Purge the cache to refresh this page

Requests for adminship (not to be confused with requests for arbitration at WP:RFAr) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a Wikipedia administrator, also known as "sysop". Admins have access to a few technical features that help with Wikipedia maintenance. Please see the reading list and how-to guide before applying here.

Boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using ((subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions)).

Rules

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. Most new administrators have over three months of participation and over 1000 edits. You may nominate yourself, but it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so. You may look at the minimum standards for adminship expected by some users at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards.

Nominations remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the nomination. Bureaucrats may extend this when consensus is unclear (because consensus is subjective, bureaucrats have some discretion, but the threshold on this page is roughly 80% support). Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will; however, as most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people oppose early removal under any circumstances. If your nomination is rejected, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again (at least one month is generally expected).

To add your vote, edit the section for that candidate. You may add a short comment to your vote, but discussion and responses to other comments belong in the Comments section below every nomination. When voting, please update the vote tally of the nomination that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. They are allowed to comment.

To nominate someone

  1. Get permission from the person you want to nominate.
  2. Copy the following text:
    ((Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName))
  3. Edit this page (using the edit button at the top of the page) and paste the text just above the most recent nomination.
  4. Replace UserName with the username of the person you are nominating.
  5. Save page.
  6. Follow the red link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserName and add the following:
    ===[[User:UserName|]]===
    '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/UserName&action=edit Vote here] (0/0/0) ending 00:00 [[00 Month]] [[0000]] (UTC)'''

    your reasoning

    ((subst:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions))
  7. Replace your reasoning with why you believe this person would be a good administrator. Sign your nomination with ~~~~.
  8. Preview your nomination to check it. Replace 00:00 [[00 Month]] [[0000]] with the time and date from your signature but make the date seven days later.
  9. Save your edit.

Current nominations

Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below (and update the headers when voting)

Current time is 23:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


Fvw

(81/13/0) final - ended 05:17 12 January 2005 (UTC) - Promoted

Fvw has been with us since August 2003. On 14 OCT 04 he kicked into overdrive and has racked up an impressive 7785 edits as of the time of this nomination. He is dedicated, hard working and responsible. He has been very active in patrolling Recent Changes (and New Pages), reverting vandalism, and in general doing a great deal of housekeeping here. His first RfA was a little early, but he has more than proven himself by now. This is someone I believe will make an excellent admin. SWAdair | Talk 05:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Yes of course, thanks for the kind words. --fvw* 10:06, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Support

  1. Of course. SWAdair | Talk 05:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. -Willmcw 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kensho 05:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strongly. Rdsmith4Dan | Talk 05:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. CryptoDerk 05:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Sure. --Gene s 05:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Hoary 06:35, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. AlanBarrett 06:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Easy decision. jni 06:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. I've seen him around and was actually under the impression he was already an admin. Support. Mgm|(talk) 09:38, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Absolutely. —Korath (Talk) 09:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  13. If it looks like duck, ... Following the previous RfA I've noticed Fvw strenuously behaving like an admin,
    walks like a duck, ... helping out on many of the forums that keep WP tidy,
    and quacks like a duck, ... and making numerous sensible decisions,
    ...then it just may be a duck. — so support. -- Solipsist 11:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Sure. Sietse 12:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. I assumed he already was an admin. Absolutely support. Carrp 13:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. I actually asked fvw if I should nominate him for adminship [unfortunate typo corrected] at roughly the same time as SWAdair. Support of course :)Thue | talk 14:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. BrokenSegue 15:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. thought he was an admin already (hoping, once you are an admin, you won't act like an "uberadmin :o) dab () 15:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Never come across this user in my contributions, but I have looked through Fvw's and was impressed by the variety and extent. He's got my vote. --Cyberjunkie 16:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. absolutely. a tireless wiki-janitor. understands & respects policy. very strong support Michael Ward 16:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Sure thing.--Bishonen | Talk 16:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Noisy | Talk 16:57, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Strong support.Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:59, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Yet another user whose work to keep things running smoothly has been so tireless, I did not realize he was not yet an admin. Strong support. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. Definitely suport -- Ferkelparade π 17:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. I thought he was already. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Dude is all over the VfD and the new pages slaying trolls left and right. He'd also make a great intermediary on VfD regarding articles on the speedy delete borderline until the policies are changed. - Lucky 6.9 21:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Would make a great admin. DCEdwards1966 21:51, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Tuf-Kat 21:55, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  30. [Insert unspeakable RfA cliche here]. Neutralitytalk 23:44, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  31. In my experience his opinions and actions derive from a very reliable sense of NPOV and the best interests of the project. Support. Jwrosenzweig 00:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Evercat 00:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. --JuntungWu 02:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. Strong support. I've seen a lot of his work over the last month or so, and I'm very impressed.-gadfium 04:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. Ironclad support. A great vandal-fighter and janitor to boot. -- Hadal 04:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Obvious. Should be an excellent admin. Antandrus 04:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. Supported last time, and I don't see anything has changed since then. Shane King 05:10, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Paul August 05:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Very Strong Support. Back from grave to support you. utcursch 08:09, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Strong support. I too thought he was already an administrator, given his incredible work on Recent Changes. Would be glad to see him an admin. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. As if you even need my vote! --MPerel 19:11, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  42. I didn't realise you weren't one Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. Superduport. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    In the interest of full disclosure, I must point out that he gave me a cookie. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support - he does very good work. →Raul654 01:05, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support, absolutely. Dbenbenn 01:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  46. support I think that added responsibility will make him more calmly. Dunc| 02:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. I would have sworn he was already an admin, but apparently I'm crazy. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support Very impressive statistics. Squash 06:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. Ryan! | Talk 17:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  50. Strong support. I'm surprised he didn't become an admin the first time round. Xezbeth 19:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support, with reservations. See objections below regarding speedy deletes. Vacuum c 02:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support. Rje 02:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Sorry I didn't get to vote sooner - I strongly support this candidate.David Cannon 05:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  54. I didn't vote here yet? Wow. Of course I support. His RC patrol is great. --Lst27 (talk) 20:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  55. I support based upon the opposition, which I find unconvincing, in addition to my own experience. - RedWordSmith 04:46, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support His edits are sane, he's more than willing to discuss, he'd be a great admin --sp00n17 06:17, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  57. A bit wary of his deletionism (which is more extremist than mine), but a fine editor otherwise. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support. 172 09:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Changing my vote; I was confusing him with another user earlier.]
  59. Ditto on assuming he was already an admin. Would clearly benefit from being able to rollback and block vandals. Opposition is unfair: having a specific perspective on deletion is irrelevant so long as he abides by community consensus. RadicalSubversiv E 09:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support Slim 10:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  61. Strong support - fvw has been a great help during my beginning days on the 'pedia. He has given me good advice on the Wiki way. Perhaps could do with being a little less abrupt on occasions, but I think he would make a first-class admin. [I believe this vote is by User:Smoddy; added by Bishonen.]
    Yep, was me. Sorry, I got so excited about voting fvw in... Support as strong as ever. Smoddy | Talk 17:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. Strong support. Wyss 04:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  63. See comments below. --Slowking Man 06:12, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support Warofdreams 11:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  65. Support despite his deletionism ;-) David Gerard 11:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  66. Support. Janitorial work is a plus. - Vague | Rant 12:27, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  67. Xtra 12:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  68. M7it 21:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  69. gK ¿? 22:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  70. The amount of janitorial/etc stuff he's already doing has impressed me no end. Noel (talk) 23:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  71. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) We need more janitors. I think at the very worst, he's useful.
  72. Do you know I thought he was already... -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 02:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  73. Shanes 03:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  74. O yea --Whosyourjudas\talk 05:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  75. No doubt. --MarkSweep 05:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support. Lupo 08:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  77. One of our greatest vandal-stoppers I've seen. Total support --Neigel von Teighen 18:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  78. Infrogmation 20:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  79. The concerns of others have me concerned. ugen64 03:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) First-hand experience moves me to support. ugen64 01:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  80. Support why not? Tony the Marine
  81. Ambi 04:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Too many occasions where I personally disagree with his decisions. Too prone to simply revert substantive edits without adding to discussion, so rollback access would be unsuitable. -- Netoholic @ 15:31, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
    Could Netoholic please supply some diffs for other potential voters to evaluate the second of these charges?--Bishonen | Talk 16:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. The evidence of the childish exchange between Fvw and the vandal Mr Avenger indicates that Fvw does not display the maturity required of a sysop on Wikipedia. It is important that adminship on Wikipedia is not treated like a "club" but rather proffered on people who have the necessary skills and maturity to be up to the task. - Robert the Bruce 05:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Could Robert the Bruce give a link to "the childish exchange between Fvw and the vandal Mr Avenger"? R th' B has already referred to it darkly on Fvw's user page but I don't know what he's on about. -- Hoary 05:18, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
    I assume the passage in question is [1]. I found it funny, and I had a similar exchange with this vandal. See my talk page.-gadfium 05:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    If it is indeed that, then Fvw should be commended on his brevity, wit, and good taste. The childishness was all on the other side. -- Hoary 05:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  3. I have the same objections as Rob the Bruce and Netoholic. BSveen 07:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nope. He's improved a little but I cannot support anyone a/ whose view on speedy deletion is so far from policy, b/ who talks about "slapping vandals" and c/ tries to write policy by the back door. We have enough of those already.Dr Zen 11:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Norman Rogers\talk 18:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. As Fvw admits himself, all of his time here is spent 'patrolling' RC and tagging things, most frequently fD. He has practically no experience of writing or editing articles, which is actually what Wikipedia is about. It would be nice if, instead of tagging articles and leaving them for others, he actually did some of the work himeself. Further, being a strong 'deletionist', I very much doubt he will arrive at objective conclusions when evaluating consensus on VfD pages. Dan100 18:35, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    Do you also very much doubt that a strong "inclusionist" would arrive at objective conclusions when evaluating VfD pages? Also, if someone is interested in mainly doing "janitorial" work on WP, why should that be held against them? Carrp 18:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I can think of cases where aggressive work on RC patrol was done solely for the purpose of gaining adminship, then abandoned. It is easy work that is typically well regarded by voters here, so is an easy mechanism for promotion. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
    Wouldn't, say, 3000 such edits be sufficient for that purpose? Why make nigh on 8000 of them? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:25, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
    It may well be easier work than is a lot of other work hereabouts, but it's exhausting in bulk. Incidentally, I don't think Fvw has been "aggressive" in doing it. -- Hoary 01:49, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
    Carrp, the difference between inclusionists and deletionists is that a bad decision by the former does not result in the disappearance of other editors' work.Dr Zen 08:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is also about having correct information. In his patrols fvw has uncovered a number of subtle hoaxes, at least 4 such today alone. That adds at least as much value as writing several articles because a hoax impugns the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. And, I'd call almost 8000 edits of any sort "work". Michael Ward 23:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    There is a subtelty which I suggest is being missed here and that is that it appears Wikipedia is attracting the sort of people who prefer to "control" other people and their actions than themselves contribute to building articles. Fvw is clearly one such person who additionally seems to derive pleasure from "slapping" people. Wikipedia is fast approaching a situation where sysops are becoming a law unto themselves and the question needs to be asked again: Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Robert the Bruce 03:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Still too early (less than 3 months of continuous activity). It's annoying how people are always trying to force this. Whenever an RfA fails, someone will just renominate after a month or so. Gzornenplatz 00:44, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, based on the quality of support and objections, it seems it would be best to wait. Deletionism alone is a good reason to oppose, if nothing else. We do not need more deletionist admins. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. I currently oppose. Fvw needs more time here, and needs to prove a fairer interaction with users and the database. Kingturtle 03:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Everyking 08:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, strong concerns expressed....Salazar 03:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Welcome to Wikipedia, Salazar. How did you find RfA on your third day? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you, you mean this one? from the recent pages page I think it was. Very interesting. Salazar 06:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    For example, fvw cuts material with little justification [2] and was later forced to return it.
    With all due respect, I think that this is a mischaracterization of the footnoted case. See the interchange here: [3] The link that FVW cut was a poorly-added external link, marked as an editorial, on a frequently vandalized page. When asked about it, he took a second look and reverted his own deletion, then improved the link. All in all, I'd say that FVW behaved quite properly. -Willmcw 06:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    He should have checked it out instead of simply reverting. Perhaps he tries to do too much. But editing that is not careful should be discouraged, particularly removing others' work without due care.Dr Zen 07:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Ey's allowed an opinion on eir third day. Ey's allowed to express it without being harassed.Dr Zen 06:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Who's Ey? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 06:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    He or she, whichever it might be.Dr Zen 07:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Does Brockert have a problem with me voting? I have no problem with him voting. Salazar 13:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    This seems to imply symmetry, but there's a certain assymmetry between the length and depth of his history hereabouts and yours. I don't know how much one should have done here to be counted (perhaps I don't qualify), but if I were counting the votes, I might wish to skip Kensho's and yours. -- Hoary 14:15, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  13. jguk 23:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

I didn't as it happens oppose Fvw for being a "deletionist" but I don't think we need more admins whose purpose in being here is seemingly to get rid of articles that they personally disapprove of and "slap" vandals. Dr Zen 06:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
imho, WP does need vandal-slappers. badly. dab () 10:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I suppose "don't bite the newbies" is just one of the rules you don't feel Wikipedia is really in need of?Dr Zen 10:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Come on now, we know that Newbies != Vandals. I think most people would agree that vandals should be slapped. The concern is that a newbie is unfairly labeled a vandal. As long as an admin warns suspected vandals and informs them that their "contributions" are not very productive, I see no problem with slapping them should they continue their vandalism. Carrp 13:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am basing my comments on my observations of Fvw's contributions. Reverting and smacking a template on to user's talkpages are not my idea of showing wikilove, especially when the "vandalism" is borderline.Dr Zen 23:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bickering about a user who's spending ungodly amounts of time with the unpleasant and very necessary task of cleaning up the mess others are leaving just because you disagree with a couple of his contributions is not my idea of wikilove, either -- Ferkelparade π 01:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Mainly the RC patrol side of things, but I'll see if I can help out in the more understaffed areas of janitoring (WP:VfD and WP:CP) too.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Most of my work here has involved minor improvements or repair and cleanup, so there's no specific article I'm particularly pleased with. In the interest of answering the question however I'll list List of elements by boiling point and List of elements by melting point, since even though they're rather dull, the greater part of them was my work.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Yes, there's been the odd bit of conflict, but I think I've been spared a lot by not getting too closely involved with most articles. Whatever stress does occur is easy to work off by slapping vandals in RC patrol.

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Some editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, some editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees. Most voters can be presumed to consider all nominees on their own merits, and there are even a few who look with special favor on self-nominations as expressing a suitable independence. A good solid background is equally important for both kinds of nomination.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below (and again, please update the headers when voting)

Neigel von Teighen Withdrawn request

Vote here (0/8/0) ending 18:26 18 January 2005 (UTC) ended because of withdrewal

I know I'm somewhat new in Wikipedia, but I've been fighting vandalism as much as I can and find. Surely, some of here know my small contributions in cooling discussions. I want to be an admin for preserving order in Wikipedia, specially, where things get dark and problematic. Neigel von Teighen 18:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw this request as I noticed how blind I was. Thanks you all that made me see my accelerated wills to be an admin. I'll be back, anyway, when I get more experience. Thanks again! --Neigel von Teighen 21:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Looks like Imaglang has done some good work but I'd like to see more than 200 edits before I support a Rfa. With more time and edits I would support. Carrp 18:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Nice start. Come back after 3 months and 2,000 edits :-) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Might make a good admin in the future, but it's too soon for me to support until I see more edits, interactions with other Wikipedians, and the test of some more time. Agree with Blankenfaze. -- Infrogmation 20:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. 20 article edits... Gzornenplatz 20:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. What they said. Neutralitytalk 23:10, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Good user. But not at this moment. If you come back with at least 1,200 edits, I'll probably support. --Lst27 (talk) 00:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Sorry, but I'd like to see more experience. --Slowking Man 05:57, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Looks like a great contributor, but I agree with others, needs more edit history. --MPerel 06:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I'd like to have more range of action against repeated vandalism and very great diputes where protection may help. Mainly, I would continue patroling vandalism in Wikipedia (as i've been doing) but with some possibility of action.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think Succession laws is the best I've done. I'd like also the Dudo article (a chilean dice game I learned there). Mainly, I edit articles: I think I'm not a great article creator.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. No, but I help in disputes as an AMA advocate and as a Harmonious editing club memeber. My best example is the Talk:Atheism sispute, where I helped some members that wanted to cool down the discussion.

Pedant

Vote here (19/7/2) ending 04:24, 15 January 2005 (UTC)

I thought I could avoid adminship as it seemed at first that I could do just about anything I really needed to without any special powers... I feel differently now and would like to be considered. (and would someone please delete Real internets right away?) I put a lot into the wikipedia and her sister projects and think I've added value. I'm active enough that anyone who votes here should already have formed some opinion on my suitability, I think, but I'll gladly do some bragging if it's needed, just ask. Pedant 04:24, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strongly support. Pedant is a solid, reliable, trustworthy user. →Raul654 05:12, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Lst27 (talk) 20:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul's support is enough for me. Neutralitytalk 22:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. I can't say I'm happy with the Abu Ghraib article situation, but Pedant calls that the exception, not the rule, below, and we should, within reason, be flexible to different approaches in exceptional circumstances. Even looking at the situation very pessimistically, a mistake, or even a handful of mistakes, is not enough for me to oppose. - RedWordSmith 19:54, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. ugen64 03:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Cool Hand Luke 05:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Warofdreams 11:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 11:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Netoholic's opposition is enough for me. now come on! that's not a real reason to oppose! Xtra 11:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    But it's a valid reason to support? (see above) -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
    i was just making a point Xtra 01:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Tuf-Kat 23:06, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Don't drag editing disputes into RFA. I don't like the fork myself, but the important point is that Pedant is able to build consensus, not that everybody agrees with all he says. dab () 10:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Carrp 23:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. SWAdair | Talk 11:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, Xtra's point is enough for me.--Bishonen | Talk 00:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Looks good. --MPerel 05:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Fully agree with dab -- Ferkelparade π 16:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. 172 21:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. Sorry, no.Dr Zen 08:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Not reading the instructions on RfA and forking articles are both worrying behaviors. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:28, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutrality's support is enough for me. Netoholictalk 07:10, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
    Oh, come on. I understand the point you're trying to make (that we shouldn't rely on other people, in either direction), but two wrongs don't make a right. Please decide on the person's own merits. (If you already did so, fine, but please so indicate.) Noel (talk) 18:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. No, not at this time. Salazar 03:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Welcome to Wikipedia! (Salazar joined us Jan 9) -- Netoholic @ 05:02, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
    Thank you Salazar 06:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I have no idea who this is, but I thank 'eyr' for driving home the point that we desperately need access to IPs. dab () 10:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    So much for assuming good faith and not biting newcomers! jguk 08:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Not yet convinced jguk 08:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Mrfixter 02:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. I strongly disagree with your statement below that "There are extremely rare times when a stated policy needs to get bent, in order to fulfill the needs of the community." If you haven't yet found ways to find solutions to common problems within current policies, or gone through the proper steps to change these policies permanently, then I think you might need some more time getting used to Wikipedia. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:06, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I'd like to know more. --JuntungWu 04:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Me too, that's what got me interested in wikipedia in the first place. I've always loved encyclopedias. I used to use the related articles section in the World Book encyclopedia, to surf my way through it, trying to follow a wave of information as long as I could. Eventually I decided to just start at A and read to Z, to see what I missed. Now I have my browser home page set to 'random wikipedia page'. I like to try to get new editors hooked on wikipedia: if I email a reference source, I tell them about wikipedia and suggest several articles they might be interested in. I pretty much disapprove of supporting or opposing adminship, or anything else for that matter, based on who else supports or opposes. I've voted in opposition to Jimbo Wales at least once, for instance. If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them if I can. Pedant
  2. Generally tend to be supportive of this, but not sure I know enough. Noel (talk) 18:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Speedy deletion of obviously unsuitable pages, that one has recently come up a few times. Also until the block bug is fixed, I would be unblocking users whose block has expired. Mostly though, I'd still do the same chores, vandal reversions and the like would just, apparently, be easier or faster to do. I don't think that my general wikipedia lifestyle will change much, though I assume I'll probably do more (quantity of) chores if the new functions make them easier or faster.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, for some reason I seem to feel a great deal of pride that I was the one to add Atheism to Category:Religion.
My work on Wavy Gravy and pleases me a lot. I've done a great deal to Clown and related articles, such as Juggling and its sister articles. Of those, I think I've added valuable insight into what a clown is besides just a person in a funny costume, clown traditions and superstition, The Code of the Clown and the bit about Pete-and-re-Pete and That's Good/That's Bad. I'm pretty proud of my efforts toward categorizing the 'juggling constellation', and my description of the history of Mills Mess, Mill's Mess 'the easy way' and variants. I consider the Clown/Juggling/Circus constellation of articles as my 'hobby project' -- something I think every good wikipedian needs, to adopt a section of the wikipedia and tend it lovingly.
I added quite a bit of images and information to the (now featured article) Submarine , non-classified info about training and testing of personnel in the US Naval sub service, as well as some about history and tradition. This information was so extensive it was split out from Submarine and moved to Submarines in the United States Navy which is more than 95% entirely my work. It's incomplete, but a pretty good superstub for someone to add to. When I find a missing article, I tend to add one: one test for submariners is the ability to perform the Valsalva maneuver, named for Antonio Maria Valsalva for whom there was no article. I created one to remedy the omission.
I've worked on the 'Talk:' side of several controversial pages, and helped to establish consensus in several tricky spots.
On wikisource and the commons, I'm in the middle of scanning, Character Recognising editing uploading and organising NASA Facts, a large collection of NASA articles aimed at Elemntary-to-High school educators, covering the early experiments in space travel and telecommunications. I'm also working with a group of homeschool students, as a focus group for Wikijunior's first few publications and related issues.
Actually, I'm proud of all my work, even the minor changes and corrections. I'm also fairly proud of most of my behavior, particularly with regard to conflicts and criticism. I think I'm pretty good at welcoming newcomers who have stepped over a line, without biting them or encouraging vandalism.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Well there was the big George Voorhees and Terry Teene invented the character and costume of Ronald McD***** thing, which I guess must be considered original research. I'm still interested in backing up my claim with verifiable sources, but it will be a while. I felt a little bit like Galileo facing the Inquisition at the time, but because of some gentle guidance by several old hands, I think I have benefited from the experience.
I had quite a bit of a disagreement with the Ships Project people on their implementation of naming policy. There were 2 main policies regarding ship's names and they differed, and neither policy was being followed. I thought it was a very major issue, and I brought it to anyone's attention who would listen. The policies have been adjusted slightly, and the Ships Project participants are working on the issue of 'ships not ever called USS Something' having articles under the title USS Something. I'm leaving the issue in their capable hands, as its a very diligent group... They are working on it and it's getting worked out. I established a precedent with Category:Ships named Nautilus and Category:Ships by name which at first seemed at odds with the Ships Project, categories for ships with famous recurring names in multiple navies and in fiction. This caused some stress for some of us working on Naval History, until the merits of the categories became apparent.
I also ran into some of the CheeseDreams controversy on Cultural and historical background of Jesus (which article's awkward name I should be blamed for) and several other related articles. I tried to forge some sort of consensus between the two main factions, until it became sadly clear that consensus would never be reached. The protected articles that resulted have caused me some annoyance, I don't like to have protected articles.
I don't really get stressed by what happens on wikipedia, when I do, I just remind myself that I'm not the only editor, and that I can trust my colleagues to be just as diligent as I am, even if I'm not involved... then take a step back and work on something else. Pedant 20:18, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. The expectation for bureaucratship is higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications.

Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. Boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using ((subst:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions)). New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below (and again, please update the headers when voting)



Other requests

If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.