deletion seems a little single minded for me to trust with the delete button. RxS 03:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so he/she believes that certain things should be deleted -- and this becomes a reason to believe that he/she'll abuse the privilege? There's absolutely no evidence of that. All that's been said about him can be said about me, and while people may agree or disagree with me about my administration style, I don't think anyone can accuse me of wantonly and abusively deleting things. --Nlu (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I too am quite deletionist but you don't see me going around deleting things willy nilly. There is a difference between actually deleting things because you think they dont belong and just expressing that opinion. To leave this user without tools is a great loss to the project, he does some amazing hard work. Just because he expresses an opinion on a matter doesn't mean he is going to ignore process or consensus and abuse the tools. What happened to assume good faith? I have never seen any evidence at all that he will be anything but a sterling editor. ViridaeTalk 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we all believe that certain things should be deleted and no, that doesn't mean we would abuse the tools. My reasons went beyond that...I do think that there's evidence that s/he'd paint outside the lines deletion-wise. Xoloz, CanadianCaesar and StuffOfInterest all point in that direction. The WP:GUNDAM thing I talked about points to a need for more discussion and collaboration in some instances. (and went beyond expressing an opinion). I would expect an admin (and sterling editors) to have a presence on the talk page of a WikiProject s/he's purging. Great energy, does lot's of good work but I wouldn't trust him with the delete button just yet...needs a little more nuance I think. And by the way, where did I ever say anything about assuming bad faith??? RxS 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I too am quite deletionist but you don't see me going around deleting things willy nilly. There is a difference between actually deleting things because you think they dont belong and just expressing that opinion. To leave this user without tools is a great loss to the project, he does some amazing hard work. Just because he expresses an opinion on a matter doesn't mean he is going to ignore process or consensus and abuse the tools. What happened to assume good faith? I have never seen any evidence at all that he will be anything but a sterling editor. ViridaeTalk 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so he/she believes that certain things should be deleted -- and this becomes a reason to believe that he/she'll abuse the privilege? There's absolutely no evidence of that. All that's been said about him can be said about me, and while people may agree or disagree with me about my administration style, I don't think anyone can accuse me of wantonly and abusively deleting things. --Nlu (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The points raised by StuffOfInterest are my thoughts exactly. This editor doesn't seem like he would use the tools appropriately. Far too likely to delete without thinking. --- RockMFR 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per StuffOfInterest. Quadzilla99 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. His contributions to AFDs have been plentiful but rarely constructive. — CharlotteWebb 08:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Regretfully. An excellent contributor to the project, but unfortunately deletionist... and too quick on the trigger to show any genuine consideration. Also I share the concerns of Smerdis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin phrases (2nd nomination) --Dweller 09:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose From the evidence presented here, it is clear that the editor still benefits from having his deletion decisions checked by others. I'm not confident that a fair number of articles wouldn't be improperly speedied. --Mus Musculus 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of someone proud to be removing more content than he adds. So many others above me have said it better than I could. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I don't feel comfortable of giving deletion tools to him right now as per above. AfD is not a vote, and he will probably be too quick to press the delete button which will result in many problems. I also don't think this was a very appropriate thing to do. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. You're opposing because he's a deletionist, but you list a diff where he argues to keep a userpage that was only created five days ago? Not that you have to, but can you expand on your reason why that diff is inappropriate? —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the diff I provided, he argues to delete a userpage in case the user remains inactive for a few months. This is a very bite'ish comment and not something I would generally expect from an admin. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No disrespect but that is ridiculous. The person who nommed the userpage for deletion perhaps was a tad bitey but MER-C voting keep is most definitely not. You'll notice (at this time) all other subsequent voters have agreed with him? Glen 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet he did see it as a factor, and agreed that the page should be deleted in a few months. Excluding Arctic Gnome, all other participants of the discussion have argued that the page should be kept without a further watch. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My own comment there didn't quite say that. MER-C said wait one month, which is a bit short; otherwise I for one think his comment there fine Johnbod 03:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No disrespect but that is ridiculous. The person who nommed the userpage for deletion perhaps was a tad bitey but MER-C voting keep is most definitely not. You'll notice (at this time) all other subsequent voters have agreed with him? Glen 20:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the diff I provided, he argues to delete a userpage in case the user remains inactive for a few months. This is a very bite'ish comment and not something I would generally expect from an admin. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. You're opposing because he's a deletionist, but you list a diff where he argues to keep a userpage that was only created five days ago? Not that you have to, but can you expand on your reason why that diff is inappropriate? —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I agree with much above and particular that this user is too trigger happy. Before deleting an article, it should be looked at carefully to see if it can be saved. --Bduke 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose MER-C mentions {{prod}}ding 1500 articles, but there is no record that he has ever used {{prodwarning}} to notify the author as suggested. It seems to me that he has trouble differentiating between newbies and vandals (WP:AGF). ~ BigrTex 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose per Trebor and Groggy Dice. I opposed this candidate a couple of months ago, and unfortunately I don't see much or any improvement at all, if anything reapplying so soon shows that the candidate is too eager to become an admin. Dionyseus 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not ready yet, no --Docg 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. 1ne 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A good editor, but is too trigger happy when it comes to deletion. Darthgriz98 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Those above me have elucidated my position better than I could articulate. — MichaelLinnear 05:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Primary issue is trustworthiness with tools. Drmaik 09:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose — A good use at what s/he does, but I am also concerned by the deletion issues. This worries me because this user may delete valuable stubs without giving them time to grow, as is evidenced by the AfD voting patterns. Excessive deletion — especially on fiction topics — begins to cloud the judgement and blur the line between what should be kept and what should be deleted, and we are at a point where we need to look at things closely and determine if they have potential. If this user can show that s/he can look at articles with a neutral, understanding perspective (and perhaps write/contribute some as well) without the excessive axe philosophy, then I'd be willing to support. — Deckiller 12:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, as per StuffOfInterest. Shyam (T/C) 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No positive contributions to speak of. Beit Or 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Though Mer-C is a tireless individual, admin capabilities will do more harm than good in this case. I feel as though he/she will act too quickly and against potentially viable arguments in deciding consensus in favor of deletion, and could cause problems with speedy deletes as well. A history (the evidence of which I see above and in my own experience) of rapid-fire decision making is not conducive to administrative responsibilities. I see too much potential for feathers ruffled by hasty deletions and deletion review backlogs. --Tractorkingsfan 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I trust the nominator, I feel that it is too soon, especially in afd, i feel that MER-C would ignore key wikipedia policies and just go on a vote to vote basis. Oppose Jaranda wat's sup 02:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, disturbingly deletionist, apparently to the point of concentrating on getting stuff deleted above all else. No way such a person should get a delete button. Everyking 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per lame user subpage intentionally provoking a long-term vandal with obvious privacy violations when there are hundreds of other accounts to use. Some are clearly fraudulent accounts, I might add, such as the one trolled onto the page by Anomo. If that's how this user thinks vandals should be dealt with, with violations of privacy and general provocation, he should not be an admin. Milto LOL pia 09:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - there seems to be a lot of "delete per nom" in AfDs he participates in, which bothers me. Also, what Everyking stated above-from K37 09:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Nothing against MER-C as an editor. His history of contributions consists significantly of AfD votes--that is not, however, my reason for not supporting. There are a number of instances where he votes (usually to "delete" as noted above, though voting to "keep" would be equally problematic) on multiple AfDs within the span of a minute or two. It is impossible to look at 4 articles, consider their merits, read (or at least skim through) the discussion thus far and comment on all within the span of one minute as he did on February 2 at 11:56 (see [38], [39], [40], [41]). Black Falcon 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - Comments like those made here do not do anything to fill me with confidence regarding MER-C's suitability for adminship. Black Falcon 18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose My sentiments are close to Majorly's and Stuff of Interests. Mer-c definately seems to have good intentions, but at times he can be a bit undiplomatic in his approach towards things, especially from what i've seen of him on xfds. If he calms down, I might support in several months. Until then, he doesn't have the temperment to be an admin IMO. Just H 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It's hard for me to do this, but I have concerns with MER-C's editing pattern which by own account the "edit count dipped from 250/day to 200/day" during a slowdown, which seems to be far too many to devote proper attention to any of them. I am also concerned by the huge percentage of XfD voting as part of the overall contributions. I am also concerned about the pattern of these votes and if MER-C can exercise appropriate discretion given the self-cited deletionist preference. I already have philosophical issues with editors whose edit history consist almost entirely of XfD's; but an admin who has spent such a small amount of time creating content is unlikely to have the needed sensitivity in dealing with users who have spent hours/days/weeks creating their masterpiece, only to see it become the target of a deletion effort, with huge numbers of votes of the "ditto" or "per nom" ilk coming from mass deleters such as MER-C, who seem to spend little time actually reading the articles or making a meaningful effort at discerning notability.Alansohn 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per above. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While anti-vandalism work is always appreciated, that alone doesn't qualify someone for administratorship. Every time I see this person vote in AfD, the votes are rarely supported with any kind of substantive argument. I don't see any objectiveness with this editor --Oakshade 05:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, because everybody, but especially an admin who's main focus will be in AfD, should always give a thorough explanation of why he/she feels an article should be deleted or not. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I do like the vandal work, so I would support with a pledge to confine admin tools to blocking, only tagging for speedy. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Does not seem sufficiently concerned about complete and fair process before deleting the work of other editors, who are volunteers of a non-profit whose work should be valued.Edivorce 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This user already fights vandals very effectively, but as an inclusionist I cannot in good conscience support his request for adminship. dreddnott 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose He's a good guy against vandals, but his admission to being part of a "deletionist cabal" on his talk page is troubling. Kyaa the Catlord 11:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I was almost neutral, but things like "pre-empting votes" kept me out of that section. I frankly don't want to see more tools in his hands until he has more restraint. — Athænara ✉ 10:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
#Sorry to be not supporting, but I find most of this user's XfD contribs to be fairly basic (per nom, WP:NOT etc) without actually adding much to the discussion. I've also closed many debates started by this user as keep, so I'm wondering how he'll handle the delete button. I'm also wondering how many of the pages this user has prodded actually ended up staying... I'm also not too happy he states he's a deletionist. This is not a paper encyclopedia, its size is unlimited. I'm worried you'll delete an article too quickly without actually checking its notability. Nevertheless, a great vandal-fighter, and I honestly hope you pass this time. I hope you understand my concerns. --Majorly (o rly?) 12:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Changing to oppose. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutral My sentiments are close to Majorly's and Stuff of Interests. Mer-c definately seems to have good intentions, but at times he can be a bit undiplomatic in his approach towards things, especially from what i've seen of him on xfds. If he calms down, I might support in several months. Until then, he doesn't have the temperment to be an admin IMO. Just H 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Changed to oppose. Just H 02:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: I'm rather torn about this one. I have no doubt MER-C would be quite helpful with our deletions backlog, but I do find him rather trigger-happy with speedy tagging: here is one example that leaves me hesitant to trust user with the delete button. Like others, I'm also concerned about his attitude at AfD. This is one example I find
really rathera bit disturbing: Leaving a message telling people not to vote WP:ILIKEIT seems overkill in any case, and bolding it in red seems to me cross into incivility. Not enough to make me oppose, especially in light of the good work he does in opposing vandalism, but still concerns me. Heimstern Läufer 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I'm just pre-empting some votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by MER-C (talk • contribs)
- Yes, and I'm saying this isn't helpful. Closing admins will ignore invalid "keep" reasons anyway, and being so forceful as to bold your statement in red looks like disrespect for others, including new users who may have little understanding of our deletion policies. Heimstern Läufer 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just pre-empting some votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by MER-C (talk • contribs)
- Neutral. You're a good editor, and I've even seen you at some of the articles I've nominated for deletion, but too many of your replies are simply "per _____" or "notability", which seems to conflict with your opposition of not treating discussions like votes. If you fleshed out your arguments, or even made the initial argument in an xFD, this would relay that you understand policies, and you understand how to do preliminary research to see if a deletion would be valid. --Wafulz 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral(switching to support) Great experience and my interactions with MER-C have been quite positive. I am quite sure he could be trusted to not knowingly abuse the tools. I say "knowingly" bacause I am also a tad worried about his attitude in deletion debates. A bit too aggressive and too many summary "delete" judgements. The diff above in the AfD nomination on list of Latin phrases had also caught my eye because it isn't as respectful to the other camp as one might expect. Pascal.Tesson 09:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, per points made my supporting and opposing parties. — $PЯINGrαgђ 17:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral
No question MER-C should be an admin. The only concern from last time, lack of article writing, has gone out the window.~ trialsanderrors 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry for switching from support to neutral for a second time, but I cannot find a single instance where MER-C actively engages in a deletion discussion. The drive-by voting issue is a problem for someone who wants to close XfD's. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, like many of the supporters, I have had only good interactions with Mer-c, and honestly some of the people opposing on AfD grounds are people who infuriate me as rapid-fire inclusionists. It is a two way street. But nonetheless, I don't necessarily see a pressing need for mer-c to have admin capabilities, particularly as s/his primary interest at the moment is !voting at AfDs. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning support pending an answer to my question #10 above. —Doug Bell talk 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm staying neutral to avoid the pileon opposition. My peers who vote support bring up some good points on behalf of MER-C as a vandal fighter. But when I look at the contribs, I see a lot of participation in AfD with very little participation in article building. And without getting into the merits of the articles themselves, I see a lot of edit summaries for AfD that state delete. This strengthens the arguments of my peers who are voting to oppose. I'm not someone who believes every admin should be the best writer, but I do believe it takes some article editing and writing to truly evaluate whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion. My suggestion is to do some article creation and wiki-gnoming to understand what it feels like to build an article. Get a bit more rounded in the project. Then come back to RfA. AfD is too contentious an area to focus most of your attention on; it creates too much bad blood which you see coming back here in this RfA. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 03:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mean this contentiously, but I think you should take the oppose votes seriously as people voting their respective consciences as opposed to chalking them up to vengeance over Afd disagreement. I would also suggest that you should vote how you actually feel, and not worry about recent trends in the overall vote. I give serious Wikipedia editors enough credit to believe they make their own decisions; I don't think people oppose or support just because the last four or five editors have. Again, no disrespect intended. --Tractorkingsfan 06:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how much changed since I last saw MER-C, but I've encountered him on WP:AIV and in some cases he was a bit too quick to call a username offensive or to report a user without enough prior warnings. - Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I just want to express my appreciation for MER-C's incredible vandal-fighting work. He is the strongest argument possible for giving non-admins the rollback button. Once I courtesy-blanked an old AfD page, Antivandalbot came in, and within seconds MER-C had re-blanked the page with the appropriate template AND followed up by reverting Antivandalbot's warning on my talk page. This is the kind of dedication that makes Wikipedia an amazing place. Kla'quot 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Generally, his performance on AFD is reasonable and responsible, even though there is a lopsided number of "delete"s there. But I am unhappy about the way he tried to get rid of the lists of hospitals. Instead of nominating a representative article from the category, he nominated the weakest and unformatted article in the category and intended to use the result there as a precedent to delete all the lists which were properly formatted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
AnemoneProjectors
Final (46/0/1); Ended 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
AnemoneProjectors (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate AnemoneProjectors to become an administrator. He's been with us since June 2006, and he's got over 11000 edits, spread nicely across the different namespaces. He's always civil and generally remains calm in discussions. He usually works on various articles relating to television and music, and has uploaded several images. He also takes part in many deletion debates, and often reverts vandalism. I'm sure AP as an admin will only be better for Wikipedia. Majorly (o rly?) 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I have taken part in many deletion debates, and so I would like to help clear the backlog. I've also helped to empty categories that are due to be deleted (which I quite enjoyed doing), so being able to finish the task and delete the category would be good. I'd like to get involved in the backlog of images to be deleted, such as orphaned fair use and replaceable fair use, and others listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Also I also revert vandalism quite a lot (from the 3000+ pages on my watchlist), so of course, having the ability to block persistent vandals would be easier than having to wait for someone else to do it.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I'm pleased with most of my contributions, but the ones that stand out for me would be my contributions to articles relating to EastEnders, Big Brother (UK), The X Factor (TV series) and various songs, as these are what most of my contributions relate to. I'm involved in Wikiprojects about EastEnders and Big Brother. At the moment my favourite article is Leona Lewis, I think I've written the majority of that article and added most of the sources. I have a Google News alert set up for several subjects that I'm interested in, so this gives me reliable sources for updating articles with the latest information.
- 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 can't recall any major conflicts that I've been directly involved in, though I have witnessed some revert wars. Things have always seemed to calm down when I mentioned the three revert rule and the fact that the users could be blocked. There have been times when I've felt slightly stressed at people not being civil or not assuming good faith, so I've always taken a short break until I felt ready to come back, and then left messages for the users involved reminding them of the appropriate policy or guideline.
Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- 4. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
- A: I would ask them to read WP:AUTO, and if necessary, I would remind them of the policies about original research and verifiability. Otherwise I would treat them the same as any other user. I don't think there's anything in this situation that I could do as an admin that I couldn't do if I wasn't an admin. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
- A: Yes. If the page is being vandalised by a single ip or a new user (in which case they should be warned and blocked if necessary), or if there's simply a dispute over the content of the page. Or of course, if the page isn't being vandalised! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
- A:
- General comments
- See AnemoneProjectors' edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Support per nomination. I trust Majorly majorly. --Majorly (o rly?) 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support could definitely use the tools and won't abuse them. Cbrown1023 talk 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A great catch, Majorly. Anemone is a valued contributor to this project, and has demonstrated the maturity and need for admin tools. Nishkid64 00:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- where on earth did you get your name from? Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)00:54, Saturday, 3 February '07
- Support-Seems good. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well-rounded, but I have to ask the same question as Jorcoga. bibliomaniac15 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer not to answer it at the moment. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ZZZ thought you already were support nothing but good things to say about you and your contributions, good luck and look forward to seeing you make WP a better place. The Rambling Man 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nominator. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - user is a wikipedian, and therefore deserves promotion. ST47Talk 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support From my review of the nominee's contributions, I can't find any problem regarding trustworthiness. My only hesitation is the apparent lack of need for the tools, and very low participation in wikipedia space, particularly XFD discussions. Agent 86 01:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no immediate problems with this application. (aeropagitica) 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Majorly. S.D. ¿п? § 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good.-- danntm T C 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A fantastic editor. Great answers too. i'm surprised to see you're not already and admin. Ganfon 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WJBscribe 03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Approval — Balance of main space edits is good, usage of summaries is good and you are also from the UK which is a bonus, we need more UK based sysops. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support not likely to abuse the tools. Good user. -- Anas Talk? 12:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-per experienced user.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this nomination. Tim! 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have only seen this user be fair-minded in discussions. All this talk of clearing backlogs warms my heart, too. — coelacan talk — 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a friendly user, one of the best, his adminship could only improve Wikipedia. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support,I see no reason not to give this user the tools. Based on contribs I trust their judgement. James086Talk 07:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clearing of backlogs sounds good and the fact that they are a friendly user. Import007 08:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom PeaceNT 09:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of the best editors of this project. Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per Agent 86 and James086, only the possibility of limited tool use concerns me rather less. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Doesn't look like we'll need future support. Great editor. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'd like to see more varied experience, but the participation he does shows he'd be a good admin.--Wizardman 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I only have good things to say about this editor. Mature and responsible. The JPStalk to me 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Wikipedier 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, -- Shyam (T/C) 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: A very well-rounded and capable candidate. Looks like he knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia and won't abuse the tools. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --A. B. (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Húsönd 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great user, I'm sure he will make a great admin. the wub "?!" 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well-rounded, knowledgeable, could help clear those AfD backlogs that I've only worked on sporadically since I said I would work on them constantly in my RfA. If I had editpercentageitis (worse than editcountitis) I might be wary that this candidate has nearly 7500 mainspace edits and less than 400 Wikipedia edits. But that would be dumb. Grandmasterka 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a valuable contributor who I belive will be a fair and balanced admin. Black Falcon 08:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no real reason not to. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. VegaDark 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support AP appears to be an excellent Wikipedian and someone that can certainly be trusted by the community gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Tra (Talk) 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Neutral. Seems like a good user, but most of his edits seem to come from the same areas. I'd like to see him venture out and attack more difficult subjects (for him). I'd certainly support in the future.Not a good reason, changed to support.--Wizardman 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Since you list closing deletion debates as the area you would like to focus on as an admin, I would be interested in your thoughts on CSD:G11. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Arjun01
Final (111/1/2); Ended 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Arjun01 (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to nominate Arjun (previously known as Seadog.M.S) for adminship. He's been editing Wikipedia for almost five months now, and his +9000 edits proved an extremely valued and versatile user: +3000 edits on the mainspace due to a superbly efficient vandalfight and article building (particularly Hinduism); excellent work on Portal:Hinduism, currently a featured portal candidate; +1000 edits on the Wikipedia space, consisting in large participation on the WP:HD, vandal reports to WP:AIV, featured content candidates, WP:RFA, WP:XFD, etc... Apart from all this, Arjun also happens to be an extremely friendly and civil user, never afraid to ask for advice or a second opinion when in doubt, which reveals his permanent willingness to learn and improve (3 editor reviews! [42] [43] [44]). Arjun would make great use of the admin tools, and I give him my unconditional support. Húsönd 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination Since I have been on Wikipedia, I have very regularly run into Arjun01. Whether reporting vandals at WP:AIV while on recent changes patrol or his excellent work at the Help desk. His many contributions to other areas of the wiki namespace coupled with his many mainspace edits show that he is a well rounded editor who understands Wikipedia and its policies well. I feel that Arjun has always handled situations in a manner which I have much faith in, and personally feel that he exemplifies the spirit of Wikipedia. It is for all of these reasons and more that I proudly offer this co-nomination. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination Aww...I went to sleep and you guys didn't wait for my co-nom? Anyway, I have told Arjun that I would nominate him for adminship, nearly three months ago. Arjun is one of the most level-headed and productive editors with the project, and I feel he has the excellent qualities needed for an admin. He's involved himself in WP:AIV, WP:HD, WP:AFD, and much more. He has worked hard on bringing Hinduism to featured status, and he recently has been working on bringing Portal:Hinduism to FP status. A very diligent and dedicated editor, I express my enthusiasm for this editor in his RfA. Nishkid64 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thank you. ~ Arjun 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: As a vandal-fighter there are many areas of wikipedia that I could assist with. Most notably the AIV, the list always appears to be backlogged, and there can never be too many admins helping out in that area...I even have it bookmarked and it is also on my watchlist. I would of course before blocking make sure that the Vandal has received proper warnings, and the rest will be done by HBC AIV Helperbot :). Also I strongly anticipate to help clear out the CSD backlogs, which always seems "very high", and there can never be to much help there either. Another area of interest to me is the Requests for unblock. Also worth noting, I would love to help out with Requests for page protection, as there seem to be only a few admins who consistantly monitor this page. Also, I would anticipate the closing of AFD's. And to top all that off I would keep my eye on the Admins notice board.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I do in fact enjoy article building, however I have no Featured articles under my belt, but I would have to say the work I am most proud of is List of Stratocaster players, of which my first edit was this, I honestly think that it can become a Featured list, but still needs work throughout. Another list I have recently worked on is List of Hindu festivals, of which my first edit was this. Another area that I worked a while back was the Hinduism article, of which I added a section, and helped reduce the size. Yet another area I am proud of is Portal:Hinduism , which I helped earn it Featured Portal Status.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: In short, I can't honestly say that I have been in any major scuffles, there may have been times in the past where I have lost cool to a vandal, but as of recent I cannot remember losing my cool. I am laid back on Wikipedia, and I will not get upset easily. While there were times where I was involved in situations that might cause stress...it didn't affect me. For example most recently the discussion on the Wikiproject Hinduism talk page regarding the use of the Swastika in the welcoming templates. I believe that I held my cool and gave my honest opinions, other than that I can't recall any situations that would cause stress.
- 4. Can you please explain your stance here – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Guitars. Esp. your comment This is a very notable company and which notability guideline (and the specific criterion) User:Anger22 implied? Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Well I still stand by my decision, however I think it was a little over the top to go Strong Support, basically at the time I concluded that it met WP:CORP and WP:NOTE. And when I stated per "Anger22" I was implying about the notability of the company and its players. I however probably did not need to state that, I hope this answers your question.
Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- 5. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
- A: Well to be honest...I wouldn't do really anything. Unless of course the editor was breaking the policies. If they were breaching the NPOV policy I would kindly leave a note on their talk page, and hopefully that would be adequate. Now if he/she were Edit Warring and 3rring I would once again leave he/her a warning on the users talk page, and if these actions continued after adequate warnings, I would have to take proper action and treat the user just like everyone else.
- 6. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
- A: I wouldn't semi-protect an article if there's not enough activity to justify protection, nor would I do so to gain advantage in a dispute in which I am involved. Semi protection would only be used when "mulitiple" IP's are vandalizing the article. Just one IP does not alone qualify for the semi-protection. Now also worth noting the policy page I would obviously not s-protect it for these reasons.
- 7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
- A: Well I think this process obviously requires a good look at before any actions are taken (unless extremely obvious), I would have to start thinking about does it just look like something taken off of a website, obviously you can tell this when there is "no" wikification and it is obvious when you see "©" on the page ;). Generally I have to look also what links to the article, and does the article repeatedly link to its website promoting material. Only when I go through this process I would take the right action.
Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)
- 8. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) 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? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs.
- A Well spam is becoming a larger problem by the week, as Wikipedia is growing larger. And now we have countless "one purpose" accounts that add spam to promote their product/business. Spam is also obviously increasing the CSD:G11 articles. Now I am in the mid/high tolerance range when it comes to spam, that is just my personal feelings. But spam must be dealt with properly and the users/IP's who cause the spam must be warned adequately and once the warnings fall into place (usually a "spam one" warning will deal with the spammer and they generally stop) the appropriate action must be taken. Now on to the links "no" not every myspace, youtube links should be included in the article, in fact most of them removed. Except in cases of bands, that would be the only real exception for myspace links. And for youtube something like lonelygirl15. But other than that they should generally be removed. In a nutshell, external links should be used to help the reader learn further on the given subject.
Optional question (or questions) from —— Real96
- 9. If you encountered an abusive user and his or her sockpuppets who makes personal threats, what would you do?
- A Well first off if I noticed an editor who was using "obvious" sockpuppets I would first off warn the sockpuppeter, and let him/her know that these types of "alternate accounts" are not acceptable. I would provide links for the user to read up on. If this type of behavior continues after several warnings then the proper admin action would have to be taken. However I would discuss with other admins if the situation was more complex then normal.
- 10. If an experienced Wikipedian put a wrong user level warning on a potential vandal's page, what type of attitude would you use in order to warn both the user and the vandal?
- A Well lets say that a vandal fighter was out RCPing and he throws a T4 on a users talk page...but all that the user did was insert "hi is this where I edit". Well to the "potential vandal", I would welcome the user with the standard {{subst:welcome2}} and give him a little note about the edit. On to the user who did the reversion, I would first off simply let him/her know that it is standard to start with T1 and then work their way to T4. I would be very kind and easygoing about it since this is a mistake many very new vandalism patrolers do (I did it too when I was a newcomer). And hopefully that will clarify some things out.
- General comments
- See Arjun01's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- First one here support. MER-C 07:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to support. Keep up the good work! -- Renesis (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support too. Nice work all around — Lost(talk) 08:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work from this editor, under both names. Bubba hotep 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another occasion for me to say MER-C beat me... :) Support, this is one user I definitely can't see misusing the tools. All the best, riana_dzasta 08:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good editor. Will do well with the tools.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great user. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good candidate, no doubt he qualifies as an admin – PeaceNT 08:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. Appears he can make WP:100 based on the amont of support within an hour with all the Americans asleep. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)09:26, Friday, 2 February '07
- Support. Grrrrrreat! yandman 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I told you to tell me when you were nominated! (Luckily, I had this page on my watchlist before it was created. :-) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good editor. The Rambling Man 10:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent candidate which will not abuse the tools. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I run into Arjun all over the wiki, and I believe he will make a fine admin. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - as co-nom. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Absolutely! You're just what I look for in an admin... good luck! --Majorly (o rly?) 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Lots of vandal-fighting; he could make good use of the tools. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Arjun won't misuse (but will make great use of) the tools. Likes to help write articles and great vandal fighter. He definitely has my support. Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per Húsönd. :-) --Húsönd 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no doubt a good and trustworthy candidate. He's all over Wikipedia. -- Anas Talk? 13:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support! Would have !voted earlier. I've known the candidate since October, and have nothing but excellent things to say about him. –Llama man 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support as co-nominator (dang you transcluded while I was sleeping! :-P). Nishkid64 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WJBscribe 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He looks like a good person to me. I do not know him much but whatever I found about him was good. --- ALM 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No fair listing this when I'm sleeping. -Amark moo! 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good candidate. (aeropagitica) 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the quality of the user's edits, while being consistently high quality, have ben excellent of late, and I think that Arjun is now ready for sysopship. Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support per above... Addhoc 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Absolutely. He's everywhere and very insightful/helpful. Just H 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is my fifth RFA vote, and first Support, having seen this candidate helping others with his Wikipedia knowledge. Please use the tools responsibly. I've no doubt you will. Xiner (talk, email) 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support alphachimp 18:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. bibliomaniac15 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great combination of need and trust. Agent 86 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent user, no doubt whatsoever. ST47Talk 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great user, great answers, and I liked how he told the truth about the person editing their own bio. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per most above. Impressive record and fine attitude: I'm sure he'll do great. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great user, and I have no reason to doubt him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJ King (talk • contribs).
- Support absolutely fully qualified user.-- danntm T C 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support fully qualified and has determination to combat vandalism, which is rampant here. Wooyi 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a real nice guy, is always willing to help and never shows any incivility. JFBurton 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seen him around everywhere and can definitely use the tools (he can be trusted as well). Cbrown1023 talk 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not say you are being nominated? A helpful person here so support. Simply south 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per pretty much everything above. No concerns, welcome to the ranks. Newyorkbrad 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very good choice. - Darwinek 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, when I've seen this user he's been good and that seems to the opinion of everyone else. Trebor 00:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Arjun is simply one (if not the) best here on Wikipedia. Woo-hoo! :) ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Whoops, would have !voted earlier if I had noticed. PTO 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Great initiative. Pembroke 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per everyone. — $PЯINGrαgђ 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Quite dedicated in my opinion, the 187 edits in two days is a good example of that. I think that you'll be a great admin. Ganfon 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support One of those Wikipedians who can always put a smile on your face. Has extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. He will put this knowledge to good use when he gets the tools. GizzaChat © 07:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think his work here is quite excellent. Khoikhoi 10:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above & what I've seen of him around Johnbod 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support an excellent user. Rama's arrow 16:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: An asset, and we require more asset than the liability here. --Bhadani 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a simply superb Wikipedian. Dar-Ape 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Real96 19:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have seen this candidate around and he seems like a good Wikipedian. Kyriakos 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Support He does it all: vandalism patrol, welcomes newcomers, mediates disputes, and a great editor - all with a smile. Since I can't vote for Arjun for President, this will just have to do. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - This user does it all like priyanath says. He reverts vandalism, mediates, even (gasp?) does some editing.Bakaman 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support One of the most capable Wikipedians on EN Wikipedia. His work with Hindunism is incredible. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support a great editor, will be an ideal admin. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - I know this user fairly well and I know that he will become a great administrator. He is a true inspiration to all of us here on the English Wikipedia. // PoeticDecay 01:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I believe this is my first 'vote' on RFA, and I'm glad it's for a candidate as deserving as Arjun01. Productive, cooperative, knowledgeable and fair, he is a no-brainer for adminship. My only "cavil" would be
thatthe hope that he does not let his innate civility come in the way of fair-but-tough execution of his admin responsibilities. :-) Abecedare 01:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Support Excellent contributions on topics related to Hinduism. I extend my full support. Freedom skies| talk 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per personal experience and nom(s). Dfrg.msc 04:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. I want to state my opinion on the silly opose but I won't :P--Wizardman 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--D-Boy 08:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportLordHarris 15:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 15:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support--Happy Editing! Ninetywazup?Review meMy ToDo 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great user from what I can tell--SUIT-n-tie 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on his thoughtful answers and his participation on Afd, which I have seen. YechielMan 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Arjun is an exemplary editor both in Wikipedia space and article space. Would use the tools well.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Support Duh. Completely trustworthy and has excellent experience. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimate Support - meets every possible standard. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I fondly remember Seadog.M.S from my days as a newbie. I have no doubt he'll make a good admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen him aroun a lot and could use the tools well. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will make a good admin. —mikedk9109SIGN 00:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Axl 08:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Aksi_great (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Duper Strong Support Why could I not say that? Good Luck Arjun! RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 14:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, an outstanding, trustworthy and excellent contributor. He deserves the tools. Shyam (T/C) 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. --RebSkii 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can trust this user to use admin tools properly. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per all of the above. --A. B. (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per above Dinojerm 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support- per all above. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 101 ~ trialsanderrors 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above --SkyWalker 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, civil, pleasant, knowledgeable user. --Kyoko 12:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, yes. Proto::► 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Jahangard 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport as above Bwithh 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and above. VegaDark 23:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Great vandal fighter, would do great work with the mop RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I refrain generally from pile-ons at RfA, but I must—tardily—support here; it is eminently clear that the net effect on the project of Arjun's becoming an admin should be positive, and it is on the disposition of the latter question, IMHO, as against, e.g., that of 1FA, that an RfA !vote ought to rest. Joe 06:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above -- Agathoclea 09:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. Fails Diablo test sans exceptions. Anwar 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I met Arjun as Seadog.M.S. when he just came to WP - we share some interests (hi!). With 4.5 months of experience at Wikipedia (under this account), this nomination just strikes me as premature. This is at least the third account held by Arjun: Seadog.M.S (talk · contribs) was mentioned; Littlewing1 (talk · contribs) was not. Arjun, your desire to learn is clear, but I would like to a few more months of settling in. Also important to me is evidence that you have handled an active conflict, of the type that may arise as an admin. I understand that you don't create conflicts, of course, but as an admin, how will you manage those created by others? I'm sorry if the answers are presented here: I don't see them (the Swastika debate is too diffuse to glean anything from). Congratulations, though; you've done good work on Wikipedia, and your RfA looks like a success! –Outriggr § 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Outriggr! Yes you were the one who welcomed me to wikipedia! The thing is is that Seadog.M.S...I am still Seadog.M.S however I simply had a username change so all my contribs from Seadog are still counted for Arjun. Now as for the Littlewing thing, I really didn't build anything up in that account (contribs wise), and if you can imagine I didn't like the name. And that was before the time I understood the whole changing username thing. Cheers my friend! ~ Arjun 13:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I agree that this seems a tad premature. Although a great candidate and contributor to wikipedia, I would tend to advocate a 6 month floor for admins . . . -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Geniac
Final (28/3/4); Ended 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Geniac (talk · contribs) - I first saw Geniac when he/she left a welcome message on my userpage. Since 24 July 2006, he/she has ammased 7800+ edits. He/She currently does much vandal work, along with fixing disambiguation. Also, his/her experience shows a fine understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I think this user would make a fine sysop. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I formally accept this nomination. --Geniac 21:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: One of my main activities as an editor has been reverting/repairing vandalism, so I anticipate helping with things like WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, CAT:RFU and WP:RFPP, along with continuing to warn users as necessary. The additional ability to then be able to block a user if appropiate would also be useful, of course. Once I get more comfortable, I see myself pitching in other areas as I find them. Geniac 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: As Natl1 stated, I do a lot of vandal work and I'm also pleased with my frequent clearing of links to dab pages, especially Producer. I have lists on my user page of whatlinkshere pages that I monitor for incoming links to dab pages and another of whatlinkshere pages to monitor for obvious vandalism or test edits. I don't regularly create new articles; I think I've created just a few in response to seeing somebody having trouble figuring out how to get their submission to WP:AfC accepted. I enjoy organising, cleaning, copyediting and tagging articles as I see them and I intend to continue to do so. I've a had a few users ask me for help in fixing an infobox on an article and such, which I have gladly done so. Geniac 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 really only remember one conflict in the past, this one, pertaining to editing/deleting others' comments. Please keep in mind that was several months ago and nothing like it has cropped up since. It went to AMA, and I agreed it was not fruitious to continue the conversation. I understand now that users can remove comments posted to their talk page after responding to them. I admit I misread the Talk page guidelines as applying to user's talk pages, but I still think removing parts of others' comments misrepresents what was said, no matter if on an article talk page or a user's talk page. All said, this wasn't really a major article-editing conflict, just a difference in reading the policies.
I just re-read my talk page and don't see anybody else having a major conflict with me. Other users just don't seem to give me stress.
My user page has been vandalized a few times, usually by an IP that I had just warned; that just confirmed that I was doing a good job, it didn't stress me out.
How I will deal with it in the future: Slow down and re-read the applicable policies to make sure I'm applying them correctly. Very few things on Wikipedia have a deadline and just about everything is reversable, even things that have passed their deadline. Geniac 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I really only remember one conflict in the past, this one, pertaining to editing/deleting others' comments. Please keep in mind that was several months ago and nothing like it has cropped up since. It went to AMA, and I agreed it was not fruitious to continue the conversation. I understand now that users can remove comments posted to their talk page after responding to them. I admit I misread the Talk page guidelines as applying to user's talk pages, but I still think removing parts of others' comments misrepresents what was said, no matter if on an article talk page or a user's talk page. All said, this wasn't really a major article-editing conflict, just a difference in reading the policies.
Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. What are each of the five pillars of Wikipedia and why is each one important?
- A: 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Important because it sets out what the project is, and implicitly sets out what it is not (soap box, blog, personal webspace, etc). 2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Important to set Wikipedia as an unbiased reporter of any significant view that has been published by a reliable source (as opposed to say, an essay-publishing website). 3. Wikipedia is free content. Important to make sure users know that anything they write must not be already copyrighted, and cannot be copyrighted after submission. No one editor owns an article. 4. Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Important for users to know that although the content they submit may be free, the encyclopedia is not an anarchistic society. For example, users are expected to be civil and assume good faith. 5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Important for users to know that everything is reversable and so be bold in editing. --Geniac 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
- 6. Who has the authority to ban users?
Optional questions from Xiner:
- 7. To be helpful in WP:CSD, experience in XFD's is helpful, IMO. How would you describe your activity in that area? Thanks.
- A: I admit I don't have much experience in XFDs. I have read and understood the processes, but I have not, for example, started an AfD. However, I have nominated about 20 or so articles over time for speedy deletion under different criteria, mostly blatant self-promotion, unsalvagable babelfish translations and test articles. --Geniac 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Geniac'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 per nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support answers to questions look OK. Flyingtoaster1337 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good candidate. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support Geniac, but only weakly. Not much recent participation in WP:project space, but some a few months back so it's not a deal-killer for me at this point. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as per JS. Editor is well known around RCP and until recently done alot of wikignome work at WP:AFC. Is generally polite and courteous and sure will be an asset with the admin M&B tools. Khukri - 12:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the nomination. S.D. ¿п? § 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no problems. -- Anas Talk? 13:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. – PeaceNT 14:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well, I do not have a problem here. A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We need more admins on CAT:RFU. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good since the questions are answered, will do us proud :). ~ Arjun 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per good answers. Cbrown1023 talk 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NEED MORE ADMINS! ST47Talk 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You seem very dedicated to helping boy the mainspace and the Wikispace and I think that's a fantastic quality to have as a new admin. Ganfon 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of experience, nothing to suggest a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support since we need more admins, and Geniac will make a good one. However, please don't quote "over 7800 edits" right after you said Geniac gave you a Welcome message. Over 2700 of those edits are to User talk pages, and Welcome messages are an easy way to ring up your edit count. Perhaps mentioning the more than 1300 Wikipedia: space edits is more flattering − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to questions, and has been a great editor on Wikipedia thus far. Nishkid64 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Lack of XfD doesn't mean he won't become more active in this area once the tools are given. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good overall, but I'd like to see some more Xfd participation in the future. VegaDark 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Has the potential to grow in the new role. Tim 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - reasonable amount of experience. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- lots of experience, cool temperament. --A. B. (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks fine.--MONGO 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Although I don't think the concerns of Agent 86, Peta, and Wizardman to be without merit, I am largely convinced that Geniac, qua admin, should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools (largely because I think him/her to possess a fine sense of judgment by which to determine whereof he/she is not particularly familiar and because I trust him/her to act with circumspection relative to the issues raised by some here), such that I can be confident that the net effect on the project of his/her becoming an admin should be positive. Joe 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 07:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak Oppose I see nothing that causes me concern about the nominee's trustworthiness. My main concern is the apparent lack of need for the tools and that there is little evidence that the nominee is familiar with key policies. I combed the nominee's entire contribution list and the only XfD participation I found was one instance of adding the {{unsigned}} template and another to fix a header, both in AfD. The bulk of wikispace participation appears to be in Wikipedia:Articles for creation, for which one doesn't really need the tools. I do see that in recent months there has been some work in fighting vandalism, but not to the degree that it seems that there is a need for the tools or that it overrides the apparent lack of experience in other areas. Without any real evidence that the nominee has knowledge of the key policies and guidelines, I am unable to support. Agent 86 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose doesn't appear to be active in or familiar with many of the more important aspects of WP. --Peta 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose there's waaaaaaaaaay better canidates than this guy. --My Name Is Not Earl 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral, not a terrible choice as an admin, but his answers to the latest questions are rather iffy.--Wizardman 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in doubt about the apparent lack of experience with process (other than articles-for-creation). >Radiant< 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, I am not sure how well the candidate understnds the functioning and policies of Wikipedia. Shyam (T/C) 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: a good editor, giving good answers but lack of admin tools. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Carabinieri
Final (54/4/0); Ended Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:22:17 UTC
Carabinieri (talk · contribs) - Carabinieri is a long-time dedicated Wikipedian. He started editing in August of 2005 and has made almost 30,000 edits since then. While many of these are stub-sorting, Carabinieri has also contributed a lot to article writing and has started several well-referenced articles. Carabinieri has done a lot of maintenance work in stub-related areas, discussing stub proposals and creating proposed stub templates and categories. He also maintains the news section of the Germany portal. You might also know him from Template talk:Did you know, where he has successfully nominated a lot of pages, many of them by new editors and also six of his own. In his interactions with others, he is always civil and calm, never bites the newbies and does not forget to leave warnings when he tags a page for speedy or prod. Given his experience and dedication, I am confident that he will make an excellent member of our janitorial team. Kusma (討論) 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination and would like to thank Kusma for nominating me.--Carabinieri 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A:While patrolling new pages, I'll delete articles that constitute a blatant violation of policy directly rather than having to tag them and wait for an admin to delete. I'll also look through the candidates for speedy deletion and delete pages that merit deletion and otherwise deal with those that don't. I'll also help by closing AFD debates. Further, I'll update DYK occasionally since I have some experience proposing entries there.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I can't really name any particular article. Unfortunately, I have yet to be involved on a GA or FA. I have, however, translated dozens of articles from German Wikipedia (some examples: Action Front of National Socialists/National Activists, Alamara Nhassé, Agile Frog, Classless society) and a few from French (example: Denys Cochin). I have also written a few articles myself, the longest and best of which are probably Free Association of German Trade Unions, History of the Jews in Libya, and History of the Jews in Malta.
- 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: Recently I have been involved in two conflicts. The first was with Dr. Steller, who started reverting my edits because she thought I had deleted an article she had written. It had been speedily deleted after a short AFD discussion, because it was in German; I wasn't aware of any of this at first. I explained the situation to her and after a while she even apoligized for having reverted my edits. She later re-wrote the article in English and it was deleted after an AFD discussion, because it was not considered notable enough.
- The second conflict was about the still heavily constested article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II. It was - and actually still is - really POV against Ukrainians. This led several Ukrainian editors to add content blaming Jews for the Holocaust to the article. I tried to mediate in the discussion and point the - mostly not very experienced - editors to Wikipedia policy. I also added some information from a paper by a reputable historian I found on the internet, which I though could be a basis for a well-referenced and NPOV article. Unfortunately, the article is still a mess and an AFD discussion didn't reach consensus, but I'll keep trying to encourage editors to add referenced, NPOV content to it and remove all the rest.
Optional question from Trebor Rowntree (talk · contribs)
- 4. How would you determine if something should be speedily deleted under criterion A7?
- A:If the article is just about "a 17-year old student visiting xxx high school in xxx, US state and is cool/uncool for the following reasons:" I would delete it right away. Otherwise, I would generally consult google first. If the company/person/etc. is still existing/alive and related to a industrial nation I would expect it/him/her to a be mentioned somewhere other than myspace or similar websites.
- I would use AFD or PROD for all articles, whose deletion could be controversial, in order to avoid making mistakes that cost Wikipedia a valuable article.
Optional questions from Yuser31415 (talk · contribs):
- 5. What would you do in the following situations:
- 5.1 You see a post on WP:ANI from a newbie about a user violating WP:3RR. You visit the page in question, and find that both the newbie and the other user have well and truly violated the 3RR rule. What would you do?
- A:In general, I would avoid blocking anyone for violation WP:3RR unless they have a history of vandalism or have been warned at least once. Provided neither editor is engaging in blatant vandalism, I would make sure to treat both users equally in the situation you described. If I find that to be appropriate in that particular situation I would block both or neither user.
- 5.2 You are patrolling RC changes, and you find an IP changing numbers in many articles, possibly acting in good faith. You ask the IP why, but get no response, and the numbers continue to be changed without explanation. What would you do?
- A:First, I would ask the anon once again to either stop changing the numbers or to provide sources. If he/she does not react to this, I would block him/her. Subtle changing of numbers or similar facts can be very dangerous to Wikipedia.
- 5.1 You see a post on WP:ANI from a newbie about a user violating WP:3RR. You visit the page in question, and find that both the newbie and the other user have well and truly violated the 3RR rule. What would you do?
- 6. How do you interpret and apply WP:BITE?
- A:I generally try to be as friendly as possible. It is important to explain Wikipedia policies and practices to less experienced editors. WP:AGF is also important in this context. If someone makes mistakes, one should explain to them how to correct them. But if someone is obviously harming Wikipedia on purpose there is no reason not to be firm. (something like "Stop vandalizing xxx immediately" is appropriate IMHO)--Carabinieri 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Carabinieri's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Beat the nom support incredibly active and pro-active editor. A few more WP edits with 30k total wouldn't go amiss, but you've been around the block, take the mop, use it. The Rambling Man 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks like a great user - hella experienced, friendly, looks plenty mop worthy. delldot | talk 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought he was already Support - Especially pleased with the way he was able to explain the stub-process some time back. An ability I think an admin needs when dealing with newbies. Agathoclea 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, clearly works hard and is a dedicated stub-sorted which is a vital task. Mallanox 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Stub sorting is completely irrelevant to adminship, so it's really hard to support here, but you do other things, even if they're hard to find. -Amark moo! 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support good contributor. Calm and steady reliable hand on the wheel. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Excellent knowledge of policy and other relations. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the nomination, I support. S.D. ¿п? § 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - plenty of experience and no reason to oppose --BigDT 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support contra Astrotrain. Casual examination of talk page reveals mucho DYK - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Mmm, lets see- a highly experienced stub-sorter with strong policy knowledge. And admins are having trouble managing the backlog at WP:CSD. Exactly the sort of admin Wikipedia needs at the moment! WJBscribe 01:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Valentinian T / C 01:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support per nom and good answers to my questions. Similiar philosophy toward WP:BITE as myself. Kudos! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great candidate. Convincing answers above. Pascal.Tesson 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good answers; I support. DS 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good content editor.
Though I would suggest a separate account for automated edits such as stub sorting— Lost(talk) 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Stub sorting is not an automated process. It is done almost exclusively by hand. On a few occations, Alaibot has been used as well but this is only for very specific tasks. Valentinian T / C 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the articles you are sorting are already fairly well sorted and categorized, stub sorting can be done with AWB or bots, otherwise there is only the good ol' fashioned way.--Carabinieri 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stub sorting is not an automated process. It is done almost exclusively by hand. On a few occations, Alaibot has been used as well but this is only for very specific tasks. Valentinian T / C 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good answers, Wikipedia would benefit a lot if this user got the mop. Daniel.Bryant 06:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support So will Carabinieri be allowed to join Administratte Rosse? ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support of course, I am the nominator. Kusma (討論) 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; good candidate with nice answers. I can't see any downside to promoting. Trebor 07:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Conscious 08:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – PeaceNT 09:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no problems here. -- Anas Talk? 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Prolific editor, great work at WP:DYK. Nishkid64 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems calm, cool, and collected; decent answers. Could usefully contribute more behind the curtain, where calm is not always in evidence. Unless Astrotrain is being coy, there's no reason not to support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good answers to questions, good contributions to the encyclopedia. --Fang Aili talk 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major concerns here. A good candidate. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Cbrown1023 talk 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We definitely need more proletarian admins. - Darwinek 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ja! Definitely. Sehr gut. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support You answered all your questions quite well in my opinion, not to mention your fantastic edit count. Best of luck, you'll be a great admin. Ganfon 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ample experience, nothing suggests this user would be a problem. Trustworthy and levelheaded. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another candidate I'm kicking myself for not thinking of nominating myself, a good deal earlier. Alai 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, everyone seems to hhave said it for me.--Wizardman 04:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This guy's got it all. He'll make a good admin. .V. [Talk|Email] 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good user, with balanced contributions! Bertilvidet 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor, and probably will be an excellent administrator. --Carioca 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and questions. VegaDark 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per above. Somitho 04:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A worthy admin. Axl 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Deserves mop. Shyam (T/C) 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good experiences with this editor. Beit Or 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - very high level of dedication and experience. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good content editor.--Aldux 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above --A. B. (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Though you might have fun branching out every now and again. IronDuke 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Approval — this candidate has my approval, I'd prefer to see some more active contributions and activity but you seem to be doing a good job at the moment. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support inasmuch as, though Amarkov's proposition is not without merit, I think it quite plain that this user should neither abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I think it safe to conclude that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive; I am sure too that Nishi et al. will be quite happy to have another hand at WP:DYK and perhaps the main page generally. Joe 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bakharov's proposition...?--Carabinieri 21:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose- not experienced enough- most edits are stub sorting Astrotrain 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but he also wrote articles and participated in Wikiprocess. He's written about ten articles, which is probably more than most admin candidates. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of argument, let's say 90% of his mainspace edits are stub-sorting (not that it's anywhere close to that). Aren't you confident that the remaining 2200 edits provide him with sufficient experience to play a positive role as an admin? Pascal.Tesson 04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but he also wrote articles and participated in Wikiprocess. He's written about ten articles, which is probably more than most admin candidates. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: stub-sorting doesn't mean a good admin. Get more experience and try another time. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the history of Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II. It is an extremly POV and inflamatory article, basically stating that almost all Ukrainian men were busy killing Jews and Ukrainiang women were busy whoreing and bearing children to the German solgiers. Carabinery was not the main editor but if you look in the history all edits by Carabinery are pointed into making already inflammatory and biased article even more inflamatory and biased. I think the trust of the actions of an admin is to make articles more neutral and balanced, not the other way around. Alex Bakharev 09:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: most of my edits consisted in adding information from this (PDF) paper by the reputable Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer and removing really off-topic claims like that Zionists cooperated with Nazi Germany. [45] . I have repeatedly stated that I agree that this article is a meses and tryed to contribute towards improving it by adding information from the source named above. Could you just give some examples for my edits which are "pointed into making already inflammatory and biased article even more inflamatory and biased"?--Carabinieri 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose - Carabinieri is from a long time the name of the Italian Military Police, that is also employed abroad (see link). While some people might find that the choosen name is acceptable, I am afraid that using it for administrative actions, such as deleting pages, blocking users, protecting pages and so on can be misleading, when signed and logged with a name like that. At least to all the people that have happened to be in contact with this authority, especially because it is sometimes felt as controversial. (see link). --M/ 15:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Kafziel
Final (98/0/3); Ended Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:03:50 UTC
Kafziel (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Kafziel for adminship. Kafziel has been editing regularly for more than 18 months with a total of more than 11,000 edits widely spread throughout the namespaces, including contributions to featured articles and Wikipedia processes. He has been nominated for adminship twice before, most recently in November 2006. The comments/!votes on that nomination totalled 74/22/5 or more than 77% support and the RfA was closed as no consensus to promote using a fairly conservative reading of consensus (please note that this is my personal opinion, not the nominee's). The opposers generally cited certain remarks that raised civility issues at that time as their basis for concern. I believe the candidate's edits since then reflect that he has taken their observations to heart in the ensuing two months. During that time, he has also continued making contributions, including mainspace editing, categorizing/tagging, vandalism reversion and reporting, and policy discussion. Kafziel is committed to the project, fully qualified for adminship, and I am pleased to submit this nomination for him to become an administrator. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I appreciate your confidence and accept. Kafziel Talk 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I spend a lot of my time fighting vandalism, so I would naturally keep an eye on AIV. But it finally looks like we have a pretty good number of admins involved there, so things don't usually get as backed up as they used to. So the majority of my time would be spent helping out with requested moves, articles for deletion, speedy deletions, and categories for discussion. There's always a backlog at images and media for deletion and the "Did You Know?" updates, so I’d like to lend a hand there, too. My focus on Wikipedia will always be the articles, so the sysop chores directly related to article improvement, article protection, and article promotion will always be my priority.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I’m proud of a lot of my contributions, some because they're good and some just because they interest me. Lately I’ve been working on missing India and Sikh-related articles, like Kesh (Sikhism) and Bhai Taru Singh, as well as helping out with pov-challenged pages like Jaswant Singh Khalra. Since I'm not Sikh (or Indian, for that matter), contributing there takes a lot of research and careful writing, which I find relaxing. It’s always satisfying to take a disputed article covered with tags and a history of edit wars and turn it into a solid little page everyone can agree on. I've been happy with my work there so far.
- 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 seen my share, as those of you who were at my last two RfAs know. The most common conflicts are with persistent vandals and spammers (I’m in WikiProject Spam) but they rarely amount to anything more than vandalism of my user page. Sometimes it takes more effort, and when the talk pages aren't working I'm occasionally forced to use ugly stuff like AIV, 3RR, CheckUser, or RfC. In any case, I don’t think simply walking away is ever the proper course of action. If someone is adamant about pushing POV content, spam links, or other policy violations, I will see the situation through. Sometimes that leads to conflict, but I strongly believe that as long as conversation continues, progress is made. Sometimes all it takes to change a vandal into a good editor is a willingness to discuss the situation, rather than just posting generic warning templates and issuing blocks. I've worked hard to soften my tone while maintaining the firmness I think is important, and it seems to be working out pretty well.
Optional question from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)
- 4. Most of the opposers in your previous RfA cite combativeness and civility concerns. What have you done to address these concerns since that RfA? Are there any examples of recent disputes with other editors in which you have kept your cool despite the stress of the situation?
- A: I haven't really had any disputes the past few months. I've had a couple of fairly involved discussions, but nobody has directed any animosity at me lately. Perhaps that speaks for itself. I'd say the biggest dispute I've been involved in lately was not a dispute of my own, but a mediation between two others at Talk:Jaswant Singh Khalra. I think I kept my cool pretty well and the situation worked out for everyone.
Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs)
- 5. What are the five pillars of Wikipedia and why are they important?
- A: The five pillars are a kind of general record of consensus; the foundation for our guidelines and policies. They establish the goals, content, licensing, restrictions and freedoms that make the site run. They’re important because no policy or guideline can conflict with them. When Neutrality codified the project that way in 2005 it gave me the impulse to crawl out of the depths of anonymous editing and get myself a username.
- 6. Why is wheel warring a bad idea and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
- A: I’m happy to say I’ve never been witness to a wheel war, although I’ve seen their effects in other areas after the fact. People taking sides, quitting the project… it’s no good. I think most casual readers and new users will likely be oblivious to it, or at least fail to understand what’s happening; the real damage comes because we lose good editors, both the ones in the dispute and the ones who sympathize with them. Wheel wars are the beginning of partisan politics, and that can’t do anything but hurt the process of writing an encyclopedia. The steps to avoiding it are as simple as avoiding edit warring between regular users. Thoughtfulness, discussion, and (if necessary) mediation.
- 7. Who has the authority to ban users?
- A: Users can be banned by the arbcom, the Wikimedia foundation, and Jimbo Wales, though usually bans are approved by the community itself (usually through consensus on the Administrators noticeboard). If there was something more you're looking for there, please let me know.
Optional question from Spawn Man
- 8. Some may say this nomination is too close to your last failed RfA. How have you changed from the last RfA & more importantly, what have you learnt?
- A: Do you think it's too soon? I don't know. It's been a couple of months, which I think is pretty standard when the previous one was so close. I didn't self-nominate, and in fact I turned down an offer between then and now. Anyway, as for the rest, I guess it's pretty much the same as questions 3 and 4: I've worked pretty hard to soften my tone, and I think it shows in my lack of conflicts in recent months. I certainly haven't shied away from contentious issues, but now they seem to be solved without bile.
- General comments
- See Kafziel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- See previous RfAs: first, second.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Support per my nomination. Newyorkbrad 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nomination. I trust Newyorkbrad to pick a good candidate. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support again. Kusma (討論) 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Here's hoping to a less controversial one than last time. ;) Bubba hotep 14:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I have been waiting for this for a long time, since the last nomination. I most certainly trust Brad's judgment. ~ Arjun 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Support, appeas to be beyond any problems from the last RfA.--Wizardman 14:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I supported last time and I support now — Lost(talk) 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good active user and nominated by a trusted admin. The Rambling Man 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Terence Ong 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A highly experienced candidate. I am satisfied that civility concerns have been addressed both because of my inherent trust of the nominator and Kafziel's answer to my question (Q4). We need more admins and I believe he will use the tools well. WJBscribe 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Agathoclea 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per previous RfA. --W.marsh 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. – PeaceNT 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - didn't see much wrong last time, don't see much wrong now. Trustworthy candidate, trustworthy nominator. Moreschi Deletion! 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, absolutely, especially per discussion at his 2nd RFA and his comments made at the time. -- nae'blis 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryulong +8 Support. I have read the drama at his previous RfA, and think the user conducted himself very well in the face of adversity. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and answers to questions. Fram 16:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supportper last RFA — I've been stalking this page on my watchlist! -- Renesis (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as last time. Excellent editor; has earned trust by remaining dedicated. Xoloz 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I voted support last time, and I'm back to support again. From what I've seen, Kafziel is a sane user who won't explode the Wiki with a bunch of extra buttons. He conducted himself with poise and restraint at his last RFA, and he even had a sense of humor about it. We could use more admins like him. ♠PMC♠ 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good answers to the questions, this editor would be an asset to the admin team. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom, history, and answers. I've more than once wondered why Kafziel didn't do an admin action themselves recently...and I appreciate Gwenneth Paltrow's dark side too. Syrthiss 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per answer to question six. I like this fellow. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. SynergeticMaggot 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Crzrussian memorial support consistent with my previous support, for a reconsideration of which there should surely be no basis. Joe 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above, looks like a good candidate. Trebor 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The funny things MatthewFenton pointed out show that Kafziel has a sense of humor - definitely a plus to being an admin. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom and answers. :) Cbrown1023 talk 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support Great experience. This canadate would be nothing but Excellent to Wikipedia. That's what I think.Wikipedier 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier[reply]
- Support as per RyanGerbil & I was impressed by your conduct after the last RFA, even though I didn't vote then, I personally believe it should have passed. Quickly looking through your recent talk contributions I don't see any signs of condescension mentioned in your last RFA. Good luck. Khukri - 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Brad's nom and Moreschi, PMC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- good candidate. Jkelly 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. You have made a great effort to improve on the civility concerns I and many others posed in your last RfA. I can confidently support your RfA, as I believe you have reformed your ways. Nishkid64 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Glad to see you back to earn your tools. =) – Lantoka (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great contributor, seems like he'll use the tools appropriately. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I supported Rfa #2 and support this one as well. auburnpilot talk 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely support. S.D. ¿п? § 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I trust Kafziel. Mallanox 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, you seem to be a fine contributor. Now that I've said that, I strongly disagree with your first Wikipedia philosophy. -Amark moo! 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think the point about civility in the last RFA has been heard and hopefully taken on board. --Richard 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I voted oppose last time for civility concerns. As far as I know, they seem to be resolved, and I have no other reason to oppose this nomination. --210physicq (c) 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support should do well as an admin.-- danntm T C 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support civil but direct interactions with other users, and a great attitude toward adminship in particular and editing in general. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. This really should have happened the last time. What I said on the last RfA still applies, and also, per nom. Grandmasterka 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support unless you really screwed up since I supported you last. ~ trialsanderrors 06:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes--thunderboltz(Deepu) 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be trustworthy. ViridaeTalk 09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supportas a fellow deletionist. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)09:48, Friday, 2 February '07- Support, need more deletionist admins. Proto::► 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support user will be greatly helpful with the tools. -- Anas Talk? 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've run across his contributions more than once, and am convinced he would make a positive contributrion as an admin. Coemgenus 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No evidence that this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- a good editor who will be a good admin Bucketsofg 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well, it is time to give him the mop finally. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom (heh, heh). More seriously, support per my last support, but more so. It takes a lot to be able to withstand a very close, contentious, previous nomination, not explode, continue contributing constructively, and come back to face the slings and arrows again. Semper fi. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support... I think Kafziel is ready for the mop and bucket.--Isotope23 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Outstanding editor. A Train take the 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason to not support this good candidate. Wooyi 22:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Has changed a bit from last time his RfA came round & would make a good admin now. Good luck for the future... :) Spawn Man 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It looks like we need to go and buy a mop… JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sensible grasp of the wiki landscape, not scared to show a sense of humor ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-Seems great. And how could you not trust a nom who had the 3rd most supported RFA ever :) --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 01:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great contributor, will be a fantastic admin. Good luck. Ganfon 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Nearly Headless Nick 16:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good all-round editor; I particularly like the answer to Q.8, which I think shows genuine awareness of previous problems and, by extension, evidence of correction thereof.--Anthony.bradbury 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This guy hasn't been an admin yet? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Levelheaded. --RobthTalk 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ought to have been promoted the last time around. Very solid qualifications. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support per answer to Q8. riana_dzasta 09:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as I did in the previous RfA, which I was disappointed did not go through. Tyrenius 10:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - reasonable improvement since the last two RfAs. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again and again -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience, a reasonable user. >Radiant< 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Mus Musculus 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support --A. B. (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. VegaDark 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent user with need for the tools. Heimstern Läufer 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will make a good admin. —mikedk9109SIGN 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per above, I believe the user would make a great addition to the custodial staff. Somitho 04:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per all of the above and I have had nothing but good interactions with this edior. Well deserved promotion.--Looper5920 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — a solid user, no issues here. — Deckiller 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Upstate home boy! Just kidding. The editor in question seems to be a good candidate for the mop and flamethrower; Good Luck! -- Avi 13:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Let's try to make it 100/0!--Holdenhurst 13:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Outstanding contributor. Shyam (T/C) 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good contributions, seems trustworthy.--Aldux 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Good attitude, and expressed a concern regarding admin duties which should help prevent him from becoming an embittered, newbie-biting, incivil admin. Argyriou (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Insert tired "I thought he was already an admin cliche" cliche here. IronDuke 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support will not abuse tools --Robdurbar 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- dvdrw 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nomination. Sarah 13:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per nom' Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Moral oppose: I simply can't support someone who thinks that it's funny (the first paragraph of this) to make fun of people with disabilities. David Mestel(Talk) 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- It's the "dirty lying" bit I find funny; it was as if it was vandalized by a childish, rival physicist. If it was the "cripple" part that I found funny, I could have easily found better ones than that. If you look at the page history, you'll see that I've spent a lot of time reverting vandalism to his article, which is how I found that one in the first place. Kafziel Talk 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, OK. I'll change it to a neutral because of an unwise comment. David Mestel(Talk) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
OpposeNeutral — I don't particularly like #6 of this, that gives me worries you will over zealously delete images, there is no need to make personal attacks. I can't trust you with the delete buttons as you are a deletionist. Also, I personally do not like you telling me what I can and can't do. I don't believe yu've improved enough yet to gain my support yet, I would however reconsider in around ~3-4 months. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]Neutral→Changed to Support - Until my question is answered. If the nomination was a couple of months later, I would have no problem supporting, but because of its proximity to the last RfA, I need to know that the user has made efforts to change & learn... Spawn Man 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral:Changed from oppose as above. David Mestel(Talk) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just said something similar at another RFA... do you understand fair use rationales? This image was recently uploaded without a fair use rationale. Admins should be careful to not contribute to the backlogs :) --- RockMFR 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
There are no current nominations for Bureaucratship.
Related requests
- Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
- Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
- A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.