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

Bishonen[edit]

Final (109/2/3) ending 13:17 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen has been here since last summer. She has written policies, and done her share of editing forsure. But from time to time she "shoots her mouth off" at people like she says, and people listen. Editors, administrators, even the arbitration committee, directly or indirectly have benefitted from her wisdom. Like JRM, she gets a warm and fuzzy feeling from people offering her to nominate her all the time, and has turned them down several times.

I managed to convince her after much negotiation, that if I could get JRM to consent, that she would finally accept a nomination too. :-)

Kim Bruning 13:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Well, ok, then. But only because it's an honor to have my nomination on the same page as JRM's! --Bishonen | talk 15:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. First one's always free, after that, you're addicted. ;-) Kim Bruning 13:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can't believe it's not butter! Strong support - Mark 13:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Glad to support an excellent contributor. Grace Note 13:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. More than happy to support. JuntungWu 13:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support. We need more admins with sense like hers. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, Making a very rare apperance here, I will endorse this nomination. How could I not! Inter\Echo 13:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support. Helpful, intuitive, active, and completely worthy of being an admin. Linuxbeak 13:45, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Strong support. Great contributor, has all the skills to make a great admin too. Rje 13:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. obviously dab (ᛏ) 14:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. why not? older≠wiser 14:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support; excellent in every way. Antandrus 14:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support KTC 15:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Of course. Neutralitytalk 15:26, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support: Still, I worry about the Wikiholism getting worse. Geogre 15:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, most certainly. James F. (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. One of the few, the fine, etc. Phils 16:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Super duper strong support - although Sj's argument tempted me for a bit... :) ugen64 16:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Uppland 17:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Generous, witty, competent and mature; a model admin. Peter Isotalo 18:18, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. "Well, ok, then. But only because it's an honor to have my nomination on the same page as JRM's!" Sickening. I nearly voted to oppose, but then I recalled that that's exactly what she wanted me to do. Nice try, but no such luck. Adminship is no big deal + contributor's value is beyond question = admin. JRM · Talk 19:17, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  22. Support. Kelly Martin 19:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support sannse (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 21:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Proteus (Talk) 21:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Sounds good to me. --Umofomia 21:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To counter the allegations of groupthink below, I just wanted to say that I made this vote because of the help she provided in cleaning up and improving the Chinese language article by providing an opinion from the point-of-view of a person who is not as familiar with the topic. --Umofomia 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Already a paragon of editing. Admin tools are just the assets she needs. --Theo (Talk) 22:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. An obvious choice. She's one of our best and nicest editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Yupsiree. Good editor, good potential admin. Grutness|hello? 00:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support-gadfium 01:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  33. El_C 03:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Andre (talk) 04:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Strong support. Wisdom and wit: what more can Wikipedia want? — mark ✎ 07:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, of course. Joyous 11:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Rama 11:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Good editor. Xtra 11:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 11:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Kbdank71 12:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Rmhermen 13:02, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  43. Fer shooer. violet/riga (t) 13:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support an excellent editor, will use sysop powers appropriately. Fawcett5 13:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, though it's not as if you need more. - Taxman 13:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support - I may be away, but that won't stop me voting for these two. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support, of course.--Wiglaf 17:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Giano | talk 19:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Super-Duper Support. - BanyanTree 20:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Complete support. If there was something higher than support, I'd vote that. PRiis 20:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. She's always been nice to me. -- Netoholic @ 20:39, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  53. Strongest possible support!!! If I could vote fifty times for Bish, I would. - Lucky 6.9 21:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support: a friendly, helpful editor. Jonathunder 22:22, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  55. Support, obviously. --MarkSweep 00:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, indubitably. Emsworth 01:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, oh yes. -- Hoary 02:24, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
  58. Wow! Lots of good editors who I already throught were admins. Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support of course. You said yes, you are in ;-) AlexR 03:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. -Willmcw 04:16, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support. Have you seen how delightful Bishonen's TalkPage is? It is a marvel of wit. ---Rednblu | Talk 04:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support strongly. David Cannon 05:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Sheesh, it took long enough to get to the bottom of this list. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support. Excellent user. Sjakkalle 06:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Bish bosh! - Worldtraveller 11:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I thought $USER already was an arbitr^Wadmin - David Gerard 19:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support what David said, long overdue. --Wgfinley 19:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  68. (Seems as votes are rather unnecessary now, but...) Johan Magnus 20:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  69. She broke my admin support vote number! (64) Mike H 21:57, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  70. Support. — flamingspinach | (talk) 01:51, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
  71. Support, with or without footnotes. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  72. Support BlankVerse ∅ 10:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Viajero 14:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support-JCarriker 19:22, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  75. Like, duh. Support. - Seth Ilys 20:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  76. I was intending to support earlier, but I guess I must've forgotten. Isomorphic 20:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support- A responsible editor (with a sense of humor, too)- L33tminion (talk) 21:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  78. Um, er, oops. Are you saying I didn't already support? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  79. How could I but support? Páll 22:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Of course. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. How could I not vote for the person who started, and contributed much to, my favorite April Fool ever? With great respect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Oh, yes - I get the 82d vote. We need more people like Bishonen. Solid contributor, dedicated and active all over the place. Accepting the nomination basically for the convenience factor is a plus -- not overly eager and likely to be a very stable admin. Definite support. SWAdair | Talk 01:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support "$user isn't already an admin?!" – ABCD 02:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  85. I could have sworn I already voted! Well, at this point, I usually wouldn't hop on the bandwagon, but I am obliged to show my strong support here. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Of course. Happy to cast the 85th vote in favor. Bratschetalk random 03:58, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  87. After being reminded that even addiction is good in moderation, changing vote to Support. +sj + 06:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Noisy | Talk 09:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  89. Come on, just 11 more votes and she'll be the first admin with 100 votes! sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 10:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  90. Support. YAY! I get to be number 90! :p --Silversmith 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Bandwagon. --Golbez 18:41, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  92. Support. --Aol Member 01:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support 100% How can I not support a person who is honest with herself, plus whose contributions execedes those of many others? Good luck Tony the Marine
  94. Supportnot because User:JRM's page prompts so - I reached here via his page, but because, she deserves more than 100. All the best.Note: came again to sign (lol)--Bhadani 19:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support...most definitely.--MikeJ9919 20:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Would have done so earlier but I hardly ever watch this page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  97. Support. Good editor. -- Elisson | Talk 22:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - I think she would be a good addition to the list of administrators for her efforts in improving Wikipedia. Ben Babcock 02:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Insert comment here Burgundavia 02:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  100. Support. Just to 100th. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  101. Make it so. Sietse 05:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Well, how couldn't I? Not that it really matters, looking at her large majority, but this superb user would certainly make a fine, fine, admin. BillyH 12:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. I don't think anything bad can be said about her.. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 15:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Exterminate!. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is probably a Dalek. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Wow! Support. --Lst27 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support (sheesh that was a long list to add myself to! --Vamp:Willow 22:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support.The first shall be the last and the last shall be the greatest. Some am I the greatest supporter?--Jondel 10:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Delete, not notable. --SPUI (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is probably a Deletionist. Kim Bruning 11:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Extreme this RfA has been over for 5 months support Redwolf24 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose. <<garbled transmission>> -Nathan J. Yoder 14:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, what are you talking about? Carbonite | Talk 14:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where's my other sock? I must have lost it. Ah, here it is. Neutralitytalk 15:26, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you saying this is your sockpuppet? zomgwtflolbbq ban time! :P ugen64 16:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is interesting is that I did originally post it as a joke, however I have decided to stand by my vote. This is based on later statements in a conversation in #wikipedia@FreeNode that demonstrated her extreme immaturity. I was having a serious discussion with Kim Bruning about the GFDL and Wikipedia. However, when I demonstrated flaws in his points, he degraded to sarcastic passive aggerssive insults. Soon after, several others in his channel who had obviously known him prior simply started jumping on the bandwagon. Bishonen was one of those users engaging in self-admitted passive aggressive behavior, mainly in the form of sarcasm. This is not the sign of someone who can be an objective admin. Here are some fun quotes that came from simply having a conversation about the GFDL: User:Njyoder/bishonen. Lastly, there were other admins on there too who jumped on the band wagon. It seems a lot of these votes for new admins are meaningless, since the votes come primarily from people who already know and are on friendly terms with her. #wikipedia@freenode has done nothing but contribute to making wikipedia more of a circle jerk by encouraging power through cliques and mob mentality. If you are disliked by one of the clique, you are disliked by all automatically. Conversely, if you are strongly liked by one, you are liked by all and have a good chance of becoming an admin. Frankly, it's insane that so many admins are part of one massive clique, it only leads to mob/herd mentality. -Nathan J. Yoder 14:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely person, excellent editor, serene community member; but regretfully oppose. Inexplicably drawn to washrooms and their trappings. Should not be tempted into janitorial duty, considering the placement of the broomcloset. +sj + 14:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the above some sort of "insider jokes"? Somehow I don't really get it. Phils 16:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Phils, I'm sorry, I quite agree. Nathan was on IRC when I got nominated and I think he put in what was meant to be a joke, and other people removed it as being offensive. The traces left of that are certainly confusing. Even more so is sj's vote, which is a ... delicate reference to my subpage User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder. ("Mine" only in the sense of living in my userspace, I'm merely one of many equally bathroom-fittings obsessed contributors.) If further clarification is desired, see this archive.--Bishonen | talk 17:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No jokes, but oppose pro forma unless and until User:Bishonen indicates some positive interest in being an admin, such as in the questions below. Making someone an admin who has to be virtually coerced into it is devalues the position for those who are willing and take the job seriously. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Bishonen answered the questions and shows herself ready to engage the broader community, so my objection is withdrawn. Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't devalue the position, as it has no value — admins are ordinary editors with a few extra abilities and a lot of extra responsibilities. And better someone who has to be coerced than someone who's too eager. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion is not universally held. Admin is a position of trust and responsibility and I wouldn't ask someone to take it seriously if I could support someone who doesn't. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Administrators. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwithstanding the much-recycled Jimbo quote, those who write the page push their opinion. The voting on RfA and the extensive discussions at talk, at times quite contentious, illustrate that many Wikipedians take the position quite seriously indeed. Do you think admin isn't a position of "trust and responsibility," as I have said? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well actually I specifically mentioned increased responsibility. The issue was the value of the position, however. Mel Etitis (ΜελΕτητης) 18:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the value of the position. All admins receive the same scale, but bureaucrats are paid double. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone who accept reluctantly but can and will do a good job is better than someone who really wants it, over-eager, and wants it purely because of the associated value. -- KTC 20:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. The ridiculous number of supporting votes stem from a somewhat immature campaigning in the #wikipedia@Freenode IRC channel. I don't care if it is bishonen that is advertising or not, but this is verging on a rigged vote from my POV. Let me express that this has nothing personal to do with bishonen, but solely the process. -- Wegge 17:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, who in there right mind thinks that this absurd amount of votes does NOT involve serious over-promotion, especially in #wikipedia where a link to this page was pasted NUMEROUS times? To say that #wikipedia has no real effect on wikipedia is extroadrinarily dishonest and more than likely a flat out lie. Anyone who has spent time in there knows damn well that people will paste links to pages to get people to take action, including action from admins or people who can artifically raise votes or do reverts on a page. Frankly, anyone with admin status that refuses to admit that #wikipedia has a significant and real effect on wikipedia, especially in the form of group think, should have their admin status completely revoked and should be banned from wikipedia. Someone who can't realize something which is so patently obvious and damaging to wikipedia should not be allowed to edit wikipedia at all, especially as an admin where they will hear cries in #wikipedia and enforce those cries with their admin powers on wikipedia. -Nathan J. Yoder 19:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I feel constrained to contradict the above suggestion. The notion that anyone who disagrees with a certain point of view "should not be allowed to edit wikipedia at all" is far more damaging than #wikipedia can ever be. -- Emsworth 00:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I would vote support, but there's way too many support votes already. It kinda makes me nervous. Besides, what was up with that April Fools' stuff? Everyking 07:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a joke - you know ho ho ho and all that!!! Giano | talk 07:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And it was not primarily intended as an April Fools' Day article at first, at least not by this contributor. It was a harmless outlet for some editors to poke fun at themselves and at the follies of life in general, Wikipedia in particular, in a manner that was entirely positive and enabled me, specifically, to regain my enthusiasm for this project. The fact that Bishonen hosted the whole thing with wit, grace, equanimity and great good humour strengthens her admin qualifications in my mind. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    It's fine as it is, James. Normally I'd be disappointed not to have your support, but I set less store by it after you didn't have the courtesy to explain your Oppose vote to JRM, in spite of several requests to do so. I hope you'll reconsider and give the explanation, seeing as JRM has given you a bunch of good reasons why he wants to know.--Bishonen | talk 13:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, aren't you admin candidates supposed to be all conciliatory, polite and generous? Don't let those 92 votes go to your head! Everyking 08:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm prematurely coming out in my true colors. C'mon, don't you think it's reasonable, what I ask? Bishonen | talk 10:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I for one consider it amazingly rude to demand an explanation of a vote if one is not given. For a vote to any chance at validity, the votes must be cast without intimidation. On wikipedia there is a tendency to debate things that we don't agree with and this is often extended to things that are just matter of opinion. Sometimes we might feel a reason to vote against someone, but feel that an explanation would just lead to a debate and ultimately a lot of bruised feelings. When someone doesn't give their reason, their vote probably won't count for much, and they won't sway anyone else with it, but that is their choice. Please don't nag or intimidate users into participating in discussions they'd rather avoid. --Gmaxwell 13:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider it amazingly rude to demand a vote explanation; actually, I consider it extremely rude to omit one. Quoting the RFA page itself..."Please indicate whether you support or oppose the candidate. You may also cast a neutral vote, which will not be tabulated in the final calculations. When you cast your vote, please consider providing an explanation, especially on oppose and neutral votes, so the candidate or other voters can understand and address it. In a close nomination, all explanations and comments will be considered, including those in neutral votes." Frankly, I'd rather get into a fight than have someone just throw a random vote around. Please understand that this isn't anything against you, Gmaxwell, but I think if you get someone else's perspective you'll understand more. Linuxbeak 23:10, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    My votes are never random, but I don't wish to explain it and that's that. Everyking 12:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That is all I wanted to know. Seriously. I never use bold sentences, so you can tell I mean it now. :-) JRM · Talk 17:22, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
  2. Abstain. Although Bishonen deserves a way long, long overdue promotion for the work she has done here, I am a little concerned that the entire Wikipedia community is suffering from an acute case of herd behavior here. (although I might support her if she reaches over 100 votes or at the very last minute). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on Zzyzx11, don't be a party pooper! - User:Bishonen Now, where's that signature button gone?...ah, there it is! --Silversmith 19:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC) (Hey, no, Silversmith, please don't take my signature in vain, that's kind of confusing. It wasn't me, sig struck through. --Bishonen | talk 22:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    ok, strange, sorry, looks like zzyx11 wrote it himself. Unless he'd like to disagree?--Silversmith 12:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    (Actually it was made by person ;-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    I thought it was Bishonen when I saw "Bishonen - fixing wiki" on the history. My bad. --Silversmith 12:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He's totally right here, I used "herd mentality" to describe them earlier. They seem to think that because there isn't an active and secret organized effort to do bad things, that there isn't a sociological phenomenon going on that causes them to artificially reinforce eachother's ideas. The problem is that once the vote count reaches a certain point, people will inevitably vote them the same way. And people are afraid of mentioning dissenting opinions because the mob/herd will squash them as paranoid idiots right away, even though people are clearly exercising group think. -Nathan J. Yoder 20:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathan J. Yoder, my comment is more tongue-and-cheek... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's actually true, which makes it sad that you think it's a joke. Don't lie now, if there had been a flood of votes opposing after my vote, you'd definitely be claiming herd mentality FOR REAL. -Nathan J. Yoder 02:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And if Bishonen had started blanking your user page after your vote, I'd call her a petty vandal. But that didn't happen either. JRM · Talk 03:18, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
    Nathan J. Yoder, I respect your opinion on Bishonen. But on the other hand, I believe some Wikipedians (including me) feel that she deserves promotion solely based on her work here, not because of what she says or doesn't say on the IRC. And I also think if someone is close to breaking a voting record here on RFA then I'd want to help them, which is why I wrote above that I might change my vote at the last minute. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No particular problem with this user, but I strongly oppose the groupthink displayed here, and the popularity contest that Requests for Adminship has become. Chameleon 00:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is "groupthink" as much as it is a genuine support base. Maybe popularity tells you something about how well a person gets on with others. A more popular person obviously must be displaying better people skills. Which, IMO makes a better admin. Xtra 01:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not necessarily. Chameleon 17:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, it is very hard to tell how many users are voting support just because it is "groupthink", how many supporters truly believe Bishonen deserves promotion for her work here, and how many supporters are voting just so they can be a part of her record setting RFA results. Whether its popularity, merit, intensive networking throughout the WP community, or whatever the case, I give her credit for it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the heck should she "get credit" simply for her ability to garner votes? I'm sure there are people who are rather famous on in the internet that are rather unqualified to be an admin that could easily get thousands of votes. Somehow, I don't think kissing your ass to the top is a valid qualifier for being an admin. Popularity, networking and all of that has nothing do with her ability to be an admin. Frankly, I'm wondering if you're really just being naive or are being disingenuous here. No one in their right mind would think that popularity was an actual good determining factor of someone's qualifications, especially considering numerous people who have been elected into offices who are woefully underqualified. -Nathan J. Yoder 19:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My friend, it seems you have not had enough experience in the real life world (not the ideal world nor the theoretical world) of politics. Just look at the current Governor of California... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? Did you read what I actually said? I was just saying, in refutation to something you said, that popularity determing the quality of a person for their position was NOT a good thing. You expressed an idea earlier that using popularity was a GOOD indicator of that. Now you seem to be backpedaling and contradicting yourself. Seriously, did you even read what I said? I have absolultely no idea how you can read my statement indicating that popularity contests are bad and interpret it to mean the exact opposite -Nathan J. Yoder 16:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    While I disapprove of popularity contests just like you do, I don't appreciate my vote being subsumed under groupthink just because it is one of the about hundred. Please check out the history of my talk page, Bishonen's talk page, Peer Review, The Country Wife, and Nafaanra language (among many others) to see why my vote doesn't qualify as such. And please do the same for the other hundred votes before yelling groupthink. — mark ✎ 10:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said that your vote specifically was groupthink? Chameleon 17:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is: if you didn't, then which ones are? — mark ✎ 17:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I shouldn't have to explain this. My point is made. Chameleon 18:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if everyone did that with their vote, just like oppose votes... well, then, we'd never really get anything done as far as adminship is concerned. In MediaWiki 1.5, administrative capabilities will be split—thus we will no longer need an all-encompassing "administrators" class, we can just grant and revoke abilities (page protection, deletion, blocking, rollback) on a per-user basis. Once undoing these privileges is no longer a big deal, adminship will return to not being a big deal anymore too. Personally, I can't wait, because adminship has grown far too special for my liking. I'd love to go back to the "valuable contributor, not a vandal or troll" definition of "admin". JRM · Talk 11:40, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
    Do you mean that we'll never get anything done if people point out groupthink or other problems? I don't think that follows. Chameleon 17:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't, and it's not what I meant. My comment should be taken as a response to Mark's. If everyone had to give an exhaustivel list of objective reasons why somebody is fit for adminship, we'd never get anywhere. That's why I'd like adminship to stop being a big deal, and the RFAs to stop degenerating into meta-criticism. That's no doubt very valuable, but it doesn't do much for individual RFAs. JRM · Talk 18:03, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
    I agree with you there, JRM. I wasn't proposing to introduce something like that; my only point was to express my disagreement with what I took as an all too easy characterization of what is happening here as 'groupthink'. — mark ✎ 18:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly easy. Indeed, it appears to be fifty times easier to jump on the bandwagon than to point it out. Chameleon 19:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    While I support Bishonen's candidacy (see User:TacoDeposit#Criteria for adminship for why), I share Chameleon's concern, sort of. I am specfically concerned about the influence the IRC channel has on adminship candidacies. I think IRC campaigning can probably account for the high number of support votes on every candidacy that has garnered 50 or more such votes. Someone ought to study the correlation between IRC activity and successful adminship candidacies. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:00, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
    Taco Deposit, that is a good point to bring up because is also possible for the IRC channels to influence a high number of oppose votes for a candidate too. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've brought this issue up in a separate section of the talk page. JRM · Talk 21:35, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
    I share TacoDeposit's concern about the influence of #wikipedia, and I've addressed it on the talk page, too. Studying these correlations could indeed be interesting, I wish someone would do it. Though as for actual campaigning on IRC, that would be even better outlawed (="discouraged by peer pressure") than studied.--Bishonen | talk 22:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sorry, Ta bu shi da yu. I know this nomination has the face of ungraciousness towards you and one or two other people. :-( It's not that I didn't appreciate your offer to nominate me before--I did--but I just wasn't ready. (And then Kim stamped on my fingers till I dropped off the ledge.)--Bishonen | talk 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Frankly, I don't expect to be a highly active admin, if I'm elected. I see myself as a content contributor primarily. But I do have some high-traffic pages watchlisted and revert vandalism on them when I see it, and it would be convenient to be able to do that in a simpler way. And to be able to occasionally to block somebody on a major vandalism spree, rather than have to go to IRC and shout for "an admin" to do it. I would especially like to do some New Pages patrol--I find that mighty frustrating at present, so I don't do it much, but it's something I'm interested in. I hope to avoid as far as possible the most contentious areas like blocking users and protecting pages, but as Kim said I am quite involved in the community--interfering, even--so these things will probably happen, too.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I suppose I'm quite proud of the Featured Articles I've authored, though most of them unfortunately don't demonstrate what's best about the wiki system: they're not very collaborative (exception: John Vanbrugh, mine and User:Giano's pride and joy). The subject I'm most interested in writing about is, well, kind of obscure and minor, so other editors tend to give these articles a bit of a wide berth. (Geogre, who is also into obscure stuff, is the exception!) Though, since you force me to blow my own horn here, some readers have ... oh, what the hell (caution to the wind), if you want to check out a comparatively light piece, try Colley Cibber. I do enjoy collaborative editing, and add bits to more widely edited articles (though rarely in the most controversial areas), just to get more of the smell of it in my nostrils. I'm kind of pleased with my housekeeping at Peer review, and hope/believe that the changes I helped make in February, and the new removal policy I wrote, has contributed to making it more dynamic.
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, I get stressed, and no, I'm not so laid-back that I just shake it off, I wish I were. The most contentious things I do are probably vote on WP:FAC, and remove inappropriate postings on Peer review, and on occasion I've gotten unexpected reactions. Somebody reckoned I was insulting him recently on WP:FAC, for instance. I'll be up front with you: I'm not the most seasoned admin material you'll ever see. (Well, duh, with JRM on the same page!) I get quite ...stressed, at something like that. What I do about it is explain how I feel (because people are entitled to know ... GRRRR ... no, no, just kidding!), and try to think, next time, more about what a sensitive situation it is for a user to put their baby articles on WP:FAC or WP:PR, and how I can try to be more tactful. I won't claim that conflicts with other users normally end with our being best buddies. Though, hey, that very thing did happen with User:Giano, if he doesn't mind my mentioning it!
As for stress over editing specifically, I think I'd make a better admin if I'd exposed myself to a bit more of it. I do tend to stay with safe subjects. I hereby vow to edit a little more controversially, and get more practice in being equable in controversy.
Finally, a question that hasn't been asked, but that Cecropia implies: why was I hard to persuade? Because I'm a serious wikipediholic, and I'm looking to cut down a little, rather than do more. I've been around a lot recently, and it isn't doing my day job any good (chorus:"She has a day job?"). I here vow to be online a little less (a little less, Geogre!), and try for higher quality instead.--Bishonen | talk 19:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. In what way do you feel you can further enhance the Italian influences slowly improving Wikipedia, and what are your views of the cultivation of oranges? Giano | talk 21:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This obvious reference to Orange (word) should send you right to the next candidacy. --Bishonen | talk 21:42, 1 May 2005 (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.
Category