Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

if nominations haven't updated.

Current time is 09:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC). —

Current time is 09:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC). —

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.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections, an alternative type of RfA, took place in October 2024. Administrator elections were authorized permanently on a 5-month schedule in an RfC held in early 2025. The latest administrator election took place in July 2025, with the next election in December 2025.

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 community consensus and Arbitration Committee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N/A	%
KylieTastic	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	374	66	101	85
Kj cheetham	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	350	64	127	85
Ser!	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	314	91	136	78
Curbon7	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	293	87	161	77
Jlwoodwa	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	314	95	132	77
Smasongarrison	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	312	98	131	76
UndercoverClassicist	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	307	97	137	76
CoconutOctopus	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	315	110	116	74
Hinnk	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	260	100	181	72
Hilst	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	233	117	191	67
Pbritti	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	250	126	165	66
Patient Zero	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	250	130	161	66
Usernamekiran	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	232	127	182	65
Darth Stabro	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	167	205	169	45
North8000	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	108	323	110	25
Vestrian24Bio	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	56	341	144	14

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. 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 added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Please do not transclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.

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 the extended confirmed right. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

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

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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. 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". 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.

Monitors

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion if there is one. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

Add new requests at the top of this section.

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination. If you intend to nominate yourself, please take note that while there is no hard and fast requirement for nominating, editors with less than three to six months experience and 1,000–2,000 edits very rarely succeed in becoming admins.

Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.

Current time is 09:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

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

Andrew Levine

Final (65/18/2) Ended 20:10, 2006-08-16 (UTC)

Andrew Levine (talk · contribs) – I've been editing Wikipedia since 2003, going on strong almost 3 years with no long breaks. In that time I've made almost 3500 edits, of which more than 1000 800 are in the Wikipedia namespace.

• I've never been blocked or gotten into a major editing dispute. If someone doesn't agree with my reasoning, I prefer offering compromises to fighting.
• I've done a lot of work ensuring that images have proper copyrights, that statements are properly cited, and that global/neutral views are presented, in a wide variety of fields. In some of my early edits (late 2003 and early 2004), before Wikipedia's policies on such matters were formulated, I was a little less diligent, but I changed as Wikipedia did.
• I have helped to remove POV from articles, even in cases where this meant removing or changing statements I agreed with.
• I've participated in many discussions over policy and deletions, comporting myself in a civil manner.
• I was the primary agent in polishing up Krazy Kat, writing most of the article's current prose, tracking down out-of-print books to add references and public domain images, and restructuring it. After a very smooth FAC nomination (with only a single, quickly removed Oppose), Krazy Kat became a Featured Article. Other articles I edited heavily and reorganized as part of a successful effort to bring them to Featured status were Arrested Development and Canadian federal election, 1993 (though Brian0918 and SimonP, respectively, did much more work than me in these two cases).

I want to become an administrator because I want to be able to more effectively fight vandalism, close deletions, and cool off heated disputes. Wikipedia is growing quickly thanks to media attention, but mixed in with all the helpful users are vandals, attention seekers, and marketers. We need more admins to combat this, and I can bring as much Wikipedia experience as almost anyone who doesn't already have admin privileges. Question me with regard to my specific positions towards whatever issue interests you, and I will answer in detail. Andrew Levine 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Andrew Levine 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I plan to rollblack vandalism and block vandals as needed, enforce arbitration, assist with deletions, and use protection powers to give disputes time to cool off.

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

A: As noted above, bringing Krazy Kat from a disorganized state with little information to a Featured Article that easily passed, without any battles, is my proudest contribution in writing articles. Andrew Levine 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I think the closest I ever came to real frustration in editing an article was over Black Canadian, where I wanted to add Michaëlle Jean to a list of notable Black Canadians that existed there at the time, and Bearcat was opposed because Jean was already named in the article lead. After some back-and-forth discussion on the talk page, I offered a compromised which BearCat gladly accepted. (The compromise was rendered moot when the list was later split off into a new article).

Optional question from BryanG

4. I see that you have not activated your Wikipedia email. Why is that, and will you activate it now?

Not sure what you mean, as my preferences show that my e-mail is activated. Andrew Levine 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the problem was, it's fixed now. BryanG^(talk) 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Why did you recently create a new userbox in template space? --Cyde Weys 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some context for readers: The userbox in question (since deleted by Cyde and recreated in userspace at User:Andrew Levine/Userboxes/user wcw) was intended to be used for fans of poet William Carlos Williams. To answer your question, I felt that the use of userboxes for certain non-controversial subjects like literature (and excluding contentious issues, e.g. religion or politics) is permissible on Wikipedia. I understand that officially implementing the German approach has some measure of support, and in deference to its supporters, for the forseeable future (i.e. until we have a clearer policy) I will not be making new userboxes in Wikipedia namespace. However, the German approach also has a large number of opponents, and has not been adopted as policy. It is still an issue over which reasonable users may differ. Andrew Levine 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1 Users email is now active.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Andrew Levine (over the 3525 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 955 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 11, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 29, November, 2003
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 29.7% Minor edits: 36.94%
Average edits per day: 4.99 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 491 edits): Major article edits: 43.3% Minor article edits: 47.95%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3525 edits shown on this page and last 27 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.17% (6)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.73% (61)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 23.01% (811)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 22 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 17.94%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 8.2% (289 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.11% (4 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.23% (8 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 0.57% (20 edit(s)) (9 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.17% (6 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0% (0 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1811 | Average edits per page: 1.95 | Edits on top: 4.11%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 20.45% (721 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 3.46% (122 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.52% (230 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 60.4% (2129 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 58.84% (2074) | Article talk: 4.06% (143)
User: 3.8% (134) | User talk: 2.5% (88)
Wikipedia: 21.73% (766) | Wikipedia talk: 2.7% (95)
Image: 2.98% (105)
Template: 1.96% (69)
Category: 0.94% (33)
Portal: 0.17% (6)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.34% (12)

• See Andrew Levine's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Andrew Levine's edit history with Interiot's Tool2.

Username Andrew_Levine
Total edits 3496
Distinct pages edited 1801
Average edits/page 1.941
First edit 21:02, 28 November 2003
 
(main) 2072
Talk 143
User 131
User talk 82
Image 104
Image talk 1
Template 68
Template talk 11
Category 33
Wikipedia 750
Wikipedia talk 95
Portal 6

Support

1. I think he gets the job done. Seems intelligent, level-headed, and willing. AdamBiswanger1 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. In my opinion, Andrew's contributions to Wikipedia are more than sufficient for adminship. --Gray Porpoise 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support An experienced editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, waiving talk requirements. This user is so experienced, I trust him despite the lack of talk edits. I know most of mine are blabber, anyway. No actual reason to believe he will be a failure as a sysop. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - you seem like an experienced, level-headed editor who can be trusted with the admin tools :). Though your answers to the questions are a bit short, your nomination statement sums things up nicely. Your user talk edits are kind of low, but not reason enough for me not to support you. Good luck. Fabricationary 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   If you would like me to elaborate on my responses, feel free to add specific questions and I will address them as well as I can. Andrew Levine 23:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Support per above. Michael 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support More than meets my standards. Low edit count/time served is probably a matter of quality/quantity. User:Andrew Levine's talk page reveals involvement in FAC drives and a lack of incivility. AfD discussions I saw revealed no problems. Low talk count may also be a matter of quality/quantity. The FAC drive discussions I saw show me he can communicate. Although there is a lack of reports to AIV, I believe User_talk:Andrew_Levine is careful enough to distinguish between newbie mistakes and vandalism and will not be carried away by over zealous RCPatrollers. Clear thinking and articlulate, he will do well in arbitration. Also, meets 1FC. :) Dlohcierekim 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   Further rationale. "Featured article writers need the flag to help maintain featured article pages themselves. This is very very important, as the goal of wikipedia is ultimately to create as many featured articles as possible. They will hopefully not need to use their flag often, but when they need it they *really* need it. (Kim Bruning)  :) Dlohcierekim 18:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

8. He has The Article. -- Миборовский 01:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 02:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support - good editor abakharev 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support High quality of edits makes up for the low edit count relative to time here. Fireplace 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Edit countis can be fatal and should be negated in some circumstances. Yanksox 04:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. - Mailer Diablo 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. - Jeffklib 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support, long commitment, wide ranged edits, responds to changes, writes articles, FA participation i.e. solid editor. feydey 11:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Wikipedia could use some more level-headed admins, and the fact that Andrew's never been in a major content dispute is a definite plus in my book. Good luck! Icewolf34 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per above. Newyorkbrad 15:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support; long-time editor, interested in maintenance tasks, trustworthy, and cool-headed. Those objecting over lack of article talk and user talk edits should consider that work on WP:PR and WP:FAC requires significant community interaction. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Normally I oppose editors with weak edit summary usage, but you are strong in other areas and have already indicated a plan to improve that area. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Excellent record, gifted editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per AdamBis and Fabrictionary and consistent with my RfA criteria. Joe 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Anyone whose been with us that long deserves the mop, and maybe a barnstar... RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. This editor is clearly ready for the tools and won't misuse them. Agent 86 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support, largely per Dlohcierekim and also meets my criteria. My only complaint is the low edit summary usage, and I see you've already said you'll improve it. BryanG^(talk) 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    According to what's under oppose, the candidate doesn't appear to meet your criteria.--Andeh 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    Whoops, I forgot to check the email link (I assume that's the one you mean). Neutral until my optional question is answered. BryanG^(talk) 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Back to support now that it's fixed. BryanG^(talk) 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

26. Support I'd like to see more use of edit summaries, but otherwise a review of your contributions convinces me you'd be a valuable addition to the team of admins. Gwernol 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support, trustworthy editor who deserves the tools. JYolkowski // talk 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, seems to cover all the bases. Stifle (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Weak support Support, because he seems to be a good solid editor. Weak because he states he wants to help fight vandalism but shows no previous indicatsion that he has. Vandal fighting produces a LOT of user talk edits, and these seem to be lacking. Viridae^Talk 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support I'm sure he knows all the rules by now! —Khoikhoi 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support If Andrew is commenting on FAC's, at peer review and elsewhere, that is sufficient. My vote is based on that and the fact that I see zero evidence that he will abuse admin tools...it's that simple.--MONGO 06:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Per above. Comment: Although I have had no interaction with this user in my brief past here on Wikipedia, I am casting my yes vote saddened to see that a contributor with more than 3500 edits can receive almost a dozen oppose votes which, in all fairness, seem to be based on technicalities. Moreover, I fail to see anything in this user's history that would suggest a possibility that he would abuse administrator privileges. Besides, he has been contributing for years which for me is sufficient proof of more than adequate experience needed for adminship. RedZebra 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support based on excellent experience. Not going to oppose based on edit summary usage, but please work on it in the future. :) RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support based on seeing the user around and generally liking what I've seen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support per nom and others. --Kbdank71 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support is a good editor and I believe will make a good Admin. LarryQ 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Andrew has good experience and is a clear asset to the encyclopedia. This is what adminship is for; none of the standards people are using below have any bearing on misuse of admin tools. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support per nom and the work of Andrew's I have seen. SorryGuy 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. I believe that Andrew is unlikely to misues admin tools. Aren't I Obscure? 23:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support --Jay(Reply) 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. DarthVader 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support - seems mature and level headed. My only concern is the way he is addressing, one-on-one, all the people who oppose him. I'm more impressed when an RfA candidate lets things run their course and only deals with specific, fixable problems. Metamagician3000 01:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    Here, here! :) Dlohcierekim 03:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

43. Support – as a protest vote to all those opposing who have absolutely no idea how FAC functions, or how deep a discussion it actually is. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Merovingian - Talk 11:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support 3 years, no evidence of misbehavior... Says it all, really.  Grue  18:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support - I sympathize to some degree with concerns about community involvement, but I have to respectfully disagree. I have seen Andrew getting out and doing stuff and talking about it. His contributions and behavior have been strongly positive overall. Support. Georgewilliamherbert 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. After being neutral for a bit, after some speaking with Andrew Levine I believe he is level headed and cautious enough to not misuse the tools. Specific examples that show he has been involved in possibly tense situations could be Talk:Krazy_Kat#Grammar_and_referencing_fixes_reverted and Talk:Black_Canadian#Micha.C3.ABlle_Jean. As for concerns that he is not too involved in vandalism reverting, I don't feel that this is a strong enough reason to oppose as he has indeed stated that he will get more familiar with the area before blocking people. The fact stands that Andrew Levine is the sort of administrator who mainly deals with maintenance of articles (in particular featured articles), and while he may not necessarily use the tools too much for common areas such as WP:AIV, I don't believe he will abuse them. Cowman109^Talk 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. There's nothing wrong with taking your time to be sure you're right. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support plenty of evidence that he wouldn't abuse admin tools; no evidence that he would. --W.marsh 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Absolutely -- Samir धर्म 04:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Weak support - responses to opposes have been polite. Kimchi.sg 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
52. TacoDeposit 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support Some P. Erson 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support: seems like a great bloke. Thumbelina 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Strong Support per many of the above. Carmen Chamelion 15:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
56. Strong support: I have had the pleasure of collaborating with Andrew Levine for a month and find him to be level headed and quick to engage in discussions when needed as well as knowledgeable about Wikipedia's processes and policies. I think he would make an excellent admin and is certainly experienced in helping new editors as he has done so with me.--Opark 77 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
57. Support - CFIF (talk to me) 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. - Bobet 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
59. Changed from neutral. -- Steel 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. I think he can be trusted, low talk edits or no. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Support The low talk edits don't bother me he seems very responisble. Just promise me you will get into more discussions Æon ^{Insane Ward} 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    Weak Support Seems like a good candidate, but something in my gut says that something is happening here beyond what I can see. Attic Owl 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    Note to closing bureaucrat: This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. --Cyde Weys 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

62. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
63. Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
64. Support. Edits are consistently high-quality, and he seems to have enough experience. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
65. Support High Quality edits and I see no evidence that he will abuse his admin tools. --RicDod 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant oppose. Article talk and user talk edits well below my criteria. Needs more experience in communication/interaction. Themindset 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   A user with this much experience oughtta be trustworthy. Consider waiving. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose unfortunately, per low edit summary usage, 59% for major edits. Would gladly drop my oppose vote if Andrew Levine would promise to pay more attention to the issue in the future, and/or change his preferences to warn when an edit is to be submitted without a summary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   I admit I have been lax on this in the past (particularly when I was just starting 3+ years ago). I will change my preferences right now to add the warning. Andrew Levine 23:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   I have withdrawn my oppose vote, per Andrew's comment above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per above and answers to general questions that were too brief. DrL 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   If you would like me to elaborate on my answers in detail, simply add questions to the "Questions for the candidate" section above, starting with #4, and I will be glad to provide a satisfactory response. Andrew Levine 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Talking about things and using edit summaries is nice. SoaP 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   The 200 or so edits I've made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and Wikipedia:Peer review surely count towards discussion experience, I'd imagine, even though they're not listed as "talk page" edits. Also, note my response to Oleg above re: edit summaries. Andrew Levine 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   Also, this user has been blocked twice in the past three weeks for trolling and is currently blocked for vandalism. Andrew Levine 12:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose user states in A1 they want to block vandals and use rollback, yet I couldn't find a trace of any vandal fighting, such as warning any vandals via their talk page. So I get the impression the user has absolutely no experience with dealing with vandals. User is a great editor (see nom) but I feel adminship is a bit early and the user doesn't require it just yet.--Andeh 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Andrew has 143 edits to talk, 82 to user talk, and 2,072 to articles in three years. That's nowhere near regular enough, and it shows almost zero community interaction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   Again, I'm not sure why some are discarding my 250+ edits to Featured Article Candidates and Review as not counting towards community interaction. Andrew Levine 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose I feel that the candidate needs more experience in the areas he wishes to use the administrative tools. Very little vandal fighting shows an inexperience in, well, vandal fighting. This is one of the two main areas the candidate mentions that he would use the extra buttons for in his answer to Q1 and his editing history shows that he has little interest or experience in either. The second main area the candidate mentions is dispute resolution. Very low user talk participation shows that the candidate is inexperienced there as well. Should the candidate gain some more experience in those areas, I'd be happy to support, as the candidate has been on the project for quite a while, which shows an eager willingness to help out. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   Important note to all opposing on grounds of my inexperience in anti-vandalism: I have struck this from my reasons for becoming an admin. I pledge not to use administrative tools against vandalism and to focus on my other areas of interest instead, at least until I have more experience fighting vandalism with normal user privileges. Andrew Levine 11:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think you should withdraw this pledge. All admins should deal with vandals from time to time when they see them. Also, I don't think your answering so many of the oppose comments is creating a good impression. Let it run its course. That said, I voted in your support because you seem like a good, mature user, if a little uptight about the RfA. Metamagician3000 01:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I appreciated the comment and I like to see RfA candidates address the issues raised by the participants, at it gives the community more information about said issues as well a better sense of the candidate. I am sticking with my two cents for now, but I don't think that commenting on the issues is bad or makes the candidate at all uptight. Good luck Andrew! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 09:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose per answers to questions (no trace of vandal fighting) and low number of talk edits. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per SlimVirgin's summary and per Grafikm. It's important to have some idea of what real vandalism is, as opposed to merely being "edits that you don't like". —freak(talk) 02:32, Aug. 11, 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per above. And also Andrew, pointing out that someone has been blocked before doesn't mean that he/she can't say oppose.  QuizQuick  19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    I don't object to User:Son of a Peach's right to oppose, I'm just making a note for the benefit of the admins who oversee the process. Andrew Levine 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose as per other opposing comments. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Per above. Number of his edits are very short even He has been contributing in Wikipedia for 3 years. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose I hate to do this to a long-tenured user, but I do get the feeling that experience in admin-related areas is weak. I share the concerns of FoN and SV, but what finally mind up my mind was this little slip above: "I don't object to User:Son of a Peach's right to oppose, I'm just making a note for the benefit of the admins who oversee the process. Andrew Levine 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)" As every admin should know, bureaucrats oversee RfA -- adminship confers no special status particular to this forum. Xoloz 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    Come on Xoloz. I am sure there is a more productive way to teach Andrew a lesson. RedZebra 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    Not trying to "teach a lesson." As I said, I share the concerns above -- that little comment of the editor was just "the straw that broke the camel's back," and made me decide to oppose. Xoloz 17:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    I actually did know that it's bureaucrats and not admins who make the promotion decision. A mistype, is all. If you have serious doubts about my ability to handle admin tasks, I will be happy to answer as many questions as needed in order to make sure your concerns are addressed. Andrew Levine 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

14. Tony Sidaway 02:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Concerns about his lack of experience.
15. Oppose per SlimVirgin Bastique▼^parler _voir 00:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Jrcog@^{Insert something here} 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose. I believe that interaction through user talk pages is critical to an admin and while I'm inclined towards the argument that project pages (etc) represent community interaction, I believe that there is a qualitative difference. Will be happy to support (drop a note on my talk page) next Rfa if this one fails if this is addressed, esp. if with evidence of tackling vandalism. If Rfa succeeds, happy to wish you the very best of luck! --Dweller 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Very funny. Quill E. Coyote 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    User's 19th edit. First edit was 5 days ago. Kimchi.sg 03:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - though a great contributor, he does not meet my criteria of 300 combined edits in Talk/User talk namespaces. Kalani ^[talk] 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral: He's got a really cool signature and a substantial edit count, but...very weak user interaction, page discussion and summary usage a future admin maketh not. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral I'm kind of torn about this one - I don't think the user has much community involvement, which is key when it comes to being an administrator. His work in the encyclopedia of course it very helpful, but I'm not sure if there's enough evidence that he would use the tools properly - it seems like the majority of his edits in the Wikipedia namespace are concerning featured article candidates, but he is uninvolved in janitorial processes, such as deletion discussions. Cowman109^Talk 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

   After a reply by Andrew Levine, I acknowledge now that he has indeed been involved in AFD discussions, but I still feel that he hasn't had too much community involvement that would confirm that he can handle tense discussions with users, for example. I would support in a month or two given more community involvement (in terms of communication). Cowman109^Talk 00:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

   Changed to support. Cowman109^Talk 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

   Only 3500 edits since 2003 with "no long breaks" is a concern for me, but I don't have any reason to assume he would be untrustworthy, and he's become more active during (perhaps because of) this RfA. -- Steel 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   Since this is a close RfA (Hovering between the 75-80% range), I've decided to commit myself to a particular side of the fence. Changed to support. -- Steel 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Aguerriero

Final (51/2/2) Ended 14:57, 2006-08-16 (UTC)

Aguerriero (talk · contribs) – Andy, who signs as Aguerriero, is a prime example of both an ideal Wikipedian and admin candidate. Aguerriero has written numerous great articles for the project[1], being the voice of three FAs (one of them being Phil Collins), communicated well with users[2][3], founded Wikiproject Guitarists, fights vandalism (both simple and not so simple[4]), is thoughtful in the maintenance aspect of the project[5] and is open minded[6]. It is obvious that he will use, but not abuse, the tools.

The Downlow (stolen from RfA/Gwernol/Crzrussian/Alphachimp)

• Edit Count: 3400+ (right on edge of 3500)
• Time Around: First Edit in February of '06
• Edit Summaries: Batting 100%
• Mistakes: Everyone is prone to mess up, but he doesn't really make them.
• E-mail: Yes
• Userpage: Clean and helpful
• Any edit warring/blocks?: No blocks and warring, he's part of Medcab and helps resolve disputes.
• FA participation?: Perhaps Andy could tell us, he looks more like a GA type man, though.

Aguerriero is one of the most model Wikipedians I have encountered and there is no doubt in my mind he would be a fine admin. Now, shall we all support Andy and give him the tools that he will use for the benefit of the project? Yanksox 05:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Co-nom. Andy has an amazing temperament, and great reserves of patience. I had recently asked him to come mediate an incipient edit war at Sanhedrin and related articles, after I recused myself due to partiality. He is continuing to put in a tremendous effort there, and is producing tangible results, despite the fact that the parties are quite entrenched, and despite having to wade through a swamp of Hebrew terms and unfamiliar Jewish politics. We need more admins like that. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Through my active participation in the AfD process, I have worked to become familiar with how the community deals with article deletion. I will use this knowledge to close out nominations, and to assist with CAT:CSD backlogs in a timely manner. I have taken initiative to improve the deletion process by collaborating on an AfD notice template that currently appears at the top of WP:AFD. This and my other contributions to this important area of Wikipedia illustrate my commitment to participate and to help the deletion process function at its best. Administrative tools will assist me in helping the community efficiently and fairly.

I am also significantly involved in dispute resolution. I am an active member of the Mediation Cabal, and I also help in other disputes that have not reached that level. I have also participated in vandal fighting. Through these experiences, I have learned the value of appropriate protections and blocks. As an administrator, I will use those tools responsibly and efficiently to help resolve a variety of disputes that arise at WP:AN/I, WP:AIV, and other places.

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

A: I have created a number of articles and improved many others, but I think these examples best illustrate my commitment to the project:

I am the creator of WikiProject Guitarists, which quickly grew in participation, and I feel it is a good example of my understanding of the principles of organization and collaboration. I helped bring the article Crime in Mexico from being nominated for deletion to GA status, and I recently brought the Phoenix Zoo article from a one-sentence stub to GA. I have recorded spoken word versions of Featured Articles such as Central Processing Unit and Phil Collins. Additionally, I work on the Missing Encyclopedic Article project to create needed articles, and I have fulfilled long-standing article requests such as Subconscious Cruelty.

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

A: I am a very level-headed editor and have not been involved in any disruptive conflicts. Of course, there have been disagreements of opinion, but I have always tried to remain rational and calm in stating my position. I do not shy away from taking an unpopular position if I believe it is best for Wikipedia.

One time that I got carried away was the deletion nomination of the Doorknob (game) article that I worked on earlier in my time on Wikipedia. While my conduct in this AfD might not seem too bad at first glance, I was indeed peeved over the idea that "my" article might get deleted and I had set my mind to preventing its deletion rather than constructively engaging my peers. I had a lot to learn about consensus, policies, and about assuming good faith in my fellow editors, and I learned it over the ensuing months.

Today, I use any disagreement as an opportunity for improving the encyclopedia.

4 Bonus question from Dlohcierekim. Bonus questions are optional, and sometimes for the edification of the asker.

Q:' How do we establish notability for a mall?

A: In my opinion, a shopping mall is notable if there is something unique about it that gets covered in multiple non-trivial publications, or if something similarly covered happens at the mall. If the article is but a directory of stores and a geographic location, I generally advocate for its deletion. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 :) Dlohcierekim 20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

5 Optional Question from Crzrussian (talk · contribs): If promoted, do you plan to join Category:Administrators open to recall? Why or why not? If yes, what course of action will you take if recalled? - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A: In short, absolutely. I think that since admin tools are granted by a mandate from my peers, so should they be recalled. I think I stand to gain more trust by assuming accountability if that trust is breached. I will also say that there is a significant opportunity to create and refine a consistent process for recalls, but I would rather work on that from the inside than from the outside.

If a potential exists for my recall, I would take the following action:

• If six editors in good standing (>2 months, >350 edits, <2 blocks) initiate the request, I will open an RfC for myself.
• If there is a consensus for me to lose the tools, or no consensus exists, I will open a new RfA.
• If the consensus of the RfA is for me to lose the tools, I will stand down immediately.

--Aguerriero (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Aguerriero (over the 3554 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 171 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 11, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 22, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 35.74 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 383 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3554 edits shown on this page and last 63 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.39% (14)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.97% (70)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 40.57% (1442)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 57 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 18.95%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 11.48% (408 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 8.3% (295 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.06% (2 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 0.51% (18 edit(s)) (10 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.03% (1 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0.39% (14 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2276 | Average edits per page: 1.56 | Edits on top: 17.53%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 73.13% (2599 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 13.73% (488 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 3.46% (123 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 7.32% (260 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 47.16% (1676) | Article talk: 12.07% (429)
User: 8.38% (298) | User talk: 7.51% (267)
Wikipedia: 18.23% (648) | Wikipedia talk: 3.15% (112)
Image: 1.8% (64)
Template: 0.59% (21)
Category: 0.76% (27)
Portal: 0.03% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.31% (11)

• Comment I should automatically support for that wonderfully concisse summary in the nom. Thanks.  :) Dlohcierekim 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• See Aguerriero's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Aguerriero's edit history with Interiot's Tool2

Username         Aguerriero
Total edits         3489
Distinct pages edited 2234
Average edits/page 1.562
First edit 19:40, February 22, 2006
 
(main)         1663
Talk            423
User         298
User talk 263
Image         64
Template 21
Template talk 9
Category 27
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 614
Wikipedia talk 104
Portal         1

Support

1. Strong support per my co-nom. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong support per nom Anger22 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Lone Star Support Rama's arrow 15:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Clichéd I thought you were one Support. :) Srose (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Ditto Clichéd "I thought you were" Support. Agent 86 15:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support I was able to constructively and respectfully disagree with Aguerriero (on Kylu's RfA), and his contact with me was engaging and well thought-out. I have nothing but good things to say-- Good luck! AdamBiswanger1 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support more candidates like this please. :-) Eluchil404 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support just makes it in at 6 months, otherwise looks like a great editor with terrific answers to the questions. Themindset 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support seriously, I've been using this comment quite often as of late, and I think it's due to the large amount of users that are well-versed in policies and have the level head needed to become a succesful administrator but just haven't completed an RfA for one reason or the other. This candidate is obviously one of these users. I've yet to meet the candidate personally but I've seen his work around AfD and when I do RC patrolling sometimes and I've always thought that he was using the extra buttons hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
11. It's all been a pack of lies oppose "I've been waiting for this moment"-primary nominator support. Yanksox 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per nomination and comments above :) —Xyrael _{/ 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
13. Support Aguerriero has made great use of his ability to edit Wikipedia. --Gray Porpoise 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Supporte; not a typo. Excellent editor. Kalani ^[talk] 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per contributions. G.He 18:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Merovingian - Talk 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - I concur with the nomination and this user will make a great janitor. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support as my personal standards met. Nice person to boot. Ifnord 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support per nom. Michael 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per nom Bucketsofg✐ 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Aguerriero has quite a few edits in the short time he has been here. Many of his contributions are the thankless-unacknowledged type of work that many take for granted. I am thankful that people like this are willing do all that. Give him a mop. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Support Meets my standards. (He has been here since February.) Even meets 1FA X 3. Quick review of AfD edits shows good judgement and that he has saved articles by rewriting them. I find no indication of incivility in his talk pages. On the contrary, I find his comments (even his edit summaries) urbane and articulate. I find many instances of other editors thanking him or asking him for advice.  :) Dlohcierekim 20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support—Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-09 20:47Z
24. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support an excellent editor and contributor. Stubbleboy 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support A great editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Of course. I've seen nothing but great things. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Several good GAs is a viable alternative to my 1FA standard. -- Миборовский 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Having a FA under one's belt is not a criterion for me, but you having three defintely is positive!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 02:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support No evidence this user would abuse the m&b :) Ziggurat 02:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Pleasure to work with on Crime in Mexico. Surely would be a great admin. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, per all of the above. :) —Khoikhoi 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support per convincing noms. Fireplace 03:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support - very positive contributions all round. Yomangani 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support seems like a fantastic editor. Viridae^Talk 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. A responsible, capable editor with good communication skills. Tyrenius 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
38. WP:38 Support Nothing goes against my "standards", as far as I can see. I've seen Aguerriero around quite a bit. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support per above. No red flags, no glaring errors, no funny smells.. so you must be doing something right. :) RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 13:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
40. This one goes to eleven support. Helpful, bright, and courteous...will be a model admin. PJM 13:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. DarthVader 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support No problems supporting. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support esp. because of willingness to put self in admins open to recall. Time regardless, willing to help out at CSD is always good. -Royalguard11^Talk 02:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Some P. Erson 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support -- Deville (Talk) 02:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Looks like Andy will make good use of the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Great user, and always Wikipedia:Assume good faith in every situation. Daniel's page ☎ 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Meets my criteria, quality user, seen around a lot. Grandmasterka 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support Slightly new for my taste but doubtfull to abuse tools. VegaDark 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Blnguyen | rant-line 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose -- not enough time here, another 2/3 2 to 3 months and this would be a support vote --T-rex 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   I'm just asking for clarification, do you mean 2 to 3 months or 2/3 of a month? Yanksox 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   The rest of this thread has been moved to the associated discussion page as it does not pertain to the RfA and we'd all like to keep this beautiful for this deserving individual. Srose (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   I've re edited this to make it more clear --T-rex 02:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: Off to a promising start, but he is about two months too soon for that. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral, the user wants to help at AIV but I found little evidence of vandal fighting. Other than that the user seems legit and wants to help at AfD and CAT:CSD, which is where admins are ALWAYS needed. Tempted to weak support as user appears to have good edit history and answers are strong, but according to the above user hasn't been here that long either.--Andeh 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Bornhj

Final (13/11/10) Withdrawn by candidate 10:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bornhj (talk · contribs) – In the interests of full disclosure, I was nominated for adminship in June of this year. I declined the nom on the basis that I didn't think I was experienced enough at the time to become an admin. However, in the last two months I believe I've developed a greater understanding of process and the community. I've decided to self-nom because I'd like to be able to write a little about my self. Along with my growing understanding of the project, I've also found myself having a genuine need for the extra buttons in the last couple of months. By some standards I don't have a lot of edits (around 2700; 1000 to mainspace, 250 to WP:). A lot of these edits have been vandal fighting, something I've been doing almost since I joined the project (on my birthday, in mid-August last year... damn, I just realised this RfA ends around my birthday. unintentional!). This stemmed from a determination to make the project clean and presentable - I was, and still am, insulted when my teachers say that I "shouldn't use Wikipedia at all because anyone can say whatever they want there", which is the typical outside viewpoint that I don't think we'll ever shake. We can, however, ensure that this isn't the case. Wikipedia is a team effort - there's people who really don't care about the inner workings and just want to write some good content, and then there's people who don't want to write but want to see Wikipedia keep afloat and help those people who do want to write. The site wouldn't exist without both, and I'm definitely part of the second group. I believe that having the extra buttons would allow me to continue this work further, enabling everyone to get on with it and build this encyclopedia. --james^(talk) 14:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind words, Bornhj. I accept.--james^(talk) 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I'm withdrawing cause there's no chance of consensus here, I'll come back in a couple of months after I rack up some WP: edits and write some more good stuff. Thanks for the kind words, all. :) --james^(talk) 10:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Having being involved in vandal fighting almost from the start, I'd obviously be helping out a lot with WP:AIV (which I've noticed has been getting heavy backlogs over the last few days) - it's always annoying for a non-admin vandal fighter to have to either wait 15 - 30 minutes for a vandal to be forcibly stopped. I've also closed a few "keep" AfDs (admittedly a couple of the first ones I closed were ones I shouldn't have, but I'm more across that guideline now) so I'd continue to help out closing debates there (and probably other xfDs after I get settled in). CAT:CSD can get backlogged a lot too, and I've tagged quite a few articles as speedies, so I'd try squash that backlog whenever I got the chance. CAT:ORFU is also fairly backed up and is a pretty low-difficulty page to work on. Another interesting page I got linked to recently was User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary, which has some interesting backlogs I'd try my hand at after I got comfortable. Finally, I've also had experience with the transwiki log which is sorely backlogged and quite a few articles listed there need deletion.

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

A: I'll be straight with you: I'm not a very good writer. Although I do well at English at school, my prose leaves a lot to be desired. For those 1FA guys: sorry, no FAs here :). That having been said, I'm personally proud of my contributions to keeping the project free of vandalism (heh, how many times have you head that in an RfA now?). I've been picking up a lot more reverts lately that I used to, and as Wikipedia continues to grow along with the population of elephants in Africa, this is going to become more of a concern. Coupled with the departure of some of our best editors lately, and the increased syndication of our content, and I believe that my general work keeping the place clean makes us look better to the public as well as enabling people who just want to sit down and write to do so without distraction.

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

A: I haven't been in any real major conflicts, mainly due to the sort of editing I do around here - I've stayed away from controversial topics except to revert clear vandalism. One issue came up in the last month, on Talk:Habbo Hotel, where there was a lively discussion about what constituted original research, how verifiable certain events were, and whether certain events were notable. This was made much more difficult to handle due to a steady stream of trolls who, rather then engage in debate with the rest of us, preferred to post random flames and insults. In the end, I came to a compromise with one of the only people who was actually willing to debate the point fairly, and I think I've come out of the whole thing more versed in our dispute resolution policies. I found that the best way to keep from getting stressed was to just walk away every now and then - rather than biting your nails waiting for something to happen, it was nice to get away from the whole page and write something (!) or clean up some vandalism <plug> with your very own copy of VandalProof!</plug>.

4. Bonus Question from User:Dlohcierekim. As always, such questions are optional and serve to help learn more about a nom's readiness for the mop. Hi, User:Bornhj, and thank you for submitting your RfA. AlwAys good to see a fellow VandProofer. Can you say why you reverted This Edit and why you did not warn the editor who added it? Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Agh! Looks like I forgot to warn. Probably hit the wrong button in VP, but it would have probably been {{welcome}} and {{spam1}} - I reverted it as non-notable linkspam. Excuse me while I go get a sticky note to remind me :) --james^(talk) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Another bonus question from User:dlohcierekim. (As always, all additional questions are completely optional.) There may be a follow-up. You are RCPatrolling. You see an article has been edited by an anon. The page history indicates the previous entry was by TawkerBot reverting a page blank by the same anon. The current version of the article has a note at te top of the page from the anon saying the article needs to be removed as a “cut and paste job from another site.” What do you do? Thanks,

A: Google is the king of looking for copyvios. I'd pick a random phrase from the article, stick it into Google, and look for any matches. If it matched, I'd check the history of the page for a more detailed check. If every revision of the article (minus the blanking obviously) was a clear copyvio, from a commercial source, and the page was less than 48 hours old, it would fall under CSD A8 (blatant copyright infringement) and I'd delete it, leaving a note on the article creator's talkpage ({{nothanks-sd}} I think it is). If all the revisions were copyvios, but it didn't meet the CSD A8 criteria, it needs to be blanked with {{copyvio}} and listed on WP:CV. If not all the revisions were copyvios, then a simple revert to the last non-copyvio version should suffice (I'm not sure as to whether I should do a delete and then selective undelete to get rid of the copyvios). --james^(talk) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. Userpage says he is offline. His contribs suggest he may not be back till tomorrow. (online 8-14 yesterday) I do not expect him to answer my questions for a while. :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My editing hours are usually around 7-13 UTC on weekdays (damn school), varying depending on the amount of homework and assignments on each day. :) --james^(talk) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• See Bornhj's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Bornhj's edit history with Interiot's Tool2.

Username	Bornhj
Total edits	2757
Distinct pages edited	1661
Average edits/page	1.660
First edit	16:41, 15 August 2005
	
(main)	1174
Talk	122
User	450
User talk	706
Image	26
MediaWiki talk	5
Template	7
Template talk	2
Category	1
Wikipedia	246
Wikipedia talk	17
Portal	1

Support

1. First support. A good-natured editor. The only thing I see that Bornhj needs to improve on is not marking reverts as minor. --Gray Porpoise 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Rama's arrow 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. VandalProof cabal told me to support support :P Computerjoe's talk 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. I'm convinced although I'm worried about you talking to yourself in the acceptance statement. Tariq, leave him alone man; he's just having some fun. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. User's contributions are of high quality. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. G.He 18:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Good experienced editor. Zaxem 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Meets my criteria, no apparent reason not to. BryanG^(talk) 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Good editor, experienced. Please consider the thoughts of the oppose & neutral voters - they have valid points. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 11:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
10. SUPPORT based on demonstrated abilities as seen in answer to my "Right delete the wrong way by an anon" question despite not having !FA. {{User:Dlohcierekim/1FA}} :) Dlohcierekim 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Although I would have liked to see more article edits and more encyclopaedia-building experience, I think Bornhj 2 is a good example of an editor who doesn't fit the pattern but could really use the tools and benefit the project. It seems clear to me he won't abuse the tools, and it's also clear he knows what he'd do with them and understands the value an admin brings to the project. Seems familiar with policy and also very civil. Mike Christie 01:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per Rama's Arrow and Gray Porpoise. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. DarthVader 00:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not enough article building/communication, as evidenced by less than 100 article talk edits. Not enough process knowledge as evidenced by less than 250 WP edits. I will absolutely support on re-app once these key areas are more fully developped. Themindset 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. 'Oppose per Themindset AdamBiswanger1 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose I feel this RfA is a bit premature, as more communication and policy experience is necessary in my opinion. I would revisit the possibility of supporting with more experience in these areas. I'd also like to see some article writing (perhaps on the simple Wikipedia, which would be great for both the candidate's English prose development as well as for the Wiki-world that wants to learn English). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 18:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose as fails my personal standards in terms of edits. Please keep plugging along, would happily support with some more time in. Ifnord 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose I think it's too soon for this user to seek adminship. I'd like to see more WP and article talk page edits. Michael 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Sorry, I'm one of those 1FA guys. -- Миборовский 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Themindset. Editor requires more experience. Xoloz 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Lack of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates low familiarity with policy. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Per User:Stifle.  QuizQuick  19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per themindset, especially considering claims to poor writing skills--Musaabdulrashid 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - less than 300 Wikipedia namespace edits, which fails my criteria. However, everything else looks great. Kalani ^[talk] 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per Kalathalan. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral, I am on the fence here. Wikipedia space edits are low which doesn't indicate much experience in AFDs. Good work on the vandal fighting.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral. -- Steel 23:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak neutral. Low involvement in project space worries me a bit, everything else looks fine. May change to support. —freak(talk) 02:37, Aug. 11, 2006 (UTC)
7. Extremely strong neutral to counteract the Freak supra. Less than 300 Wikipedia namespace edits, which fails my criteria. However, everything else looks great. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Reluctant neutral per above. Wikipediarules2221 03:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral, sorry. I'm a little off-put for the same reasons as the people above, but unfortunately don't have any contact with you to counteract those concerns. Not going to oppose, since you don't deserve it, but I'm not quite confident enough to support. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 13:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral: The edits are a little weak outside the main space. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Renata3

Final (70/1/0) Ended 13:29, 2006-08-16 (UTC)

Renata3 (talk · contribs) – I am quite pleased to nominate Renata3 for adminship. She is been helping Wikipedia since July 2005 and has concentrated mainly in Lithuania and accountancy-related articles and has been the major contributor of two featured lists. To date she has raked more than 6000 edits across almost all namespaces.

Her community involvement is rich and varied. Her many edits in the Wikipedia namespace are spread across projects such as the Community bulletin board, which she helped to create and is now quite prominent in the Wikipedia:Community Portal. She revived the Motto of the Day process and has been involved in many AfD discussions. Renata3's work in Featured list candidates nominations is well respected and her high standards are the main source of headaches for many nominators. Finally, Renata3 recently helped in the creation of the already quite active WikiProject Lithuania.

Renata3's interaction with other users is polite and assertive. She is a cool-headed editor who has avoided getting involved in the constant edit wars surrounding Polish-Lithuanian topics, and has an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policy. I am quite confident she would stay out of unnecessary trouble and use her new tools responsibly and fairly.

And she is a very nice girl too. She would probably do your taxes if asked nicely... :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. (except for the "do my taxes" part :P) Renata 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: First and foremost, images. As Jimbo indicates there are tons of problems with images and fair use abuse. You can call me a paranoid copyright freak, but I strongly believe copyright violations could bring the whole project down. They make Wikipedia vulnerable to lawsuits. The deletion button would help a lot. And there is a massive backlog there...

Of course, I would try many different things, like requested moves, copyright problems, closing AfD's or FLC's. I like calm and "behind the scenes" work, so I am looking for a mop and a bucket and not for a stick to whack vandals (I believe boyz are doing a fantastic work there).

Follow-up question from User:Dlohcierekim. As always, such questions are optional but help other users gauge the candidate's readiness for adminship. Could you give a brief overview of the Copyright situation and how we can gauge RfA candidates' abilities to deal with it? :) Dlohcierekim 14:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Mess. How brief is that? ;) And it's not only fair use (thank God, someone is talking about it), but all the other categories too. My personal favorite is taging photos with {{PD-ineligible}}. There are hundreds and thousands of images tagged as PD or GFDL giving no reasons as to why. I have some serious doubts about xx-self tags. Not all users are so honest. And the biggest problem really is that no one is checking, say, GFDL image category. It is very, extremely, messy & painful job and I think user:OrphanBot is God-sent and user:Carnildo is a saint for taking on this duty.

What to do in regards to RfA's? Maybe stop emphasizing vandal-figting. No doubt, that is important and absolutely necessary, but that's not the only thing to be done around here.

P.S. I just did quick and dirty 5 random image test (click here) and all images were fair use images. Only one had a source... not to mention something so exotic as fair use rationale.... :((( Renata 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

A: My (very ugly) list of contributions is here. Among articles, I am most proud of Paper Clips Project and Lithuanian litas (my FA hopeful, but I got stuck because I cannot obtain info on pre-WWII litas history). Among lists (I regularly drive people nuts on WP:FLC), I am proud of List of cities in Lithuania. I have to featured lists (List of municipalities of Lithuania and Counties of Lithuania). In Wikipedia namespace, I hope to raise a new-born Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania. I also resurrected WP:MOTTO (and I hope User:Geo.plrd will take a good care of it). On commons, I am really proud of commons:Category:Lithuanian pronunciation. And it should grow really big. I set myself a goal that every Lithuania-related article would have such pronunciation.

Oh, and perkūnas article. User:Linuxbeak during his presentation in Wikimania used it as an example of "the worst" article that with time with the help of Wikipedia's procedures got much better. Not being too shy, I am chiefly responsible for making it better :)

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

A: Agh, a walk down the memory lane. I believe I did not engage in any really serious conflict. There was a clash with user:Talrias (who has unfortunately since left the project) about maintenance collaboration of the week appearing on the community portal. I made a personal comment about him. I believe that was the only such instance in my wiki life, and that was like ages ago. Then there was a serious dispute on moving Partitions of Poland to Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Since then I generally stay clear of hopeless conflicts (like naming monarch who is now at Jogaila or was Antanas Baranauskas a Pole or a Lithuanian? How about Laurynas Gucevičius?) Many users cause me stress, sometimes on FLC (I remember this one really drove me nuts), sometimes on places like List of sovereign states or by moving pages having diacritics in titles just because there are no redirects from same name without diacritics. Whatever the case, I never make any personal comments. If I argue, I argue about points and facts.

Additional question from Grafikm_fr

Hello :) You mention that you want to do some image cleanup on Wikipedia, and that, according to you, "there are tons of problems with images and fair use abuse". What is your stance regarding pictures falling under the {{PD-USSR}} template (Pre-1973 Soviet images). I saw that you supported User:Lupo's researches and his actions aimed at deprecating the {{PD-USSR}} template here. If you get the mop, what kind of stance one can expect from you? Thanks in advance, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Ha, that one. At this point there is no basis to delete the images. No side can definitely prove any claims and the template is subject to much ambiguity. Any further discussion or research or clarification is very much welcome. In the mean time, users should be advised to use any other tags whenever possible. Depreciating a controversial image tag is not such a bad idea, "better safe than sorry." And just a note, "depreciating" is not the same as "deleting." Renata 16:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional question from — Ambuj Saxena (talk).

Q.: Suppose you land up on an image page that is tagged as fair use image. You see that the only link to that page is a user sandbox page. On visiting the page you find that it is used in what looks like an article under construction. How would you deal with it? What will be your course of action if the page was created one day back? One month back? What will be your course of action if you don't even agree that the image falls under the fair use criterion. Addendum: What is your take on usage of Foxtrot wikipedia.jpg in various non-article pages, especially on User:AndrewDavis? Note: See page content and history. Of course you may go ahead with any action if you see fit.

A: Oh, Godness, what did I do to you to deserve this? :) First of all, I am no copyright expert. Everything I know about copyrights come from Wikipedia. I just take copyrights more seriously than others. That being said...

There are three ways to deal with FU image in user sandbox: a) delete it from the page right away and tag the image as orphan; b) delink the image so it does not show up on the page (link image like this: image:example.png and not like this: ) or comment it out (using <!-- -->) and inform the user; c) leave the image alone for the time being and notify the user about the issue. I would not go with a) because WP:CSD#Images/Media rule 5 (Unused unfree copyrighted images) gives consideration for upcoming articles. Depending on how long ago the sandbox was created, I would go with either b) (for inactive pages created a long time ago) or c) (for pages created just a day or two ago). Whatever the case, I would inform the user and monitor any further actions.

I have delinked Foxtrot wikipedia.jpg from Talk:Main Page/Archive 36, Talk:Warthog, and Talk:Rabies. I deleted the image from User:JRM/Evaluations of Wikipedia because of two reasons: it was created a year ago with no edits since then; the page does not actually talk about the comic strip and there is no nice way to delink the image. I informed the user on my actions.

I do not really know what to do with 2 FPC subpages (1 & 2). Most likely it needs to be delinked.

User:AndrewDavis is a whole another issue. Provided he really is what he claims to be (the author of the image) he has a right to display his work. Since he has been inactive since May, I would recommend delinking the image. Delinking does not remove the image entirely and protects WP from any legal claims. Better safe than sorry.

And of course, the image needs fair use rationale for Wikipedia in popular culture and FoxTrot articles. Renata 14:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Renata3's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Renata3's edit history with Interiot's Tool2:

Username	        Renata3
Total edits	        6247
Distinct pages edited	4049
Average edits/page	1.543
First edit	        06:27, 5 July 2005
	
(main)	        2990
Talk	        281
User	        134
User talk	933
Image	        167
MediaWiki talk	2
Template	153
Template talk	24
Help	        1
Help talk	2
Category	160
Category talk	3
Wikipedia	1196
Wikipedia talk	135
Portal	        57
Portal talk	9

• Oh, I almost forgot. I rejected my two previous nominations (1st & 2nd) mostly because I asked user:Durin all the way back in January to evaluate me and nominate if he finds I am fit. However, he excused himself from this duty only in June citing personal troubles and lack of time. Renata 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator, without hesitation. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support I don't think I can see a single flaw in this user. As with most candidates, I've never had direct contact with her; with that said, Renata looks like an excellent user who has done great work to improve WP, and I'm confident she'll do a great job with the admin tools. -- Kicking222 13:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Seems good AdamBiswanger1 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. My interactions with her have always been positive. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support without question. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I got about 1/2 the way through a thorough review of her in anticipating nominating her myself a few months back. I ran out of time to complete it. What I found was stellar. Long, long overdue. --Durin 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. :) Dlohcierekim 14:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - good luck on the image backlog :) -- Tawker 14:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Nothing but positive experience with Renata3. She's been a big help on the Community Portal. Surely, she would make a fine admin. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
10. I MOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT SUPPORT SOMEONE WHO WILL BE ABUSIVE! SO THAT MEANS... Support! --Gray Porpoise 14:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Rama's arrow 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Preposterous fellow ex-Soviet accountant in NYC Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, will make a great admin. Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, everything's in order here. Good answers. Themindset 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Excellent nomination, this nominee certainly could use the tools and will use them well. Agent 86 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support no big deal and seems like a good user based on her answers and a brief look at her edits and talk page. It's always nice to see a candidate willing to work on copyvio problems hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, without a doubt. (One edit conflict). Thistheman 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Solid record. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Sure. Kusma (討論) 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support the new beginning M.K. 18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
21. {{RfA cliché}} Even though Renata stole my userpage idea. ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support per lovely article work and responsability. —Xyrael _{/ 18:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
23. Support - excellent contributor. Kalani ^[talk] 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Good work on FLC. Oldelpaso 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support yes, yes, yes, Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Merovingian - Talk 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support per above. Michael 20:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-09 20:51Z
29. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support - a reasonable editor whom I had the pleasure to work with in the past, a perfect candidate for 'mop'n'bucket' superpowers :)( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Another good solid user. Deb 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Although your claim to fame First Article is tagged for a clean-up! hehe Stubbleboy 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support I see no problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Experienced, dedicated editor. Zaxem 23:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Strong support looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 01:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support good hardworking editor, cool when the editing went hot abakharev 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support - looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 03:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Yanksox 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Looks good! -- Samir धर्म 05:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support, solid editor, great work with Lithuania topics. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, good article writer, great editor. And a proficient nitpicker :) //Halibutt 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support Excellent editor - enjoy the mop! Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 12:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support per nom, brilliant editor. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support for her dedication to Lithuanian topics. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. For work relating to Lithuania. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Third time's the charm for Renata3? I talked with her a bit at Wikimania; she meets all of my in-person qualifications for being a good administrator. Plus, she's cute :-P Cyde Weys 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. G.He 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support Always had great interactions with Renata, I trust the new tools won't be abused. KOS | talk 22:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Oppose, too many portal edits (support). —freak(talk) 02:39, Aug. 11, 2006 (UTC)

    What does that have to do with being an admin? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well, if you create a Portal you are bound to have many edits on that namespace, don't you think? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

51. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support So I was looking at this RfA cause I thought it was 50/20 and was trying to figure out why... then I realized I just can't read. Anyway... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support - I keep seeing you around, and assumed the cliché. Good luck with the AdminPowers^TM! Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support very nice, this user is ready to be an administrator. Wikipediarules2221 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Happy to change to support. -- Миборовский 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
56. Support. DarthVader 00:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
57. Support I think she'll be a great adition to the admin team. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Support.  Grue  18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
59. Support - why not? --Ixfd64 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Pile-on Support - glad to see someone willing to work on copyrights --T-rex 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Support An excellent Admin candidate. -Royalguard11^Talk 03:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
62. Support. Don't see any issues here. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
63. Support impressed by contributions - giving admin tools will benefit the articles Aquilina 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
64. Support: seems like a great editor. Thumbelina 01:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
65. Support, this editor will contribute greatly, give her the tools. -- Deville (Talk) 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. Good contributor and seems to work well with others. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
67. Support and thanks for your many fine contributions regarding Lithuania. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
68. Support!. Renata is a very dedicated editor, and a pleasure to deal with.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
69. Support--SylwiaS | talk 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support 65.147.85.24 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

70. Strong Support - strong commitment to quality writing. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
71. Support per Cyde Weys. --Irpen 07:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose Possible inexperience in image rules --Masssiveego 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Can you provide some diffs to back this up? Doing a quick random ten image edits check [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] I don't find anything in error. --Durin 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   User has responded on my talk page. They aren't happy with some image copyright incidents found at User_talk:Renata3/archive5#Image:Cam_Gordon.jpg.--Andeh 05:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I will support if I receive verbal assurance from RFA hopeful that she (seriously? :D) will eventually improve Lithuanian litas (or Paper Clips Project, or something else) to FA standard. ;) -- Миборовский 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   Silly me hoped that my 2 FL would cover the 1 FA rule... :) I know that I need to write a featured article and I have been angry with myself. But there are just so many missing or substuby articles crying out loud for attention that it would not just to concentrate only on one FAC. Besides living in NYC I have a problem obtaining sources on Lithuania. But enough of lame excuses. I solemnly promise to do my very best (my dream is to feature Lithuania itself). Renata 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   Supported. Some 1FA proponents include portals and lists, some don't. ;) -- Миборовский 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

The Thadman

Final (30/25/6) Ended 19:00, 2006-08-15 (UTC)

The Thadman (talk · contribs) – (To avoid confusion: The Thadman is Steve Caruso in real life.) When RfAs are rejected, candidates are frequently told to spend a few months getting involved in the community. Few, however, take this as seriously as Steve Caruso did. After being forced to withdraw his first request for adminship due to concerns over his low edit count, he volunteered to take over from Rebecca (who was retiring from the post) as co-ordinator of the AMA. I have been astonished by his efforts. He has restructured and reorganised the Association's pages, introducing a far more structured process for requesting advocacy and for case assignments. In doing this he has shown himself to be conscientous, able, organised and polite, with a good understanding of how things are done on Wikipedia. I have never known him to be anything other than totally courteous and helpful. To give another example of his consideration for other users, when DPeterson, a relatively inexperienced editor, joined the AMA, Steve left a message on his talk page, giving him some advice on advocacy, and assigning him a case which he thought would be suitable for him. It was clear that he hadn't used templates, but had taken the time and trouble to make a new member feel welcome. If anyone on Wikipedia deserves the mop, this is he. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to Co-Nominate Steve. He has taken charge of the AMA and has fixed many issues that the AMA has been having. He has ensured that all requests get assinged to an advocate and get replied to. Also he is willing and has helped out numerous Wikipedians with there problems. It is an honor to co nominate him Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With great honor, I accept. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Well, going over what I listed before, as well as what I have actually been up to recently, I think I'm best suited for:

• Monitoring the Administrator's noticeboard
• Specifically 3RR Violations with followup to ensure that parties involved are properly following WP:DR
• Page protection, which is a sensititive issue usually entangled with WP:DR.
• Helping fellow Administrators calmly through potential Wheel Wars.
• Helping enforce Copyrights and deal with reported infringements
• Wikification (I've always had a knack for that :-) )
• And whatever else comes my way. I'm sure there'll be more, but these are the ones that jump out and bite me. :-)

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

A: Well, I would have to admit that my biggest contribution thusfar would have to be my work on the Association of Members' Advocates, and there is a lot more that I'm planning to do. :-) I've tried to streamline Advocacy requests with new templates, create and streamline Advocacy procedures for upkeep, bring inactive Advocates back to the group, bring in new Advocates, work on re-writing the manuals, added the AMA Alerts system (which has had stellar success due to the dilligence and hard work of our members :-) ), and I'm sure a few other things that aren't coming to mind. :-) I am particularly pleased with how all of our members have come together under the new system to work towards helping fellow Wikipedians resolve disputes. :-)

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

A: Many conflicts over editing, but it comes with the volunteer work at the AMA ;-) Only three users have given me any personal hint of stress in my editing here at Wikipedia, and it was brief and never really got under my skin. Where necessary, I followed Dispute Resolution (I know I sound like a broken record, but it tends to work :-) ) and things went smoothly. I'm generally not very easily bothered, it's just how I am. :-)

Optional question from User:Dlohcierekim. As usual, optional questions are . . . optional. Answers provided give greater insight into nom's knowledge of Wikipedia policy and other qualifications for adminship. User:The Thadman, thank you for taking the time and effort to submit your nomination.

Q: One task you have mentioned in question 1 involves copyright. You had a fair use image removed form your userpage in March. What has changed since then?  :) Dlohcierekim 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A: When I originally added the userbox, it was a simple cut and paste from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing at the time. I assumed that the image used was fair game and was actually quite surprised when it was removed. Since then I've tried to be more careful on my user page. :-) Everyone is capable of making a mistake, and in that same vein, one should always be as accomodating as possible to fix one when it it discovered. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.

1 Of your edits in main space, many have been to contentious topics such as Messiah. Could you talk a bit about your experiencing editing those articles and what you have learned from it?

Well, religion always seems to be a "contentious" topic, especially in a medium that anyone may rightly voice their opinion on such as Wikipedia (as most of my mainspace edits had to do with religion). :-) (I guess it would also be appropriate to bring up that I completed my B.A. in Information Technology & Informatics with a double-major in Religion; ITI to pay the bills, the academic study of Religion as a life's work.) With my edits on Messiah and Jesus and other related topics, I've had to use my capacity to listen and to reason with editors who did not agree with me (and came from significantly different backgrounds, faiths, and education) and find workable solutions. These experiences were ultimately my "gateway" into the AMA where I could help other users through my own personal experience, so in a sense they tempered my problem-solving abilities, among other things.

2 After your initial RfA did not pass, you then volunteered to run the AMA. How would you respond to concern that this looks like you were interested in a position of authority?

Volunteering at the AMA was more of a consequence of my dealings on the Jesus article, as I had to extensively work through WP:DR with some editors to reach a workable compromise (which in the end was made). In looking for resources and help, I was rather thrilled to find that there was an organization dedicated to helping other Wikipedians through tough spots in their experience, so I immediately volunteered hoping to help others through the process that I saw frustrate so many people. I wrote some messages, sent some emails and found that the group was not only in a state of disarray and that unanswered cases were piling up at a rediculous rate, but that the Coordinator had resigned a few weeks previous and no one had even so much as acknowledged her resignation. In real life, as an IT Manager, when I find a problem I tend to try and just fix it, and I merely applied that same paradigm to the AMA.

As for my first RfA: My motivation for self-nomination was a result of seeing the Wikipedia backlog, and experiencing an extended wait period for a page protection that ended in a full protect rather than a partial (which was requested), followed by another long wait before the protect was properly set. From what I saw, I believed that the Administration could use more help and I, at the time, thought that I was qualified to lend a hand. When I get started on something, such as a backlog or a case list, I tend to slog right through it, getting big chunks of work done at a time and seeing that Wikipedia had big chunks of things that needed to be done it seemed like a workable match. :-)

Overall, I guess one could say that the motivations between the two were related, but not for authority's sake: I wish to fix things that are in need of repair. :-) The only reason that I am here now is that David and Aeon nominated me, and if they did not, I probably would have waited some time before seeing if I could be of service again; however, I figured that if both of them believed that I was ready that I actually might be and simply not be aware of it. Sometimes other people see you faster for who you are by your deeds. :-)

3 Is there anything you have gained from your experiences running the AMA that you think would help if you became an admin? On a related note, is there anything in your AMA duties that would be helped by having admin tools?

The AMA has gifted to me a wonderful knowledge of what to expect from fellow Wikipedians of all kinds, a invariably strong knowledge of Wikipedia Policy and the nuances of our Guidelines, a strengthened ability to resolve disputes and help people work together, how complex templates work, and a dozen other things that I could list along with finer hues of eccentricity. :-)

As for admin tools helping with the AMA: I've tried to make it a point that it is a good idea that if an Advocate -is- an admin that they do their best to check their sysop abilities at the door. An Adovcate advocates, which only truly involves a sense of how to listen, and a steadfast knowledge of how Wikipedia works. :-)

4 How would you respond a concern about a lack of mainspace edits?

I see that my edits are a bit low in comparison to others, but I have been told by other Wikipedians that they have always been of very high quality, are of more than average depth and are to the point.

I also understand the criticism that Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia; however, I also understand that Wikipedia is made of people. One can't, as a person, be everything at the same time, and that's why we all have our strengths and weaknesses and why disputes occur. As such, if I wanted to and had the time, I could have contributed much more to the main space, especially within the field of Religion; but, helping the AMA and working out disputes that detract from us building this encyclopedia has taken top priority from me. Overall, I've always been more of a "behind the scenes" sort of person to ensure that infrastructure is in place that allows for a proper framework to build upon.

5 Related to question 4, in your answer to the standard question 2, you did not note any of your mainspace edits, even though some of them such as your wikification and partial clean up of D.T.E.A. senior secondary schools were extensive. Could you discuss what, if any, main space edits you are proud of?

I'm rather fond of what I've been able to do with the Son of Man article (from a state which Gareth Hughes had termed "scruffy" to something more scholarly with copious examples). I started an article on Dice notation which has now become something actually useful to fellow roleplayers due to it's breadth, and I completely re-wrote the Personal name section in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. My wikification efforts and tracking down copyright infringements before my AMA days earned me a barnstar and pat on the back from Where. I'm sure there's more I could talk about, but this is mostly the gist; I'm mostly "proud" of my support-based edits and some of the diagrams and images that I have contributed.

I hope that this helps! אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See The Thadman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Edit count using Interiot's tool

Total edits 1755
Distinct pages edited 459
Average edits/page 3.824
First edit 22:07, June 30, 2005

(main) 335
Talk 293
User 261
User talk 349
Image 15
Template 105
Template talk 13
Category 48
Wikipedia 324
Wikipedia talk 12

Support

1. Support as nom. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support as co-nom Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support As a entirely green advocate, Steve handled my nervousness well, and pointeed me in the right direction. From my poking-around at the AMA, I've seen how well he has organized it, demonstrating a knowledge of Wikipedia that his edit count may not completely show. The question, if I understand it from my observations of RfA, is "Do we trust him with the tools?" and to that I have to say yes wholeheartedly. --Wslack (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per Wslack, who states quite succinctly that which I think to be the only relevant question in adjuding a prospective admin (as on my standards page) is whether we trust him with the tools (viz., whether the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin will be positive or negative); I've confidence that the candidate can be trusted with the tools and will be likely, in the completion of admin tasks, to benefit the project. Joe 22:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. DarthVader 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support No reason to doubt this user. Maybe low on the editcount, but that should not be an issue in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per above.--Andeh 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Full Support. This user is obviously a mediator, and thus my typical 2k edit requirements do not apply. I am waiving them in this case. A glance at the user's talk pages and other contributions seems to confirm civility, and as mediation, levelheadedness, and dedication (per nom's excellent examples) are important skills for any admin, this candidate gets my full support.--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I'm not at all concerned by Thadman's editing statistics, since he's demonstrated his ability in other areas - while we're here to write an encyclopedia, you don't have to be a writer to contribute to the project. It might be preferable for you to increase your mainspace editing, but I'm satisfied that you'll do a good job anyway. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support as has shown responsibility and trust. —Xyrael _{/ 18:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
11. Strong Support The Thadman has exhibited exceptional civility with contentious users in high pressure situations. His activities as my advocate while simultainously organizing and developing AMA programs were nothing short of remarkable, exhibiting a great capacity for "multi-tasking" in multiple high-pressure zones while remaining personally involved yet neutral and friendly to everyone involved. This exceptional service in developing the community sector of Wikipedia should more than qualify anyone for an adminship. Amerique 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support The Thadman makes sincere, positive contributions to Wikipedia. Low edits in the main space are made up for by a lot of other work he's done in other places. Good luck! DrL 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. We could always use another mature, rational, and stable administrator. alphaChimp ^laudare 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support if edit count is what it takes, I should be an admin! Steve's work with the AMA has kept him pretty busy, if you aren't a member it might not be so obvious, but to me it's clear that he can be trusted with a few extra tools. He has shown an energetic devotion to the task he set for himself coordinating and revamping the AMA. His mainspace edits, though low in quantity are high in quality. Pedant 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Per excellent answers to my questions. He wants the tools for the right reasons, giving him the tools will benefit the Wiki and I see no reason that he would misuse the tools out of malice, incompetence or inexperience. JoshuaZ 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support although it would have been nice to have and "edit section" button for the "Support" section, especially for us dial-up users =). — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 22:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Steve appears to be doing yeoman's work organizing the AMA, and someone who deals calmly with disputes has exactly the kind of qualities we need in an administrator. I'm very disappointed to see that virtually the entire opposition to such a contributor is based solely on edit counts. --Michael Snow 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. User has demonstrated the qualities necessary for adminship in the important ways, and has more than 1000 edits, the threshold (barring absurd distribution) above which I believe edit counts cease to be a meaningful statistic. --Aquillion 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Switch to SUPPORT per JoshuaZ. Why didn't you say so in the first place.  :) Dlohcierekim 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    Further rationale Mediators need to protect pages, read deletion histories, and sometimes block to function as mediators. :) Dlohcierekim 20:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

20. Support to fight the pointless editcountitis below. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I had a good experience with an advocate and wanted to contribute by becoming an advocate. He made me feel quite welcome and helped me with my first "case." I appreciate the encouragement. DPeterson^talk 12:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Moved to support, because I think the involvement in AMA demonstrates intimate knowledge of the encyclopedia and its workings. AdamBiswanger1 17:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support I had about the same number of edits when I was promoted, so what?  Grue  19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. No one has said anything negative except no featured article work (not a requirement) and low mainspace edits (not a requirement either). Wikipedia needs more admins who can help with various backlogs; let's give this guy the tools. John Broughton 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Jeffklib
26. Support I see no reason to oppose a rfa based on writing a FA, or on which namespace you edit on. As part of the AMA, he'd have lots of experience for other areas, like protection, and warnings. -Royalguard11^Talk 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support: I am very impressed by the answers to JoshuaZ's question as well as with the candidates experience with the dispute resolution process. Would make an excellent administrator. --Hetar 06:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support An extremely competent Acting Coordinator of the Association of Member's Advocates and a very helpful and considerate user all round. My full support. Wikiwoohoo 16:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. I like your areas of work, and you don't seem hesitant to dive into contentious areas of Wikipedia. I trust that you will be motivated to learn what you might have missed out on by not having more edits. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Seems sane, calm, and reasonable, and is willing to do the unglamorous sort of work required of adminship. Has sufficient edits to be able to have informed judgment. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant Oppose although little doubt Steve does great work, the 1700 edits makes me a little jittery, the fact most of those occurred only since last month tilts my vote this way. Maybe 3 more months to be certain? - Glen 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This user has done great work, and should be commended. But less than 350 mainspace edits shows little experience in the writting of an encyclopedia... which is what we are here for, after all. I will be anxious to support once the nom has truely gotten his feet wet (by writting/editing more articles). Themindset 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. What part of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, prevents people from making valuable contributions in other ways? Or, rather: how is one's ability to write an article related to their ability to perform behind-the-scenes maintenance? RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think that experience in article creation should be paramount when considering a potential admin. Would you hire an umpire who had no experience with baseball? Or a traffic cop with no experience with driving? The most common RFA standard is 1000 article edits (which happens to be my standard as well) which is in fact not that difficult to achieve. With even just 5 article edits a day one would achieve that in just over 6 months... to me this is a rather low bar, one that simply ensures that the potential admin has the basic amount of experience in the primary activity on Wikipedia. Themindset 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Strong oppose based on lack of needed experience editing and talking with other editors. The bit in nom about being "forced to withdraw" on prior RfA shows a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Constructive critique-- Needs many more AfD and RCPatrol related edits to handle most pressing of admin tasks. Needs many more article edits to establish that he understands Wikipedia policies. Needs many more user and article talk edits to show he has the critical thinking skill to be an admin. Claims expertise on copyright, but I find no related edits in last 500. Does not need admin tools to Wikify. I did find ~280 AMA related entries in edit summaries. Wikipedia is about building an Encyclopedia. Please come back when you have broader experience. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   Switch to neutral to offset oppose based on 0FA. :) Dlohcierekim 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Main space edits really low. That is the core of the encylopedia.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Reluctant oppose - I doubt you'll harm the encyclopedia and you've done a terrific job at AMA (I've considered signing up at AMA myself this week and may do so yet), but I think you need broader experience before becoming an admin. Spend some time with us at RC patrol and decide if you really want the mop - you may change your mind, 'cause it can get... emotional. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. 0 FA -- Миборовский 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hello Miborovsky but how does 0 FA factor into this? There are some Admins who have no Article at FA. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   I also must say that I really despise this voting criterion. There are currently 1062 FAs and 981 administrators- I can't imagine that they've all written featured articles. I stand firmly by the belief that people may vote on RfAs however they feel, but I think that completely ignoring one's entire body of work and merely looking at whether or not they've had major contributions to a featured article is absolutely ludicrous. -- Kicking222 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   I have never seen Miborovsky back up this argument, or even respond to anyone's pleadings for an answer. AdamBiswanger1 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hi, If the above (0FA) refers to User:Mailer_diablo/1FA, that standard does allow for alternatives to having written a FA. Of course, requiring 1FA of every admin would be an unrealistic standard. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   A user's RfA is not the place to call another user's opinions ludicrous. As RfA is a collaboration of opinions amongst the community in regards to a candidate, we should strive to remain respectful of differing opinions at all times. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   I read Diablo's 1FA criterion as "helping get an article to FA", not writing an FA single-handledly from scratch. FA's, even more than most Wikipedia articles, are usually written collaboratively between many editors. If a candidate has made a number of significant contributions to an FA (even without being the FA's main author), I'd count that as 1FA per Diablo. I personally do take this type of contribution into account when evaluating RFA's. Phr (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Please see User:Miborovsky/1FA.  :) Dlohcierekim 02:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per Wikispace edits. AdamBiswanger1 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Moved to support

6. Oppose per low main space edits. Michael 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose due to lack of experience concerns. Jkelly 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose I think you are on the right path; however, your low main space edits force me to oppose this nom. Wikipediarules2221 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose Please wait for a few additional months, Mr. Caruso.--Anglius 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per main space edits. G.He 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Per all of the above. --Masssiveego 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose No doubt that this user is a valuable contributor to this project. But the low main space edits is a major concern. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, 0FA. Or more to the point, I'd want to see you being involved more actively as an editor in articlespace. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, sorry, but your mainspace edits are too low. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose for insufficient experience especially article edits.--Jusjih 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose for clear lack of experience. --Deenoe 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose Low mainspace edit count. -Teryx 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose - not enough mainspace experience. Should come back in a few months, when I'll be happy to reconsider. Metamagician3000 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Would prefer broader experience, particularly in mainspace. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Not enough edits in the main space. We're an encyclopedia, first and foremost. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose, reluctantly but nonetheless. This user is off to a great start: good contribution to the community, and definitely has heart in the right place. However, not enough experience overall, and as many said above, not nearly enough experience in namespace. In particular, the second and third reasons Thadman gives to question #1 would be helped immeasurably by experience editing articles themselves. Anyway, like I said, off to a great start, show me 2 or 3 months of the same sort of activity and I'll be very inclined to support. -- Deville (Talk) 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose not enough experience. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose Fails my criteria due to the generally low amount of edits, to both the main article space and to the wikipedia project space. --Wisden17 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose Per Mackenson Bastique▼^parler _voir 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose criteria and signature advertising - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I don't think you'll hurt Wikipedia, but it seems like you still don't have enough broad experience. All your work appears to relate to AMA, despite the fact that you want to work in many aspects of administration. Also, I feel it would have been better if you had waited a bit longer since your last nomination. Perhaps in mid- to late-October I'd support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Looking through this nominee's contributions, I don't see many in areas where this editor could have gained the necessary insight into important wikipolicies an admin must know. Could benefit from more participation outside the AMA. Get to know the ropes, and I'll have no hesitation in supporting. Agent 86 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per concentration of WP edits on AMA. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - a trustworthy user, but I feel the amount of mainspace edits is a tad low. Kalani ^[talk] 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning Support I appreciate the enormous contributions to AMA as well as the fact that he/she seems like a very eager and trustworthy editor whose only goal is to help Wikipedia. Having said that, I would like to see more experience in the areas where the candidate wishes to use the extra buttons (as per Q1) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Switch to neutral per JOSHUAZ AND to offset oppose based on 0FA. I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in WP:AFD and WP:DRV are affecting the quality of Wikipedia. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Wikipedia are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas..  :) Dlohcierekim 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Users that include featured articles as part of their RfA criteria should be given as much respect from both bureaucrats and other RfA partcipants as users that include other variables as part of their critera. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Neutral to offset the other oppose based on 0FA, per Dlohcierekim. Featured articles are not relevant to adminship. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   That's your opinion and standard, but other users have different standards (which include FA's) and they are just as valid and should be just as respected as yours hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

   a Neutral vote doesn't offset an oppose, FWIW. User:Pedant

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.

Tarret

Final (17/9/13) Ended 20:10, 2006-08-14 (UTC)

Tarret (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I nominated myself because I believe that I can continue to improve the Wikipedia in various ways.Tarret 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Tarret 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A:I believe that keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism is important to its sucess which is why I like many others cleanup vandalism. I would use the admin tools to block repeat vandalisers as well as the protection/semi-protection tools to keep pages from being repeatedly vandalized. I also go through the new pages and I look for and tag all the articles that meet the CSD so I hope to help clear out the CAT:CSD. Since I occasionally find copyright vios I would also help out at WP:CV. Tarret 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

A: As a supporter of the good article process I contribute to it in many ways through reviewing, and the updating of the GACOTW. I know that it isn't writing an article but I feel that it is my place. Tarret 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I haven't been involved in any major conflict nor do I hope to ever be involved in one in the first place. If I do get involved in a conflict however I would try to use my experience to try and bring peace before things get out of hand.Tarret 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

4. (additional question by Voice of All) What primary qualities make an effective administrator? Additionally, if you see a contraversial article being injected with uncited and baised material by users (possibly stealthy banned sockpuppets), would you get involved even if that means you will get dragged into the conflict (and have rude comments/block complains posted on your talk page and AN/I) or would you rather just stay away from it and hope that others can keep nonsense out of the article?Voice-of-All 21:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A:I believe that two qualities are needed to be an effective admin. They are the administrator needs to always trust that they are doing the right thing while doing what they believe will help the Wikipedia grow stronger. The administrator should also always learn from their mistakes even if it is under the worst of circumstances. Answering the second part of the question I would get involved if I came across this problem because I don't believe that someone else should do it and most likely with the size that the wikipedia is the problem won't get noticed until it becomes a problem. Tarret 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

5. (additional question by Voice of All) Could you expand more on what tasks you would perform as an admin and how that related to your current activities (i.e. "voting on AfDs" to "closing AfDs")? Voice-of-All 21:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A:My main focus is vandalism so many tools such as the blocking and page protection tools would help alot in my war against vandalism. As said previously I go through the new pages and tag articles that meet the speedy deletion criteria so I will help clear out the category. I will also make my presence known on AfD by closing some if not alot of them. Tarret 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A: I would treat them as I would treat any other editor. Even if the person is well-known and well liked I am confident that the Wikipedia community would understand what the user still broke the rules and that they should be treated as would anyone else. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A:I would respect the other admins decision as they most likely had a reason to do what they did. I would however work with the admin who block the two users (and the ArbCom if accepted) to help resolve this issue with the two blocked users and try to come to a peaceful, lasting solution.Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A:Firstly there are many things that I would want to change, but to me the most important thing that I would do is I would remove all the negative aspects that the Wikipedia has and make them into positive ones. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A:I would indefinetly block a user without any direction from the Arb Com if I find that a user has been blocked multiple times and still cases trouble after a block is lifted. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A:If most of the other comments are valid I would rule out the sockpuppet votes and close the AFD accordingly. I would after attempt to investigate and see if my suspicions are correct and then take the appropiate action for the circumstance. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

1. A:I don't believe that there needs to be a minimum number of people to close an AfD as long as everyone agrees on what should happen to the article. If there is a debate I would look at all the comments and decide for that what should be done with the article. I would treat RfDs and CfDs in a simalar manner but I would adapt it to each circumstance. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A:Yes, I do feel able to justify myself under pressure but if the pressure gets to a point which I can't handel I would take a break and then I would finish what I was doing. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

8. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A:I want to be an administrator because I want to help keep Wikipedia running in an orderly fashion. I also want to keep it a place where people get along and work together instead of fighting and not getting anything done. Tarret 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?

A: To me an administrator holds both positions because administrators have tools that control the way the wikipedia works and admins are usually called on to help settle disputes that take time, effort and quality away from the articles.

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Tarret (over the 2235 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 290 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 08, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 22, September, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 93.51% Minor edits: 99.05%
Average edits per day: 4.7 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 412 edits): Major article edits: 98.7% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 2235 edits shown on this page and last 33 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 2.06% (46)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.15% (48)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 25.06% (560)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 23 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 60.79%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 0.22% (5 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.04% (1 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.04% (1 edit(s))
Page protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 0.36% (8 edit(s)) (2 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.72% (16 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 2.91% (65 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1369 | Average edits per page: 1.63 | Edits on top: 9.44%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 21.12% (472 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 33.69% (753 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.36% (254 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 30.16% (674 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 63.49% (1419) | Article talk: 6.09% (136)
User: 2.86% (64) | User talk: 5.95% (133)
Wikipedia: 15.75% (352) | Wikipedia talk: 1.43% (32)
Image: 1.48% (33)
Template: 1.97% (44)
Category: 0.45% (10)
Portal: 0.54% (12)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

• See Tarret's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count:

Username Tarret
Total edits 2230
Distinct pages edited 1365
Average edits/page 1.634
First edit 19:09, 22 September 2005
 
(main) 1418
Talk 136
User 64
User talk 130
Image 33
Template 44
Category 10
Wikipedia 351
Wikipedia talk 32
Portal 12

Support

1. SupportWould make a fine admin. :)--Chili14 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Experienced enough in my opinion, and would make a good admin. DarthVader 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. A trustworthy editor, Tarret is not the type who would abuse the tools. --Gray Porpoise 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Seems experienced enough to me. Singopo 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak Support Seems experienced enough, and trustworthy enough not to abuse the tools. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume that your activity will pick up a bit, but please consider the comments in the Oppose and Neutral votes. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 00:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak support per phocoena phocoena and consistent with my criteria. Joe 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, seems likely to make a good admin. --Aquillion 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support re user comment on talk page and re RandyWang --Robdurbar 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Maybe its slightly soon, but he seems like a reasonable, trustable, editor that will stay out of anything he can't yet handle.Voice-of-All 07:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I trust him. That's 99 per cent of my criteria. If he makes an error or two, he'll be in good company with dozens of admins, including me. Opposers in any RfA who expect perfection are doing Wiki a disservice IMMHO. Moriori 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per Moriori. Rama's arrow 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support no reason to think he'll not be fine --Doc 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - solid responses to questions, editcountis is a null and moot point IMHO -- Tawker 21:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I like his answers to the questions, but I hope he'll consider the comments in oppose/neutral. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Doubt he'll abuse the tools, and basically meets my criteria. I do think the oppose and neutral comments are mostly valid (though not enough for me to oppose), and I hope he'll keep them in mind for the future regardless of how this turns out. BryanG^(talk) 04:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. I didn't have to prove to the DMV that I was going to drive every day before they gave me my driver's license. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 07:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support - reasonable answers to questions show he knows what it takes, though E/C is a bit low. Although this RfA is unlikely to succeed, please continue contributing and maybe you'll be more successful with another RfA in 6 months. Kimchi.sg 11:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Nice start, but too few edits. Needs more exeperience in AfD and RCPatrolling. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 22:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, recommend Wikipedia:Editor review as the process you are looking for. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose I'm afraid I must decline due to the lack of experience (few edits) and weak responses to questions above. Keep working and re-submit in several months. Michael 05:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose While I don't doubt the contributions of the user, his answers to all of the questions are incredibly weak, and from these responses, I don't think he even needs admin tools. -- Kicking222 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per few user talk and WP space edits. Viridae^Talk 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Dlohcierekim and Mike 7. --WillMak050389 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Fails my criteria for maintalk and usertalk edits (less than 200 for each). Themindset 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose per standards. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral You seem a good user and one who would not abuse admin tools. I wonder, though, whether your relatively low contribution rate means that you have enough time and commitment to the project to be an admin? You seem to have picked up a decent range of page edits and experience. Perhaps a promise that you would be able to devote more time as an admin would persuade me to vote support --Robdurbar 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC) change to support

1. Neutral I wonder whether an editor review wouldn't be a better place to ask for opinions as to your merits and demerits as a Wikipedian rather than an RfA. Tagging pages and reverting vandalism can be done without admin tools and your low Talk counts need to be increased in order to demonstrate a balanced and neutral point of view, even and perhaps especially in the case of swingeing critcism or outright vandalism. I'd be happy to support you in future when you address these issues and demonstrate a grasp of Wiki policy too.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral Sorry to just pile on neutrals, but I'd agree with the above. You have a decent amount of contributions, and from looking, you seem like a good editor, but the very short answers for one make it hard to support. It does sound like mostly you want feedback, so you may want to try using the editor review page. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral: The edit setup's nice, but...I give my vote here per weak responses to questions above. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, work on your responses to the questions, and I might support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral - I don't see any reason to oppose, but that in itself is not a reason to support either --T-rex 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I don't really have a reason why I shouldn't trust you with admin powers, but because of this comment; "I nominated myself because I know that even if I am not granted admin status I will at least learn how I can be a better wikipedian", I'm have decided to vote neutral. It seems as if you're not very motivated to become an admin..it appears that you don't know what you should do with adminpowers and hence you're just nominating yourself for the feedback that usually accompanies an RfA. There's no need for a nomination there, you can just ask someone on #wikipedia how well you're doing, editorwise. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral You are a good contributor but your answers to the questions are quite weak. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral leaning Support I'm on the fence, but would happily support upon an elaboration in Q1 about how you would use the sysop tools to prevent vandalism and perhaps answering the optional questions, as these venues will help me get a better feel for how you would use the administrator role. Thanks hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Good articles acceptable alternative to FA. Kudos for organisation work, but need to see more actual writing. -- Миборовский 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral - You prove yourself a good editor, but I feel that the answers to the questions are a bit weak. Kalani ^[talk] 03:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral, weak answers. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral. Your heart seems to be in the right place, but your answers are very weak. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral. Fails a couple points on my criteria. I've seen your good work on WP:GA and you've made great contributions to upholding the quality and verifiability of things on Wikipedia. Try editor review. Grandmasterka 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Abu badali

Final (26/25/7) Ended 19:18, 2006-08-14 (UTC)

Abu badali (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Abu badali for adminship. He is from Brazil and has been with us since April, 2004 where he has over 3,000 edits. He is an strong fighter against copyvios and spam [17] and knows alot about fair use [18] [19] [20] [21]. He also fights vandalism [22]and warns the vandals [23]. I think that Abu badali would make an excellent admin. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Abu Badali 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I believe removing improper content improves Wikipedia almost as much as adding good content. For improper content I consider spam links, defamation, unecessary unfree images, excessive "fancruft" and others. I already try to do my best as an user to combat this things, like reporting abuses, educating users and discussing controversial issues. As an adminstrator, I plan to do more admistrative works on WP:AFD, WP:IFD and CAT:CSD. I also plan to follow WP:AIV for spam. --Abu Badali 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Due to my interest on "fair use" issues on Wikipedia, my attention was once led to a dispute on Carmen Electra about the use of images (threads: #2, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8 on Talk:Carmen Electra). That was a "classical" case where, because a free mugshot image was available, the article couldn't use an unfree image of Ms. Electra without violating #1 on Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy ("No free equivalent is available..."). Some editors were unhappy to see the article using an image of such a bad moment of Ms. Electra's life.

One of the editor even came inquired me direclty about the issue, for what I took the opportunity to explain him my views. And during the time frame for this conversation with him, I contacted a Flickr user about an image of Ms Electra he had. The image was not released under a free licensing, but, after explaing him about Wikipedia, free licensing, attribuion and the like, we was more than pleased to release the image under a free license.

The article Carmen Electra now has a new free image. It's not the best picture in the world, I agree. But the real contribution in this case was to demonstrate that we can produce free images of celebrities like this Woman. I belive this case shows us what's the greater evil of indiscriminately use of {{Promotional}} images. These "prmotional" images hind our hability to gather and produce free content. Would someone had uploaded a {{Promotional}} image of Ms Electra, or would our policies allow the use of magazine covers on such cases, this image would never be released under a free license.

With this incident, I learned the power of contacting Flick users about re-licensing their images. People usualy like the idea behind Creative Commons Attribution licensing. Most of them really just want to have their name cited whenever their images are used. After that, I have photographers to relicense images for top models like Gisele Bündchen, Michelle Alves, Kate Moss, Ana Claudia Michels and others. Shakira also has a free image now. Tango has a great image and Sandboarding was imageless before I contacted another great flickr user.

A list of all these free image contributions, my be found on my Commons user page. One may ask why there's so many Brazilian celebrities... Well, maybe this is because our Wikipedia do not accepts "promotional" images, and we use more guts to illustrate our articles.

Before this incident, my contributions to Wikipedia were mainly removing unfree images. Now I alo contribute a lot by adding free ones :) . And the best thing is to turn unfree images into free ones. :) Best regards, --Abu Badali 21:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

A: As I mainly work in checking image use policy, more than often, users come to my talk page to inquire about "image removals". and I always try to educate them on WP:IUP. I feel greatly rewarded when I get positive results (e.g.: threads #17, #18 (also here), #50 (also here) and #54 on my talk page or here, here and here).). Some few of these editors are not exaclty civil, but of ocurse I always try to keep civil even in such cases ( as here.).

As of "conflicts", I try to step out and ask for a third part intervention whenever it reaches the poing of disruption or attacks. So far, this has happenned only twice: With User:AllTalking and with User:Megawattbulbman.

The firs case, may be found here and then here.

In the second case, I did my best to pretend the user wasn't being rude to me, what proved worthless in this case. The important thing is that I did not changed the way I deal with other Wikipedians after this incident, as I belive this specific user was specially problematic (see his last message on his user page).

I believe in the future I will still deal with conflicts and disputs the best way I know: avoiding them. --Abu Badali 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More questions

Dear candidate, you already have my vote of support. The following questions are optional. You are not obligated to answer them. If you choose, you should feel free to provide partial answers or to answer related questions instead. More particularly, I firmly encourage you to argue both sides if you like. --Yamla 03:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia has serious problems with a great many copyrighted images being used in violation of its own copyright and fair-use guidelines. What do you think about the possibility of refusing all copyrighted images not licensed under a free license? My understanding is that at least the German Wikipedia took this stand.

A: I'm completely against that. I believe thar fair use is an essential part of copyright law and without that (or some equivallent), the allowed level information control would be unbearable. I see "fair use" as a necessary tool for the building of any Encyclopedia. Even a non-free one or one with lots of money to spend.

There are so many article's I believe would become highly damaged without an (specific) image. And I think the German version of these article are injured by the lack of those images. But at the moment, I don't think it's a good idea for a free-images-only Wikipedia to start accepting Fair use images. I believe it's a better strategy to wait for a solution to the problem of Fair Use abuse in the English Wikipedia before such move. And I say that because I do belive in a solution. --Abu Badali 07:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Inevitably, many new users will commit copyright or fair-use violations with the first few images they upload. This despite the fact that the guidelines are listed on the upload page. What changes do you think Wikipedia could make to encourage these users to continue editing while preventing further copyright violations?

A: I surely do not know the perfect solution for this problem, but, I do have some draft proposal, mostly based on other proposals I have seen. Take these as crude ideas yet to be polished by discussion.

It would probably involve changes to MediaWiki. The software should allow for a given user to be temporarily deprived from the privillege to upload files. An upload-block, if you want. An upload-blocked user would be able to edit articles normally, but not to upload files. And when should we upload-block an user? I believe users with more than N pending cases of unsourced, untagged or otherwise disputed images should be temporarily upload-blocked, so that they get to resolve their ongoing issues before rushing to upload new files.

This is the basic idea. There are some points of concern that still need to be addressed. And, of course, we should still determine the value of N.--Abu Badali 07:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Do you have any examples of a particularly good use of a copyrighted image which has an accurate source, license, and detailed fair-use rationale? You do not need to have uploaded this image.

A: The best example of I can think of is the use of Image:Famousphotoche.jpg in Che Guevara (photo). Others are Image:An_ewok.jpg (a screenshot) in Ewok, Image:Fred_flintstone.jpg in Fred Flintstone, Image:Lenna.png in Lenna, and the famous cases, like Image:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.png and Image:As03-martha_updat.jpg in Photo manipulation.

There are many cases we're I believe we could claim fair use but it not used! For instance, Image:Talibomar.jpg is such an unique image, of Mohammed Omar, that I can't understand why it's not tagged as so (It's tagged as PD, but the source is unknow. The way it is today, it may get deleted). Image:ZidaneHeadbutt.gif is a animated gif for an unique event that could hardly be described by any amount of text (it is hard to grasp even when you see it). But it's current tagging is far from good. Image:R2d2-photo1.jpg just needs a source to be perfect (in R2-D2). Also, it's simply wrong that we don't get to know the look of E.T. by reading E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, while there are so many screnshot abuse out there.

There's also whole classes of "ok's" like all Album covers used in their's Album's articles, or all magazine covers used in the correspondent Magazine article, and so on.

7. Several users here have voiced concern that you seem to be confrontational. For the sake of this question, please assume these users are correct. I'm not saying they are, just asking you to assume it for the moment. What do you think you could do differently, given this assumption? --Abu Badali 07:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A: I could try to understand why I acted that way and, more importantly, why I didn't notice I was acting that way. I could think of what would be a better attitude in each case I have been confrotational. Then, I would try to be vigilant on my own behavior and avoid following the same unwanted path again. --Abu Badali 07:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Abu badali's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Abu badali's editcount with Interiot's tool.

Username Abu_badali
Total edits 3101
Distinct pages edited 1530
Average edits/page 2.027
First edit 02:23, 31 March 2004
 
(main) 1736
Talk 144
User 30
User talk 606
Image 258
Image talk 14
Template 12
Template talk 14
Help 1
Category 23
Wikipedia 192
Wikipedia talk 69
Portal 1
Portal talk 1

Added at 01:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC) by Andeh.

Support

1. Support as nominator Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. -- ADNghiem501 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I don't see any incivility in a quick check of his edits. Eluchil404 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support his work on fair use is quite good -- Samir धर्म 01:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support I've had great interations with this editor and I learned a great deal about fair use and copyrights from him. He is extremly valuable to the project and I know he could help with CAT:CSD, seeing that it is a never ending backlog. I've seen images on CSD been up there for days, alot of people (read:me) are unsure of what to do. I know that if Abu was granted admin status, Wikipedia could flow better. He is an example of an editor contributing to the ultimate goal behind the scenes. Yanksox 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support dealing with image copyrights can be a mess and this user does it well. Opabinia regalis 01:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support no evidence to suggest he wouldn't act responsibly. ed g2s • talk 04:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support - Highly experienced editor, knowledgable in fair use, and is willing to go the extra mile JUST to get pictures. This user will prove to be an excellent administrator. —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I know I don;t want to deal with image copyrights. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per RyanG. Ugh. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Has been here for over two years and has not shown signs of incivility. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support as someone who also works (albeit in a much lower level way) on the various image use pages, I was struck by the fact that Abu has always been willing to deal with uploaders (many of whom can get downright confrontational over the suggestion that "their" images might be deleted) with civility and good humour which is vital in such situations. I understand concerns that he's only really well versed in one area, but I do think there's scope for admins who are masters of one field as well as admins who are jacks of all trades on here, especially in areas like copyright patrol which need more admin attention. --Daduzi ^talk 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per Messedrocker. -- JHunterJ 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. We need more admins willing to do image cleanup work. I don't see any indication from opposing editors that there is a danger of admin tool abuse. It would be a shame to turn down someone offering to do difficult, repetitive and often frustrating cleanup work, who has an established record of taking it on, because of a "lack of diversity" in their edit count. Why aren't we seeing diffs if there is evidence of a WP:CIVIL problem? Jkelly 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I have found him to always be civil, but I have also found him to be totally inflexible. He seems to have a single point of view on something that there is a great deal of division over, even among administrators. Even the templates ask for further reasoning to support fair use, I would like to see an administrator help one to do that unless there is no rationale at all. Do we want to empower this mindset where some good faith editors may give up altogether? Doc ♬ talk 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

15. Weak Support based on expertise on copyrights and time with Wikipeida. I do not see User:Abu badali as overly confrontational.If anything, he seems to comport himself with dignity and constraint. Unless better examples are presented, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. (There seems to be an ongoing dispute over fair use in wikipedia. I'm not sure if there is concensus on who is right.) Edit count, however, is worrisomely low for for a vandal fighter. Greater participation at AfD is always helpful. Typo's on an RfA don't look good either. Good luck. :) Dlohcierekim 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support as my criteria met and this is supposed to be no big deal. I see allegations of confrontive behavior but no specific examples. This editor has no incivility issues therefore I see no reason to oppose. Ifnord 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Has numerous edits, no civility issues and makes an honest effort. I like Æon ^{Insane Ward} 23:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support He does important work concerning copyright, admin tools would help him a lot in that work. Garion96 (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support, excellent "fair use" fighter. User:Angr 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Apoio (support in Portuguese)--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Weak Support - support per nom, but worried about lack of diversity in edits --T-rex 14:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. DarthVader 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Fighting Wikipedia copyright and fair-use violations is a horrendous thankless task sure to earn you the emnity of many users. That someone cites this as their primary contribution earns them my vote. If you are considering voting against this user just because of the lack of generality, I urge you to reconsider. Abu badali, if this nomination fails, please do not take it personally. Consider the votes of opposition to be constructive criticism. --Yamla 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support He has done a lot of positive work for Wikipedia. Tackles tedious tasks. DrL 23:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Strong support We need more image copyright-policing admins. Kimchi.sg 11:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Weak support. Abu badali doesn't have the broadest experience with the project, but his work enforcing our policies on unfree content shows me quite a lot. This is difficult work that brings a lot of criticism — very much as admin actions do — and through it, he's shown patience, civility, and a willingness to educate inexperienced users. Also, have not been able to find any examples of the confrontational behavior alleged in many of the opposes. ×Meegs 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - much as though he does exceptional and volumous work on verifying images for use on Wikipedia, the written style used is often verging on confrontational. Secondly, from history edit notes - that's all he does: verify images. An Admin should have a wider perspective/background of input than just one aspect to the bulk of their Wiki contributions; and Admin's often need to make quick reasoned decisions which take human factors on board/create resolution/avoid confrontation. I suggest this nomination is reviewed in 6months+, where a wider contribution could be shown. Rgds, - Trident13 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   We need more of those acually with images as wikipedia grows and copyright becomes an more major concern here. There are large backlogs at time here with copyrighted images. He won't abuse the tools, and would clearly help wikipedia in the long run. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   Tridend13, I'm interest in what you call "verging on confrontational". I hope I haven't being like that in our last interaction :) . I feel really sorry if I did. And thanks for voicing your opinion here. Best regards, --Abu Badali 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I have been contributing numerous articles on wikipedia dealing with the 1920's and early 1930's. This person has literally driven me away from wikipedia because he refuses to let me place a public domain image on the 1930s article that illustrates how fashion became more conservative in that decade and how long skirts became in 1930 whereas the year (1929) before they had been worn above the knee. This person (Abu badali) has me banned and I will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. I had hoped to complete the articles on all of the early Technicolor films produced in 1929-1933 as well as numerous articles on the early talkies. Unfortunately, due to his confrontational attitude and unwillingless to help me correctly tag the image I am no longer going to contribute to wikipedia. I think it will be a mistake if you make this person an administrator as he will only drive away people who are only trying to improve wikipedia and contribute articles to it. AllTalking 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

   This user had an dispute with Abu badali which caused AllTalking to be blocked for disruption for refusing to follow copyright while Abu badali tried to talk to him in AllTalking talk page but refuses to listen. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose I'm afraid I don't see a broad enough array of diversity in this user's work and the edit count is a bit low for the time on here. Michael 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   You don't need an broad diversity to become an admin Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   You certainly should have experience in a wide array of topics and across different areas of Wikipedia, however. Michael 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

4. While I appreciate your dedication and depth of knowledge, since we cannot grant admin powers piecemeal, I must oppose until such time as you become a lot more experienced in other areas of Wikipedia. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Not enough main talk edits (communication) and Wikipedia edits (process), fails my criteria. Themindset 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per above.--Bonafide.hustla 06:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Per above, perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose Balance, as above, and while I understand the importance of vigilance on fair use, I do feel that he is unreasonable when it comes to supporting a fair use image. He has stated that he feels that it is inappropriate to discuss a magazine cover in an article after the fair use issue has come up. On the contrary, I believe that we should have the best images possible on Wikipedia. If sufficient reason can be given to support fair use, editors should be encouraged to do so. Many of the flicker images that he supports are of inferior quality and IMO the article would be better without an image. While I do understand the importance of good source and support of the fair use claim, when the rationale can be given, the better, professional image is important both to the encyclopaedia's image and to better covey the subject of the article. Doc ♬ talk 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think it's fair to quote me saying that "it is inappropriate to discuss a magazine cover in an article after the fair use issue has come up". You may be generalizing from this specific incident, if it's so, I'd like to state, for the record, that I still think that it's harmfull to change an article's text to augment the real-world importance of a specif magazine issue whose cover image happened to be previously (and for no special reason) on the article. You are otherwise a good editor, though, and I feel disapointed in not being capable of explaining you the gravity of this attitude. --Abu Badali 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   While civil it is exactly this one track mindedness that would concern me when given admin powers. I believe that we should work together whenever possible to meet the requirements of fair use to have the best encyclopaedia possible. When there is an image which equally serves the purpose that is pubic domain that is one thing, but to just substitute an image of inferior quality is often worse than none. I also have serious concern over a person who's overwhelming time investment is to ride vigilante over editors who in good faith are trying to follow the guidelines. Doc ♬ talk 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Here is a discussion where he I believe clearly states his opinion that it is better to delete an image than to improve the discussion of the image for its inclusion. Doc ♬ talk 22:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Doc, I very strongly disagree with your opinion of fair use, here in wikipedia we try to avoid fair use because of copyright problems. If an free image can be found we use it, and fair-use is mostly invalid in that case. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   If there is a quality free image, I am in complete agreement, but if the quality is not there, no photograph might well be better. I am only in good faith trying to understand and follow the expected standards. There is still, however, a significant lack of consensus on the standards.

   I've re-read my participation on that discussion and I'd like to state that I still stand by the opinions I have stated there. Quotting myself, I do still believe that we should "discourage editors from changing the article to fit the image". Aslo, I still "don't consider adding (or sometimes creating) a line of text information just to prettend some given random picture is important is "improving" an article". I invite everyone to take a look at the disucussion and see these quotes contextualized. And also, of course, I invite everyone to take part on that discussion. --Abu Badali 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   I would agree with discouraging to "pretend" that some "random" picture, is important, (I think he misses the point here) but on the other hand where the quality of an image is central to defining a look in a field such as fashion I question his perception of the importance a professional photograph. Flickr pictures do not cut it for the look of a high fashion model. The more he writes here the more I question his suitability as an administrator. 1. Why would he be so concerned to answer every question here to take on this thankless task? He seem too anxious to have these powers in my opinion. 2. The Neutral votes at the bottom, at least the first four give the strongest reasons of all to oppose this nomination in my opinion. 3. Lastly, there may be concern from reading more that he has written, and his own user page, that the nuance and full meaning of some things may be missed in his understanding of the English language. Doc ♬ talk 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   "Flickr pictures do not cut it for the look of a high fashion model"... the main pictures in Fashion model and Supermodel are from Flickr. I belive it's prejudice to state that only professional photographs may properly depict the look of a fashion model. 1. Why would he be so concerned to answer every question here to take on this thankless task?" Sorry but I don't get it. Should I not answer? Is it not supposed to be a discussion?. "He seem too anxious to have these powers in my opinion" I'm not "anxious", I prefer "responsive". I don't see Admin tasks as "powers", but as "responsibilities". As far as I know, admins are bound to the same conduct policies as normal editors. "2. The Neutral votes at the bottom..." I respect that opinions. If you, or anyone else, believe that my low edit count may compromise my hability to help Wikipedia as an Administrator, you should really not support me. I see nothing wrong with that. I also don't see anything specially wrong in the oppose votes I had replied to. "3. Lastly, there may be concern from..." English is not my first language. If anyone have concerns over this, feel free to oppose. --Abu Badali 14:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   The only reason that "... the main pictures in Fashion model and Supermodel are from Flickr" is because of your actions and most in my opinion do not contribute to the article. A no images Wikipedia would be preferable to much of the poor Flickr content, particularly on fashion images. Certainly there are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Doc ♬ talk 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   "...is because of your actions..." Thanks! :) "...and most in my opinion do not contribute to the article.", at this point, I invite anyone to check those free images on those articles and judge the power of Flickr users as a source of free quality images. --Abu Badali 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose While I am continually troubled by the anti-fair use attitude among many admins and editors, Abu badali appears to combine this attitude with a confrontational view toward editors who disagree with him on the issue. This is not the type of mix I want to see in an admin.--Alabamaboy 13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm really interested in getting more details on that. If you could point to instances of my "confrontational view toward editors who disagree with me", I would be greatful. Please, I'm not doubting you. I'm just interested in specific examples so I could get to avoid such misbehaviours in the future. Also, do you think that I am always like this, or just in some cases? (The best being "never", of course  :) ). Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose per CrazyRussian - please reapply when you have more breadth of experience. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Alabamaboy. --Shizane 15:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Shizane, if you could point me to such events (where I have acted with a "confrontational view toward editors who disagree with me"), I would greatly appreciate and use it as a lesson for the future. And how often do I misbehave like this? This is surelly information that this AfD's voters are interested in. Best wishes, --Abu Badali 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose (with regrets) due to overspecialization; would like to see more well-rounded experience and knowledge. "Won't abuse the tools" isn't sufficient grounds for adminship in my book. Also not happy about the AllTalking incident which appears to have driven away a contributor who was uploading pictures that most likely are in the public domain, with no apparent considered discussion of the issue (see rfa talk page for some specifics). Maybe there's good grounds for rejecting such pictures on the off-chance that they might be copyrighted, but an admin working in that area still needs to understand pre-1977 US copyright law enough to discuss the issues intelligently with contributors instead of just slamming policy. See also m:avoid copyright paranoia. I agree that AllTalking's side of that exchange wasn't so great either, but AllTalking was a newbie and not an admin candidate (WP:BITE). On the plus side, I'm very happy with Abu badali's getting so many free images for the encyclopedia, and I like the flickr pictures themselves just fine. For the biographical articles they're featured in, they're better suited than the typical supermodel publicity shots that basically turn the articles into productcruft. Phr (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Phr, do you believe I am to blame for AllTalking's stated decision to leave the project? I prefer to think I am not, but I may be being too optimistic. If you follow the threads on my talk page, you will see that the last thing I'd like to do would be bite someone. Anyway, I belive it's a oversimplyfication of the case to state that my attitude "have driven away a contributor who was uploading pictures that most likely are in the public domain". The case was about just one picture that the uploader (AllTalking) has successively tagged as {{Magazinecover}}, {{fairuse}}, {{fair use in}}, {{PD}}, {{PD-because}}, {{Unknown}}, {{Newspapercover}}, {{PD-ineligible}} , {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-self}}. After that, he was blocked for disruptive edit summaries, to what he reacted by declaring he was leaving Wikipedia. I had left a message to him encouraging him not to do so, and I still expect he will be back among us soon, hopefully. --Abu Badali 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I went mostly by the discussion on AllTalking's talk page. I'll look at yours later. My suggestion would have been to enter a more detailed discussion of how to tell whether a given image is copyrighted or not, if possible; but I haven't yet checked out your talk page, so maybe you already did that. The main thing is to understand that AllTalking was trying to solve a problem that should really be solvable, so he should be dealt with sympathetically, even if no solution turns out to be possible (in which case I'd express it as: we'd like to use those images but we're unfortunately hosed by bad decisions of the US government; as opposed to: stop breaking our policies). I acknowledge that your hands are somewhat tied by WP:IUP which in my opinion is a little too conservative, but that's a separate topic. Phr (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose Just seems too intent to spend his time here removing as many images from articles as possible - carrying the fair use policy to its extreme - and why? For the most part, it worsens the articles and brings us to the point where the only imagtes we can have for the many actor articles here are free images, which would make up about 1% of all actor articles we have right now. It's not helpful. Mad Jack 06:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    "Why?". Because I believe it's possible to build a free encyclopedia, and unfree images of living persons on biographical articles hurt that goal, as explained in the "real contribution" part of answer to question #2 above. --Abu Badali 11:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    MadJack, it seems a bit backwards to take Abu to task for carrying the fair use policy to its conclusion (not to its extreme). Wikipedia has a policy, and you appear to be opposing adminship on the grounds that the candidate would enforce that policy "too much". If the result is that we can only use free images, it's the "fault" of fair use law and Wikipedia policy, not of Abu. -- JHunterJ 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, but my point is not that he is carrying it to its conclusion, my point is that he is carrying it to the absolute extreme and beyond, stretching it as far as possible to remove as many images as possible, as well as that doing that seems to be a rather large part of all he does here. The policy is vague enough on some of the screenshot issues that text like the one accompanying the header picture here [24] definitely fits under the "discussion of film" clause, yet he removed even that (the GA article, about a fairly major actress, now has no header picture, making it look fairly bare). Mad Jack 16:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose per lack of WP space edits. Viridae^Talk 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. By the looks of it, Abu badali seems to be a very civilized user who is certainly trying his best by changing Wikipedia for the better. He definetely deserves the two barnstars that have been awarded to him. However, people who do a lot of work on the Fair Use images are usually applauded by me..though not Abu badali. With due respect, he seems to have sold his soul to copyright paranoia, by taking this fair use issues way too far. Take a look at [25] for example. I don't think anyone would have cared about that image being there; it was definetely not necessary. I may be willing to support in the future if Abu shows that he's a little more laidback about hese images.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    The image has "Photo by Arnould Tuner/WireImage.com" at the bottom. --Abu Badali 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Image:Chingy 5.jpg was the image and almost anyone can tell that the image is an obvious copyvio. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

17. Would make a good commons admin, perhaps. But 0 FA. -- Миборовский 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose Focus too narrow. ~ trialsanderrors 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Would prefer broader experience. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per above (focus and confrontational style). --kingboyk 21:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose seems to suffer from copyright paranoia.  Grue  19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose for above mentioned copyright paranoia. Crumbsucker 06:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Perhaps later. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose for aforementioned copyright paranoia. CFIF (talk to me) 20:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Strong Oppose First of all, I checked the user who claims to be driven away's contributions. He is a perfectly lagitamate editor and good contributor. It's a loss to wikipedia that he has been driven away. Secondly, A lot of editors put alot of time and hard work into iliustrating and beautifuying wikipedia. This user seems to want to destory their work, by being ultra-anti-fair-use and ultra-copyright-paranoid. Most imageless pages are ugly and this user seems to want to make more of them. Thirdly, you said that most of your time would be spent detelting things that you felt didn't belong. Personaly, I'm tired of running across editors and admins who have such a narrow view of what a encyolpedia is that they delete lots of things that should be deleted. Our goal is to encompas humankinds knowlage, not to delete things that aren't common knowlage. (I'm especialy tired of people who delete claiming things are "fancruft" Fancfut isn't even a policy, it's an essay, and one that shouldn't exist.) I strongly disagree that deleting non-notable stuff is just as important as adding good stuff, since obsucre stuff is perfectly lagitamate to me. This users 2 main activities seem to be deleting images and removing content, both of which I think are desturctive. Tobyk777 05:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    Tobyk777, do you believe I am to blame for AllTalking's stated decision to leave the project? I'm interested in your opinion. Also, I'd like to say I believe you're being unfair when you say "Most imageless pages are ugly and this user seems to want to make more of them.". For instance, as I already mentioned in my answer to question 2 above, I have for many times contacted Flickr users to release their images under a free licensing, so that they can be used on Wikipedia. You may want to check my Commons uploads. Thanks for leaving your opinion. Best regards, --Abu Badali 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    So keeping copyright-violating images in articles is constructive to Wikipedia? Kimchi.sg 15:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think that is what Tobyk777 is saying at all. It is the aggressiveness with which Abu Badali removes images that are not clear cut and will argue one to death, without budging an inch on issues that are not clear-cut. There are a great many fairuse images that meet the criteria as defined to date that are so clearly superior to the typical Flickr image. There are exceptions, I agree and when there is a superior free image, by all means that should be the first used. AllTalking is not the only one to "give up" and I do think that Wikipedia is the loser. If we must have an image free encyclopaedia, so be it, but in today's world which is so image focused, that would be a shame. On the other hand an image free encyclopaedia would be better, IMO, that a lot of sloppy amateurish photographs that article would be better off without. Doc ♬ talk 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Sadly I cannot support as the user has been here for over 2 years and has only managed just over 3,000 edits. WP edits is quite low too (which should be high for admins). I would support if the user got more involved with the project more often. Best suited as a fine editor, for now.--Andeh 01:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Lack of experience with Wikipedia namespace (400-500 edits) normally earns an automatic oppose from me as it indicates a poor knowledge of process and policy, but this user's good image contributions and support push it to a neutral. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral Free images are tough to find, so that's a plus, but other issues have made me worried here. Attic Owl 00:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral per low article talk and Wikipedia contribs within a long time period. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral I feel that the user lacks some of the necessary experience needed to become an administrator ((as evidenced by a low WP-space involvement), however I feel he's unlikely to abuse the tools. I'm on the fence, so to speak. On one hand, I'm leery of supporting a candidate who I feel might not be as well-versed in policies as I'd like, but on the other hand, I'd be remiss to oppose a user that I feel wouldn't misuse the tools on purpose. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral I can't decide. I like someone who is willing to tackle the images, but I'm worried about his confrontational style. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. On the one hand, he's done good work in dealing with problem images, and he's good at engaging other users. On the other hand, he hasn't interacted with the community at large much: most of the edits to the project namespace have been listing things on IFD or Copyright Problems. --Carnildo 06:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Agentsoo

Final (48/9/4) Ended 02:20, 2006-08-14 (UTC)

Agentsoo (talk · contribs) – I have been a chronic user of Wikipedia since May 2005, accumulating over 12,000 edits (if that counts for anything). I have been the major contributor to two featured articles (this and this) and a featured list (this). I also work on several WikiProjects (this, this and this) and find time to contribute to AfD whenever possible (albeit less so recently). I have recently begun using VandalProof and was surprised at how many edits are actually legitimate (Wikipedia naysayers be gone!). I believe I am familiar with Wikipedia policies, and take a special interest in keeping Wikipedia as free as possible, particular with regard to images. Hopefully I can now be trusted with the special privileges of adminship. (PS This is my second nomination, my first one was over a year ago so hopefully I've resolved the objections raised.) Soo 23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Soo 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I'm about to start work on the Featured Article Review, but I'd be particularly interested in using admin powers to handle issues with supposed fair use images and other copyright issues. I'm not a copyright fanatic but I think I understand the issues involved fairly well so it makes sense for me to deal with that area. I'm also happy to help out on AfD if required, and am generally quite flexible.

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

A: Getting Countdown (game show) to Featured status is probably my proudest moment. The article was in a bad way when I started working on it, was comprehensively rewritten (with valued contributions from other editors) and then put forward for Featured-ness. The FAC debate was an arduous 31 days, but the article emerged much improved. That said, I recognise that it's probably not the most significant article in an encyclopaedia, and recently I've been working on Mathematics, which I hope to bring to a similar standard eventually.

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

A: I have been involved in only one major dispute, nearly a year ago. I disagreed with another editor over two versions of a page, and he accused me of vandalism and sock-puppetry (a charge on which he was later found guilty himself.) It was resolved, largely, by Mediation. I found the detailed criticism of the FAC process quite stressful, but managed to remain civil and focussed my attention on improving the articles in question. Hopefully that will stand me in good stead for the stresses of adminship.

Comments

Additional questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.

1 In your previous RfA you mentioned that you had done work as an anon before getting an account and that as an anon you had written articles including starting Chasmosaurus. Could you give us a list of the main articles that you started/contributed to as an anon?

A: I can't remember all of them, but this gives a fairly representative sample.

Comment The IP is 213.122.72.220. There are less than savory edits by other anoons, and I want to spare others the confusion I experienced. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2 In regard to question 3 above, could you give more detail about the incident with the sockpuppeting editor?

A: I was unhappy with the state of the article Skull (symbolism), and I marked it with the NPOV tag, which I now realise was the wrong template (I really meant 'tone', but I didn't know it existed at the time.) I had some dispute with the article's editor (User:Wetman) but it remained fairly civil. I couldn't make much progress with the article, so I added it to my watchlist and forgot about it. Some time later, an anonymous editor jumped in and made some fairly aggressive changes to the article. I felt that this heavily redacted version was better, since I think an accurate but incomplete article is better than a long and disputable one. By some process I can't really remember, User:DreamGuy became involved in the dispute over the two versions, and we got into a revert war, which lasted about 10 reverts over a few days. I now regret that, but at the time I was inflamed by DreamGuy accusing me of 'vandalising' the article. At the time, I was 'training up' a new editor (User:JonONeill) who inevitably became involved in the dispute too, and DreamGuy accused me of using him as a sockpuppet. I invited anyone to perform an IP check or otherwise investigate the situation properly, but instead the accusations continued by innuendo and suggestion. In the end I realised that there was no point continuing the argument. As a post-script, I notice that DreamGuy was concluded "likely" to be using a sockpuppet himself in this checkuser case. So I admit that I probably didn't handle this as well as I could have done, but I think I learnt from the experience and hopefully my conduct in my various FAC debates indicates that I can be civil in disagreement.

3 Could you explain what Francis-Tyers oppose vote below is about and please explain your version of events, with relevant difs if possible?

A: He was the mediator in the above dispute.

Last 5000 article edits (seperated due to heavy AWB use). Voice-of-All 02:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Agentsoo (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 310 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 07, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 10hr (UTC) -- 1, September, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.23% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 231.73 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major article edits: 99.23% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 17 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.2% (10)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.92% (96)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 92.72% (4636)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 88.26%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 10 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 4459 | Average edits per page: 1.12 | Edits on top: 17.54%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 12.68% (634 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 81.74% (4087 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4.72% (236 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.44% (22 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 100% (5000) | Article talk: 0% (0)
User: 0% (0) | User talk: 0% (0)
Wikipedia: 0% (0) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Next 5000 article edits:

Viewing contribution data for user Agentsoo (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 340 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 07, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 1, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 99.5%
Average edits per day: 1.62 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 99.5%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 17 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.96% (98)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 4.16% (208)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 92.52% (4626)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 89.65%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 4713 | Average edits per page: 1.06 | Edits on top: 6.8%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 15.06% (753 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 83.26% (4163 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 1.24% (62 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.12% (6 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 100% (5000) | Article talk: 0% (0)
User: 0% (0) | User talk: 0% (0)
Wikipedia: 0% (0) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

• See Agentsoo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count:

Username	Agentsoo
Total edits	13560
Distinct pages edited	11695
Average edits/page	1.159
First edit	20:22, June 18, 2004
	
(main)	11932
Talk	301
User	117
User talk	145
Image	44
Template	33
Template talk	12
Category	212
Category talk	5
Wikipedia	681
Wikipedia talk	71
Portal	7

Support

1. STRONG SUPPORT Soo is a very dedicated editor. She works very well with others, and she's knowledgable on many aspects of Wikipedia. I have worked with Soo regularly on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, and she's great to work with. If I'd have known she was interested in adminship, I would have nominated her myself. Great user. Give her a mop! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: Soo is not female.. I suspect he's going to get a good laugh when he reads this, however. Bobo. 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: Good god, I've been referring to him as a woman for the last six months! Why didn't anyone tell me!? :/ --Firsfron of Ronchester 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: You're right, I did get a good laugh :) Soo 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Support A great, experienced editor. I might like a bit more interaction on talk/user talk/Wikipedia talk pages, but she(?) deserves the mop. —Mets501 (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Michael 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong Support. Who cares if they interact with the community? I think this user would make an excellent admin. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per nom - Soo is the best. Jono (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support A very dedicated user to this project. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
7. <-Seven!, I see no problems (as of yet), answers seem OK and I think we need more admins that deal with images/media problems, huge backlogs me thinks?. Couldn't see any major problems under oppose. Users talk edits are a bit low because of no vandal fighting, users talk page shows activity.--Andeh 10:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong support. More than ample edit count and time with project. Uses VandalProof and takes part in AfD's. The remaining question in my mind is civility. I believe the heated exchange that resulted in mediation is far enough in the past. User:WikipedianProlific's oppose appears to be related this entry on Soo's talk page, where User:WikipedianProlifichas left a note referring to this comment on JonONeil's talk page. The two taken together look like an exchange between friends or at least acquaintances. If so, I've seen worse. I am WP:AGF for now and awaiting clarification. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support I also note that Agentsoo's contributions as an anon we're very good. The total number of edits is astounding. I'm going to run through my standard logic: 1) Do we think that Agentsoo will deliberately abuse the mop? No. 2) Do we think he will do something incompetent and highly damaging with the mop? No. 3) Do we think that the project will benefit from Agentsoo having the Mop? Obviously yes. I therefore I have trouble seeing how someone could not support. JoshuaZ 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support I'm not really fond of the "twat" comment, but unless I see that that kind of thing happens often, I'm sticking with this support. AgentSoo will benefit us greatly. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, a very solid user all around. — Deckiller 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, many good reasons to support. Nothing questionable in the last 8 months. While it would be nice to see more user talk edits, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Many people rack up user talk edits chatting, which Soo does not. Soo does good work, has plenty of experience and always uses edit summaries. While this isn't direct communication, admins are responsible to the community at large to show transparency in what they do. Soo has done this.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Lots of good work, opposes don't show anything that bad any time recently. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support as my criteria met and this is supposed to be no big deal. 12,000 edits and no incivility issues? I see no reason to oppose. Ifnord 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. No recent issues, and I don't really care about talk edit counts. Been here long enough that I seriously doubt he'll abuse the tools. BryanG^(talk) 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support: Agentsoo has been here long enough to know what he is doing, I think he has shown he can be trusted. The "twat" thing doesn't bother me - exactly the same thing goes on at IRC, it is just that comments there are not so permanent. It is none of my business how Soo interacts with his mates, he certainly doesn't appear to abuse those he doesn't know and that is what is important here. Rje 22:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, we always need more admins who can deal with fair use abuse with a heavy fist. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong Support. Looks like a good editor that has worked hard and knows WP. WP would benefit if they got the mop. No reasons to oppose IMHO. Nephron  T|C 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support - he is a very dedicated user and the civility problems cited by the opposers seem to be reasonably mild abakharev 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I see nothing wrong, also, the joke is fine and I don't have an issue with that. Sometimes things don't read off the way they sound, but I think we all do things like that. It's perfectly excusable. Yanksox 23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Good editor, who I'm sure will be a useful admin. Civility concerns are minor. -- Avenue 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Bianca: Excellent Support, Darling! (raises champagne glass happily) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support - per nom 2.0 -- Tawker 15:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Looks like a dedicated and thoughtful editor. I don't agree that his actions on Skull (symbolism) were out of line to the point of opposing adminship several months later. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Looks okay to me. Deb 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
29. OMG SOMEONE WITH 2FA! Support! However, hoping to see more talk edits. -- Миборовский 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - valuable contributor - Glen 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support none of the objections to this adminship are very convincing for me; I see no evidence that this user would abuse the m&b. Ziggurat 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, don't think he will abuse or misuse the tools. But how can people vote "per nom" on a self-nom? Do you believe someone makes a good admin because he says he will? - Bobet 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support...I'm not sure article talkpage stats are all that important. Very frequently issues about articles are handled on user talk pages, the village pump, project pages, and peer reviews, etc. so I won't hold these lack of edits against them. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support per nom. Looks like Agentsoo2 would make a fine administrator. - Bootstoots 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Steel 23:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support from what I have seen I believe he would make a dependable administrator. Doc ♬ talk 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support - has done good work on important projects, no basis to fear tool-abuse. bd2412 T 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Robert 18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support will be good admin --rogerd 00:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Jeffklib
44. Support - no reason not to trust him with admin tools. Metamagician3000 04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support per nom. Icey 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Very impressed.--Holdenhurst 19:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support large body of edits, the oppose votes don't convince me, and I don't think that the user would abuse administrator privledges. However, you definately need to make more contact with other users in their talk pages.--Jersey Devil 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support per Jersey Devil. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The editor's actions on Skull (symbolism) do not befit an administrator. - FrancisTyers · 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Are you talking about this incident from eight months ago? Just asking. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   See talk. - FrancisTyers · 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Less than 200 user talk edits fails my criteria. Especially with so many mainspace edits, the nom should be communicating more with his fellow wikipedians. I will likely support on re-app. Themindset 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   I guess I'm just not very sociable... Soo 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per above --Masssiveego 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the above reasons, and also because of a generally bad attitude unbefitting #an administrator. See [26] --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   None of the difs in that section are Agentsoo's. Could you point more explicitly to what you are talking about? JoshuaZ 13:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure he means these: [27] [28] (the link he posted first goes between these two, and you get the whole picture. Although I'm pretty sure this isn't something that was meant to be serious or that was taken seriously. - Bobet 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hmm, I'm puzzled as to how that could merit an oppose vote. I will ask WikipedianProlific to explain this in more detail. JoshuaZ 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks, BOBET, for finding the missing piece. Cheers  :) Dlohcierekim 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   WikipedianProlific was quizzing me about an in-joke between me and my friend JonONeill that didn't involve him at all. I don't see why I should have to explain it to him, or what it's got to do with being an admin. Soo 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for the explanation. That's what it felt like to me-- a joke between friends and not an incivil exchange of insults. (I have two co-workers that go at eac other the same way.) Happy to support Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Just to confirm that... yeah, an innocent joke. Certainly not grounds for a negative vote. Jono (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   To clarify at the behest of JoshuaZ. I felt that his responses to me personally and the general language used was unnecessary and unhelpful. An attitude that wouldn't serve him well as an administrator. I didn't realise until several days after initially reading the comments that it was an in-joke. All Soo had to do was say, "don't worry its just an in-joke" when I asked and I'd have thought no more of it. Instead I spent a fair amount of time which I could have spent editing or making diagrams researching those comments. Overall the oppose is for the unhelpful "why should I tell you" attitude and the fact it cost me some fair amount of my time. Especially as it turned out the ‘in-joke’ was actually made at my expense, something I object to. Its not a strong oppose but I feel this user may still stand to benefit from some more time as an editor. Soo’s a very proficient editor and generally good with the ins and out of Wikipeida which is very commendable, but I felt this constituted an underlying negative attitude towards other editors just trying to be helpful. Sorry Soo if I've taken it the wrong way and I do hope you know I was just trying to be helpful, its really nothing personal but that’s where I stand on it at the moment. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, I think I can unpick what happened here. My friend Jono sent me an odd message, so I assumed it was a parody of the usual warnings that vandals get round here. I replied, referring him to WP:NPA while calling him a twat, which was intended as a joke and Jono interpreted as one, replying in kind. Next thing, WikipedianProlific was asking me to explain myself, when as far as I knew he wasn't involved at all. It turns out that Jono's original odd message was actually a repost of a message to him from WikipedianProlific, but at the time I didn't put two and two together. So just to clarify, it wasn't a joke at your expense, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted your intervention. I now understand your curiosity! Apologies for the misunderstanding, it's a limitation of the medium I suppose. Soo 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per FrancisTyers and Themindset. Singopo 23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose per recent diffs above, mostly disregarding the Skull situation as too old. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Tony Sidaway 22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Impressive edit count but needs to engage in communication before considering adminship.
8. Oppose: not quite ready yet. May support in future. Thumbelina 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose because of insufficient communication with others (talk pages), which I find crucial for an administrator. --dcabrilo 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: Seems an experienced, good editor. However, I am rather troubled by his use in response to the third question of the phrase "a charge on which he was later found guilty himself". To me, this indicayes a user who is prone to wikilawyering, in particular treating our processes as courts of law. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian - Talk 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Per concerns on both sides. Seems to be a good editor though. Attic Owl 09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral, and a tough call. I'm quite impressed by this user's contributions, and singularly unimpressed with the seeming inability to communicate. As an admin, you will be called upon to be a communicator and a mediator ("mediation" is formal; mediating is daily), so I expect I'd support with the knowledge that this candidate can step in and referee. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Mets501

Final (82/5/0) Ended 01:20, 2006-08-13 (UTC)

Mets501 (talk · contribs) – To begin with, Mets501's first RfA can be seen here. In that nomination, the main reasons for opposition were lack of experience and not enough User/Talk edits, etc. Well, Mets501 has certainly turned things around since then, and has proved himself a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia. He can be seen participating in AfDs and RfAs, among other things, he has had nothing but positive interactions with fellow Wikipedians, and his article namespace edits have increased, which is evident in his participation in the article improvement drive, and related areas. Vandalism reversions are still, however, a top priority for this user. I feel that this user needs the admin tools, and his work on Wikipedia, as well as interactions with other users, are just some of the many reasons for that. Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to accept :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (sorry for the late acceptance, I went on a wikibreak with uncertain Internet access)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As Pilotguy correctly stated above, vandalism cleanup is a top priority for me on Wikipedia. I often spend long periods of time with applications such as VandalProof reverting vandalism and (always) warning users. The ability to block vandals after repeat vandalism and proper warnings would be a great tool to have, as I have already made 30+ reports to WP:AIV, often waiting long periods of time for an administrator to show up while still reverting the damage done by that specific vandal. I am also involved in AfD's, and would like the ability to close them after appropriate time has passed and there is a clear consensus to delete or keep, or close them and keep them on the account of "no consensus". I definitely have enough participation in deletion discussions to be able to tell (in most cases) whether consensus has been reached. A third "pet peeve" of mine is why, in some cases, it takes extended periods of time for an admin to show up when an "editprotected" tag has been placed on a protected page's talk page, and I would deal with this as well. Finally, I have tagged many articles for speedy deletion, and intend to help clean up the backlog there. Although these four things will most likely be the areas I will be most involved in, I am very open to doing other tasks as well. Also, I will not rush to use the new tools (if they are granted to me), and will instead use them very conservatively at first, following examples from other admins who are more experienced, but slowly using them more and more over time, once I am positive I understand them 100%.

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

A: By far, the one article I have put the most work into and I am particularly pleased about is the Polar coordinate system. Before I started with it, it was a redirect to Coordinates (mathematics) with a small section. Now it is a full, detailed article, which, aside from minor typo corrections and such, was written almost entirely by me. I also created and uploaded all (except for one) of the images in the article. From my answer it may sound like I feel I own the article, but I do not feel that way, I am thrilled any time that the article is edited, and would love for it to be "edited mercilessly" and improved. I am also proud of my cleanup work to Yahoo! Mail (see this big diff and this diff) and the large amount of work I put into Factorization and Polynomial expansion.

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

A: As much as I hate being in conflicts, they are inevitable. One conflict which I remember clearly was one over a deletion debate of an article about MyPersonalEmail.com, and I voted for deletion and the webmaster of that web site did not like that too much. After I was polite with this, he left this for me, and then in response to his message I tried once again to be polite and left this on his user talk page. He never contacted me again.

I hate being in conflicts as much as I hate seeing conflicts occur. One example was when I saw an editor continuing to remove large sections from many pages, and I continued to leave warnings on his user talk page. He then left this message on his talk page. I did not want to lose a potentially valuable editor, so I responded, formally welcomed the user, and struck out the warnings. I'm not sure what happened to this editor since, I like to hope he got an account and continued contributing, as this might suggest. Another example of a conflict which I tried to halt was a conflict over the article Proof that 0.999... equals 1. The talk page was getting ridiculously long in a debate over whether to include a certain proof, and I left this message there to try and solve this.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A: Thanks for the questions. I answered your questions about Category:Administrators open to recall before in the "comments" section below. As far as Category:Rouge admins goes, I personally see it as mildly humorous, but would not allow myself to be placed into that category because it has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and there is also no controversy attached to not allowing myself to be placed in that category.

Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Mets501 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 88 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 9, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 33.46 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 513 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 57 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.16% (8)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.26% (63)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 40.02% (2001)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 62.12%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 37 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3505 | Average edits per page: 1.43 | Edits on top: 20.54%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 53.44% (2672 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 33.16% (1658 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 13.34% (667 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.06% (3 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 52.1% (2605) | Article talk: 3.34% (167)
User: 6.12% (306) | User talk: 18.46% (923)
Wikipedia: 15.42% (771) | Wikipedia talk: 1.04% (52)
Image: 0.48% (24)
Template: 1.64% (82)
Category: 0.08% (4)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0.26% (13)
Other talk pages: 1% (50)

• See Mets501's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• As this seems to be a relatively popular issue, I would like to mention here that, if given the "mop", I would place myself in Category:Administrators open to recall, as I think it is important that the community be able to make sure that admins are acting correctly.
• My edit count: —Mets501 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Username	Mets501
Total edits	7153
Distinct pages edited	4922
Average edits/page	1.453
First edit	18:38, February 3, 2006
(main)	4086
Talk	211
User	500
User talk	1151
Image	48
Image talk	1
MediaWiki	13
MediaWiki talk	44
Template	105
Template talk	5
Help	1
Category	4
Wikipedia	909
Wikipedia talk	71
Portal	4

Support

1. Cleared for Adminship Per my statement above. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support the time is right. An excellent editor who will do well with the tools. Gwernol 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
3. (nom beat me by 18 days) Edit-conflicted Support easily covered all the concerns in the first RfA. --james^(talk) 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, good guy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I've seen nothing but good things from this user. It's a pleasure to express this opinion alphaChimp ^laudare 01:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. All indications positive. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
8. troppuS, seen them around a bit.--Andeh 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, obviously. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 02:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Rama's arrow 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support I've seen Mets501 around a lot. I am curious about those two consecutive wikibreaks, though... that's original. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    I was on two real life vacations with a 5 day break between them; not enough time for a full 7-day RfA :-) I've changed it now to say "a wikibreak" —Mets501 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, I apologize. I didn't mean to make it sound as though my support was lessened by that. I just found it interesting: sort of like saying "two naps back-to-back" instead of "one long nap". Or "I had something to eat after I finished having something to eat". See? Okay... never mind... carry on... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

12. Support Let's play ball! Yanksox 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - good editor, good vandal fighter abakharev 04:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support per nom. Michael 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support looks good. Stubbleboy 05:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong Support Definitely --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. I have thrown a mop at you. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Looks like another good candidate for the mop and bucket.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    08:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Looks good, Support. :) --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
22. {{RfA-cliche1}} Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 09:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support, based on my experiences with the candidate. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Aye. — Wildrick 11:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Cliche --Nearly Headless Nick 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
26. In April I opposed your RfA with a comment of "Intentions seem good and can't find anything overly negative. But it is just to soon, give it a couple of months." and I still stand by that comment, Support. ---blue520 13:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. G.He 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor, and he's open to recall, which is a plus. Xoloz 16:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support No problems here. --Guinnog 16:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-06 17:23Z
32. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Full support. Good editor, friendly, meets my 2k edit requirements; an admin need not like conflict to be a good admin. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Why isn't this user an admin yet? Support! Misza13 ^{T C} 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support -- this is how all second nominatins should be --T-rex 21:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. Yes. —Khoikhoi 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Barely meets my criteria of 200 maintalk edits, and I do find it strange that the nom has over 4000 article edits, and such few article talk edits. But not that strange. Themindset 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    If you're curious, that's because I prefer to interact on User talk pages if it's about something that a specific user did with an article. Of course, for proposing changes to an article or questions for multiple users I would use the Talk page, but otherwise I would use User talk. —Mets501 (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

38. Support per nom, Alpha, and T-Rex. Joe 05:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, changed from "Neutral" based on explanation provided. (Thank you). Accurizer 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Unnecessary pile-on vote -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per nom and what I've seen elsewhere. BryanG^(talk) 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support per above. Stifle (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Edit Conflict Support...no reason not to, many reasons to do so. The fact that they are involved in many different actions inside of the Wikipedia namespace strenghtens my opinion of them in a positive way. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support, although this user needs to water down his or her RfA standards :) — Deckiller 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Edit Conflict & Support Give me one good reason to oppose. That's what I though. Viva La Vie Boheme
47. Support. - SynergeticMaggot 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support happily. Although I'd like to know...how come he can edit MediaWiki:Edittools while thousands of regular users (like me) really can't? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Because it was in his userspace at the time[29]. Yanksox 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

49. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support (after I finally found the darn support box) -- Tawker 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support - Great editor. Enjoy the mop! :) Srose (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Merovingian - Talk 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support While his ~30 reports to WP:AIV is not as many as I'd like to see from a candidate who pledges to frequently watch AIV, any watching would be great, as there are often backlogs there (sometimes for 45 minutes to an hour). Also, the user seems to be quite trustworthy as well, so I cannot see the candidate misusing the tools hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Steel 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Support Vandal fighter extraordinaire! Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
56. Support --Jay(Reply) 23:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
57. Support I am very surprised not to have encountered you earlier! Definite support - Glen 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Support looks great. Wikipediarules2221 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
59. Support per nom. --physicq210 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Support SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Support ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
62. Oh no 62nd support.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
63. Support, looks good and trustworthy. —Xyrael _{/ 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
64. Support - Been waiting for this user to come up for a new RFA since the last one. Mets501 has proved himself to be competent, patient and even-handed. And he meets a lot of famous people... check his webpage. I'm behind this one all the way. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
65. Support Bucketsofg✐ 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
66. Support per nom. - Bootstoots 21:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
67. Support per nom. - CFIF (talk to me) 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
68. Strong support. The efforts of this user blow me away. --Gray Porpoise 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
69. Support, he meets his own RFA standards : ) , those are roughly in line with mine as well. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
70. Support nice guy --Robdurbar 09:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
71. Support, great editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--TBCTaLk?!? 12:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Good user, bad franchise ; ) AdamBiswanger1 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
73. Support, with pleasure. (We really need to split RFAs into sections to make editing easier). --kingboyk 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
74. Support. Edit history shows no serious issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. DarthVader 00:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
76. Support looks very good now, also Mets will win NL -- Deville (Talk) 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
77. Support Septentrionalis 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
78. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
79. Support Great user, no problems supporting :) Thε Halo ^Θ 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
80. Support Not much to add (I hate that) other than I've read through all the oppose (and followed the links) and have read through all the other comments and statistics. From everything I see, Mets will be a fine admin. Brian 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)btball
81. Support - great contributor. --Ixfd64 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
82. Support awsome user --Musaabdulrashid 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oh no, the first oppose. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-homosexualism. Maybe it's just a pet peeve, but if something gets no google hits, it's unverifiable... not "non-notable". This apparent confusion over a core concept of inclusion (basing it solely on notability) makes me uncomfortable supporting the candidate at this time. Shows general confusion about why we have articles... including "This is one of the most visited math articles on Wikipedia" alone as justification for having an article. Also his guidelines for RfA voting seem a little naive about the role of admins... there's no magic formula for who makes or doesn't make a good admin. And if there was it wouldn't have anything to do with edit summary usage. Looking through his contribs I just keep getting this same kind of vibe... sorry. --W.marsh 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   First of all, let me start of by saying that this is in no way meant to change your mind (although you are welcome to if you wish); I'm not offended or uncomfortable with the fact that there is an oppose vote, I've felt the same way sometimes when I just can't bring myself to support something. Anyway, in response to your concerns. In my opinion, a search is one way of testing for notability and possible verifitability of a subject. The verifitability part is pretty obvious: if there are many search engine hits, then a subject can most likely be verified. As far as notability, I don't use a seach engine past the first few results. Basically, if no one on any web page anywhere has mentioned a term, it is obviously non-notable. I don't usually use a search engine to say that such-and-such only got 1200 hits, so it's not notable. For notability, I'm just testing if anyone has used a term before.

   As far as RfA guidelines, I am fully aware that there is no "majic formula" for making a good admin. I have set numbers for myself so that all RfA candidates are treated the same by me, and so that I'm not sometimes "in a bad mood", or "in a great mood". I feel that 1000 article edits are necessary because this is, after all, an encyclopedia, so many article edits shows experience with the encyclopedia content itself. Talk page edits and Wikipedia space edits are a must, to demonstrate user interaction and policy experience. And about edit summary usage: I'm sorry, but they're kind of a pet peeve for me when people don't use them. This is probably also because I do quite a lot of vandal fighting, and no edit summaries makes some edits extremely difficult to judge whether they're vandalism or not. Also, if an editor doesn't almost always use edit summaries, who knows if he'll always remember to put a descriptive summary when deleting pages, or give an explanation in a close AfD debate. I hope I've addressed most of your concerns. Feel free to ask more questions if you have them. —Mets501 (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oops second oppose. 0FA, though I think with just a bit of work Polar coordinate system can make a good FAC. -- Миборовский 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   No problem. It's not a standard I believe in myself, but if you do, that's perfectly OK :-) —Mets501 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose This user has now twice removed my vote and referred to me as a "sockpuppet." The fact that this user is even running for adminship astonishes me. Tchadienne 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Discussion re the validity of this (blocked) user's vote is at talk Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose striking oppose votes on your own RfA is an absolute no-no.  Grue  19:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose, very unfortunately. Per Grue, I cannot imagine any situation in which removing oppose commentary from your own RfA is a good idea, even if you're sure it's a sockpuppet. It's unfortunate, because it was obviously a silly situation and the candidate is excellent otherwise; however, knowing when not to act is absolutely critical to adminship. Marskell 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. I first encountered Mets501 two months ago when I was reviewing AfDs and found that he made an edit to the AfD project page that caused 95 nominations to be orphaned. See [30]. When I brought it to his attention he thanked me, but, on balance, it occurred somewhat recently and I feel I can’t discount it entirely. Absent any other errors coming to light, I am not inclined to oppose, having been swayed by his openness to recall. If a good explanation of how / why this occurred is forthcoming, I would consider revisiting my assessment. Accurizer 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, I remember that. It was certainly not intentional, it was related to this bug. Occasional loss of text box data was spontaniously occuring when editing in tabs in Firefox due to a Google Toolbar bug. I have since uninstalled Google Toolbar and since I did, it has never happened again. —Mets501 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Robdurbar

Final (48/3/2) Ended 20:45, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Robdurbar (talk · contribs) – I've been thinking about applying for this for a while, but what with a couple of holidays that I had in June and July, didn't think it was appropriate till I was back contributing more regularly. I think that in my year or so here I have amassed enough experience and knowledge of policy to be a useful admin. The majority of my work is on creating articles, and I'm enjoying WP:AfC, which I only recently discovered. My main hope as an admin would be further work on similar 'request' style pages - I feel that this is where most users have intereaction with admins and thus is where work can be most effective. I would initially hope to work on WP:RfP and the 3RR noticeboard, before getting into more complex admin areas such as Wikipedia:Requests for investigation.

Anyway, I hope that I have proved myself to be a solid and dedicated user over the months that I have been here and feel that I will be of even more help to Wikipedia as an adminRobdurbar 20:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: What, here? --Robdurbar 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As I noted in my opening statement, I often feel that the place where most users interact with admins is at the various 'request' pages, such as the request for page protection or the 3RR reporting board. As a result, I'd like to help patrol these areas and more complex ones, such as the request for investigation, at a later stage. I'd also appreciate the ability to rollback more easily where I see vandalism, and would throw in the odd helping and at AfD's etc. if I can.

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

A: Well the List of best selling music artists probably stands out as one of pride to me; OK its not perfect, but I'd like to think that the turn around I performed on the page has been pretty impressive, considering too that it's a relatively high profile page. United Kingdom is now a well sourced and full article, and I believe that I have highest contribution levels to that; British nationalism is decent enough and almost entirely me, which adds a sense of pride too.

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

A: The two most obvious conflicts that I have been involved with were at Democratic Peace Theory and British Isles. The former was very early on in my Wikipedia career and I think shows how I started out - bold, fair, but a bit too eager to edit out of my depth and not appreciative enough of the importance of sourcing. I withdrew from this article as I felt that I was unable to help furhter in its development.

The British Isles conflict (the ends of which are still ongoing, but it appears to be settling down) has been much more recent. It flared up whilst I was away from Wikipedia (at the World Cup - jealous?) and was baisically caused by a lack of understanding between British and Irish users. I would like to think that my approach - always considering other points of views, trying to merge the ideas of others - was key in moving away from arguments over the merits of terminology to actually settling the article.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think calling that a 'question' (single) might fall foul under the Trades Description Act! In seriousness, though, I am vaguely aware of this review category, yes. I recall looking at it approximately 2 months ago (I think) and noting that it wasn't particulalry populated. I think that some sort of admin review system would be a theoretically good feature in Wikipedia; clearly, though, we should always make sure that any new administrative proecdure that we create is 'cost effective' - so we would need to create a method that does not take editors away from improving the encyclopedia more than it benefits the community as a whole. I think - without having ever read too much about it - that I would be vaguely supportive of the admins for recall thing and would certainly consider adding myself. What would probably stop me at the moment is the vagueness of the category - excatly what is a ' "re-confirmation" '- is it an RfA style vote, or a discussion? As it's voluntary I can see no harm in such a category as it currently stands

As for Rouge Admin - I was previously unaware of this. However, I think it has been created in good faith as a joke and that this is clear to anyone reading the page. That said, I have my reservations about it - it could be viewed as little more than a personal attack on Wikipedia's critics and as such is not likely to ever help relations. Indeed, if Admins for Recall suceeds in creating a good impression of Wikipedia, then Rogue Admin runs the risk of unintentionally giving a bad impression. As with AfR, I don't see it doing much harm. However, I would not liked to be placed in this category as I don't see it helping the project in anyway. --Robdurbar 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Robdurbar (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 193 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 12hr (UTC) -- 26, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 81.75% Minor edits: 86.46%
Average edits per day: 17.04 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 519 edits): Major article edits: 99.56% Minor article edits: 88.89%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 33 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.18% (59)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 3.14% (157)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 41.54% (2077)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 17.33%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 18 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1568 | Average edits per page: 3.19 | Edits on top: 11.06%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 60.04% (3002 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 9.1% (455 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.48% (574 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 16.22% (811 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 59.5% (2975) | Article talk: 21.82% (1091)
User: 0.86% (43) | User talk: 11.78% (589)
Wikipedia: 3.86% (193) | Wikipedia talk: 0.88% (44)
Image: 0.26% (13)
Template: 0.78% (39)
Category: 0.06% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.2% (10)

• See Robdurbar's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count from Interiot's Tool 2. alphaChimp ^laudare 21:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Username Robdurbar
Total edits 7313
Distinct pages edited 2208
Average edits/page 3.312
First edit 16:16, July 5, 2005
(main) 4673
Talk 1416
User 80
User talk 672
Image 17
Image talk 3
Template 46
Template talk 10
Category 7
Wikipedia 333
Wikipedia talk 56

Support

1. Support per nom. Michael 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support looks good. Rama's arrow 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support There appears to be nothing to fear. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Looks good to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like a sensible, level-headed candidate for adminship.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Nothing really seems awry. alphaChimp ^laudare 22:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Nothing to make me vote against, always a good sign. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I see no reason to oppose. The Gerg 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nomination statement. Roy A.A. 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Merovingian - Talk 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom and above. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - good editors make good admins abakharev 04:41, 6 August
13. Support - no doubt. Stubbleboy 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Wohvere, I stume ót kastern, thaw ebt thwí lal het epople thwí eseth trosnomčilālý gehu tídē tunsćo? RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support A good user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support, good user. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, I've seen him around, he's done good things and I don't see any indication that he'd abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 07:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support 300 WP namespace edits and many more talk prove familiarity with WP, an understanding of the community and the skills needed for advanced editing. --Draicone ^(talk) 11:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Reliable user, no qualms about handing him the mop. Oldelpaso 13:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support no problems that I can see. --Guinnog 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
22. per nom, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support no reason not to. —Khoikhoi 21:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support fine editor hand him the mop Æon ^{Insane Ward} 22:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support His efforts to improve DPT were evenhanded and useful; even if they have been swallowed up again. Septentrionalis 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Good answers, solid user, and meets my criteria. Themindset 05:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Experienced, solid user. Zaxem 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Seen you around. Deb 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. Good candidate that is deserving of the status. violet/riga (t) 22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Fair minded editor, will make fair minded Admin. MelForbes 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. - SynergeticMaggot 02:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support, looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support -- Tawker 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support The 3RR backlog could use some attention and as such, I'd love to see this candidate be equipped with the means necessary to address the situation He seems like he would be a great resource there with his seemingly level head and NPOV (I haven't yet met the user but per a look at his edits and talk page, I feel comfortable with my two cents) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support looks good to me. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support with no reason not to. —Xyrael _{/ 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
38. No reason not to support. Shimgray | talk | 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. More patient than I am with British Isles, for one thing. Alai 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support, edit history looks good; grasps WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and the essentials. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support - impressed by his contriubtions. I'm sure giving him the admin tools will benefit the articles. Aquilina 17:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - no indication editor will abuse tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. DarthVader 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support will use the tools well. --Alf ^melmac 13:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Seems solid and experienced.--Runcorn 15:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support per nom.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Read the subheading "Vandalism and personal attacks" under the most recent archive posted by Robdurbar. Then read the "Recent edits" Robdurbar posted on User talk:Koavf. He either did not understand WP:VAND or chose to ignore it when reprimanding another user. Considering that incident, it is too soon for adminship. NOBS 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Stricken as the user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tchadienne. Ral315 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This was edit conflicted with the above but I thought I'd include it anyway -

Having inverstigated this a bit, I think this came from a time when I engaged with Koavf and User:Wikima on a couple of pages involving Western Sahara. The following diff shows Kovaf reverting an edit by Wikima [31] and labelling it as vandalism. I reverted, on the grounds given in the edit summary. At User Talk:Koavf#Recent edits I questioned Kovaf's labelling of the edit as 'vandalism' - as I explained at the time, I think Wikima was attempting to improve the article and, though I didn't necessairily agree with him, I felt it was an inappropriate revert carried out by Koavf (re Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not)

The quote from WP:VAND that User:Koavf put here on my user talk page seems fairly irrelevant - it discusses edits to Wikipedia policy pages, with which I had not been involved with Wikima or Kovaf (indeed Wikima, has just 3 Wikipedia space edits which were 6 months prior to my interaction with him/her. Thus I think it was Kovaf, if anyone, who had been slighlty confused over policy. --Robdurbar 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak Oppose does not meet my standards with not enough Wikipedia space edits. Sorry. —Mets501 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral

lol, 12 edits off. Ironically, by the end of this RfA I'll probably have 350. Can't win 'em all. --Robdurbar 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 06:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Sorry, oppose. 0FA and too few WPspace edits. -- Миборовский 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Hells no. And dont ever strike out my vote again. Tchadienne 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't me who struck out your vote. --Robdurbar 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I was being a bit silly opposing on such narrow criteria, especially when you're very close to the mark. I just feel that Wikipedia space edits tell a true understanding of Wikipedia policy, but your other edits in other categories outweigh it. —Mets501 (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral, would prefer to see a higher Wikipedia namespace edit count in order to show a better policy knowledge all-round. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Goldom

Final (53/2/1) Ended 13:09, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Goldom (talk · contribs) – I have been working on Wikipedia for some time now, and recently have been finding myself more and more in situations where I feel I could be doing much more good with admin tools. I have been around a long time (registered late 2004), though to be fair, the total active time is actually around 8 months - I didn't do much for most of 2005. For an account of that age, I don't have a ton of edits, (I haven't looked in a while at exactly how many, the count will show up below eventually anyway), but have been getting much more active in the last 4-5 months. I've been putting off nominating myself, trying to wait for the "perfect time" when I'd have the best chance, but realized that I could be doing the site far more good by just asking for your opinions now, and either using the tools sooner, or learning where to improve so that I can request again in a while. My latest mistake that made me think "now I look bad again..." was a confusion over one of the rules of image deletion. I asked for clarification, thought the response agreed with my understanding, then acted on that, and turned out to be wrong. I now understand correctly, and realize I was perhaps a tad too BOLD for a situation in which I was confused. (To avoid being ambiguous, I edited an image CSD to how I thought it actually was, got reverted, and so asked and learned the truth). What this story is getting around to is that I can't promise to be a perfect admin, but will strive to not use any admin actions (or normal editing actions, for that matter) before thoroughly understanding what I'm doing. For example, I would probably avoid deleting any images for the time being, until I'm fully clear on those policies. However, there are enough places I am confidant in my actions (to follow in the questions) that I believe I could be of use as an admin. I've decided to throw out my inhibitions about how I'll look, and just go for it, as after all, this is about helping Wikipedia, not seeing how many people like me. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The big ones would be backlogs in CAT:CSD and WP:AIV. These are two places that, while not having the biggest backlogs, are rather important to be dealt with quickly. I also have a good bit of experience with both vandalism-cleaning and speedy-tagging bad articles (while I don't know of any way to count how many articles I've tagged for deletion (that have been deleted), my guess would be several hundred, as that is one thing I've been doing since my very beginning here in 04. As for dealing with vandalism, I use the non-admin revert script, so can't really claim I need that tool, but do have experience with it. I report any vandals who persist after the required warnings to AIV, but as with tagging speedy articles, I would rather be helping to reduce backlogs instead of adding to them. Another area I am active in as a user is WP:AFD. I'm not the sort that goes through and does "Delete per nom" on everything, but rather add my opinions only where I feel I have something useful to add to the discussion, and so avoid that much-dreaded "voting". So, with the experience I have there, I could help close old AfDs. I also have no problem with expanding into other areas, once I learn the policies. One I have in mind is Requested Moves, as I have read and understand how to do the admin work in that area.

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

A: I'm afraid I have to disappoint some people here and admit I've never come close to working on a Featured Article, and am unlikely to do so any time soon. I don't have anything against them, but I do much, much more work behind the scenes. It may be odd to admit, but one of my contributions I am proudest of is a string of over 1,250 spelling fixes over the course of 3 days. I know it's not something unique or that no one else could have done, but no one else had done it, and so I feel it was an important (though exhausting) contribution. Another task I've undertaken is cleaning up pages to comply with the disambiguation page Manual of Style, as many are nowhere near what it says. It may also seem like a minor task, but I've found that most editors, new and experienced alike, add listings to dab pages in the format already there - so cleaning up a page early on leads to it staying clean in the future. Most of all though, my primary task is vandalism-cleanup, and this is also the reason for my RfA. It may be a task with no net gain to the project (well, that's not totally true, sometimes all a once-vandal needs to become a valued contributor is to let them know what they're doing wrong), but is quite vital to avoid a loss. For those looking for actual article writing, I'll offer my work on the page Earth Girl Arjuna. It's not a great article, but I rewrote nearly the whole thing, and think it is, at least, much better than before. I also have a list of other work I've done that can be seen at User:Goldom/work, if anyone is interested in seeing more.

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

A: I have never been in a conflict over the content of an article. However, I have had some disagreements over interpretation of policy (in places like AfD). I think the things that stresses me out the most is users being uncivil. I generally deal with this by ignoring rude comments and reminding others to mind WP:CIVIL, if it needs to be said. My only other real bother is when policies are cited to mean things I don't believe they say. I don't assert myself to be a know-all of every rule, and so in cases where I feel others are using a policy incorrectly, in every case I can think of, have simply discussed it with them, explaining why I am reading it a different way. I can't think of any time where I have ever made a personal attack, but rather try to discuss things rationally. I know being an admin does open the door to more stressful situations, and would strive to continue this manner of dealing with them.

Optional question from Viridae^Talk

4. You state you would like to use the admin tools to perform speedy deletions rather than contributing to the backlog. If you come across an article that you think warrants a speedy but you aren't quite sure. What would your actions be in this case?

A: I think the basic idea behind speedy deletions is that they are for cases where there is not only no contention about the case (which would be a prod), but where the article so clearly doesn't belong that there could almost certainly be no doubt. (This is just talking about the CSD for articles - some of the others I can see how there might be confusion, of course. :) So, if I was unsure whether or not an article was speedyable, I think in almost any case it would be better to err on the side of caution and not delete it. When I've come across things like that in the past, I've generally either used a prod, or just stuck it on my watchlist to see what someone else would do, so I'd know next time there was a similar case. As an admin, depending on the case, I would think either a prod, or if I'm really 98% sure, I could always still just tag it as a speedy, and see if another admin agreed with me.

Optional question from Lar:

5. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A: I am aware of both. In order... I think the recall idea has some merits, as well as problems. In the past, I have stated that I don't think admins should be considered above any rules just because of their position. In my mind, it seems that if someone does something that bothers enough people that they would have failed an RfA (if they weren't already an admin), it makes sense to at least question whether they should continue as one. Of course, this is hard to judge - how many people would that have to be? I will say that I think the criteria for removing admins are too high. I'm not saying I have a personal problem with anyone in particular, but the fact that one has to be absolutely horrible before they can be removed could lead to some admins feeling they don't have to be as civil or other such things as they did before their adminship. I don't think this is a very widespread problem, of course, but if gaining adminship is "no big deal" (not that it really is anymore), it seems the reverse should not be "an extremely rare enormous deal". Now, as for the category. I think it has probably very little effect. If an admin is misbehaving, they're not going to put themselves in such a category, meaning only those who have little chance of being asked to resign would even be offering it. I do see the good side of the category, which in my mind, tells users "Don't be afraid of me cause I'm an admin, let me know if I'm doing something wrong." However, there is also a downside - it may lead other admins to feel like they are under attack for not being in it, even if they're doing just fiine. In the end, I think I probably wouldn't put myself in the category, but would certainly be open to any comments or critisicm (I may just put that above line in quotes on my page, I like it now). Now about rouge admins. I think it's pretty much humorous, as the tags and even name and all are written in a funny manner. It seems like a harmless enough way to shake your fist at someone without really being mean about it. If an admin didn't like the label, they surely could always remove it from their own page. I wouldn't be offended if someone used it on me, though I would try to see if I could be doing something better.

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 06:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Goldom (over the 4725 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 584 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 30, November, 2004
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.64% Minor edits: 99.55%
Average edits per day: 34.53 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 509 edits): Major article edits: 99.28% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4725 edits shown on this page and last 4 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.23% (11)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.49% (23)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 43.53% (2057)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 85.95%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 4 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3702 | Average edits per page: 1.28 | Edits on top: 18.26%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 30.46% (1439 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 43.94% (2076 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 22.37% (1057 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.61% (29 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 64.76% (3060) | Article talk: 2.05% (97)
User: 5.08% (240) | User talk: 13.54% (640)
Wikipedia: 10.88% (514) | Wikipedia talk: 1.86% (88)
Image: 0.66% (31)
Template: 0.61% (29)
Category: 0.02% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0.08% (4)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.44% (21)

• See Goldom's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Goldom's edit count using Interiot's tool:

Username	Goldom
Total edits	4664
Distinct pages edited	3655
Average edits/page	1.276
First edit	22:12, November 29, 2004
(main)	3033
Talk	94
User	235
User talk	622
Image	31
Image talk	1
Template	29
Template talk	19
Help	4
Help talk	1
Category	1
Wikipedia	507
Wikipedia talk	87

• Goldom's detailed edit count using Ais523's Tool (click the "Show" link below and to the right) alphaChimp ^laudare 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Click Show to View Results

Article namespace: 3061

Manual vandalism reverts: 20

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 621

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 91

Removals: 99

Redirects: 37

Link as edit summary: 57

Proposed deletion-related tagging: 7

XfD deletion-related tagging: 3

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 2

Deletion-related edit summaries: 11

Addition-related edit summaries: 66

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 3

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 41

Unrecognised edit summary: 1965

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 11

No edit summary: 27

Talk namespace: 97

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 6

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 4

Addition-related edit summaries: 3

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 9

Unrecognised edit summary: 65

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 3

No edit summary: 6

User namespace: 240

Manual vandalism reverts: 2

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 15

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 2

Removals: 1

Addition-related edit summaries: 33

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 1, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 36

Unrecognised edit summary: 105

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

No edit summary: 40

User talk namespace: 640

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 5

Removals: 3

Link as edit summary: 3

Welcomes: 8

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 5

Deletion-related edit summaries: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 231

Unrecognised edit summary: 186

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 7

No edit summary: 6

Wikipedia namespace: 512

Manual vandalism reverts: 2

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 11

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 8

Removals: 7

Link as edit summary: 1

XfD deletion-related tagging: 8

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 7

Deletion-related edit summaries: 52

Addition-related edit summaries: 11

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 12, oppose: 2, support: 9

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 18

Unrecognised edit summary: 329

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 29

No edit summary: 6

Wikipedia talk namespace: 87

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Link as edit summary: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3

Unrecognised edit summary: 66

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 15

Image namespace: 31

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 7

Removals: 2

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3

Unrecognised edit summary: 17

Image talk namespace: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Template namespace: 29

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 2

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 7

Redirects: 2

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 16

Template talk namespace: 19

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 16

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

Help namespace: 4

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 3

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Help talk namespace: 1

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Category namespace: 1

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Support

1. Me. ;) I've only seen good things from Goldom, I don't believe he'd abuse the tools at all. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Will not abuse the tools. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:40, 05 August '06}
3. Support, no clear reason to oppose. I'd like to see more Wikipedia space edits in the future, but that'd really be a bonus. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Edit conflict Support Seems to be trustworthy and hardworking. Someone made an unblock request on Goldom's Talk page, thinking that he was an admin already!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. If I were to choose one word to describe Goldom, it would be... dependable! --Gray Porpoise 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Adequate time and number of edits. See no evidence of incivility. This dif shows Goldom can remain cool under fire and not escalate under provocation. :) Dlohcierekim 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Good responses to questions, as well as reasons above. Dar-Ape 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Will make a good admin. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I haven't interacted with him before, but everything that I've seen here appears to be in order. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support First off, Goldom has shown himself to be a strong, hard-working contributor. Second, I love his self-nom and his answers to the questions. It's obvious that he knows exactly what he wants to do on WP, he knowshow he can be helpful, and he knows what his strengths and weaknesses are. Just from what is written above, I can tell quite plainly that he doesn't think he's perfect (which is good, because nobody is), but that he does his absolute best in what he's good at. Despite not having any interaction with him, I think, from what I've seen in the past few minutes, that he'd make a very good admin. -- Kicking222 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per Kicking222. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support per above. Newyorkbrad 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per above. Michael 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per all good reasons above. The Gerg 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nomination statement. Roy A.A. 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Merovingian - Talk 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Yes. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support. Strong candidate. Good answers to questions. Zaxem 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - looks good abakharev 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support good luck! Stubbleboy 05:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Thank you for running. --Ligulem 09:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Please don't thank me for "voting", thanks :-)
25. Support per answers to questions. Viridae^Talk 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support No problems with this editor that I can see. --Guinnog 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support Though I would encourage you to be tougher with vandals. NOBS 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Stricken as the user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tchadienne. Ral315 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

28. No reason not to... Support ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-06 18:42Z
30. Support, of course. Excellent credentials, and I liked his answers. Another mop over here, please! ;) Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support trust with tools. Pete.Hurd 21:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support as he's trying to help me out now with a sockpuppet that is attacking me, but he doesn't currently have the admin tools to simply block the sock... yeah, of course I trust him with the tools. ;P -Aknorals 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support Seems sensible and level-headed.--Poetlister 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Support, fine. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Support.  Grue  07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. — Vildricianus 11:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support, please help us with the backlogs!!!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support - no brainer here -- Tawker 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Well thought out and reasoned answers and nomination. Agent 86 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support Thoughtful, no problems handing him a mop. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support Very good answers to the questions. Wikipediarules2221 01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support for good statement and answers to questions. —Xyrael _{/ 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
44. Support, clean history, understands policy, no civility issues, fine candidate. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Strong support. Goldom meets my 2k edit requirements, passes civility, is knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies, good nomination statement + reasons for needing the tools, and has some good answers to the above questions. I looked at his talk page and recent contributions, and see nothing troubling. Good to go. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support An accomplished editor who will make good use of the admin tools. I've seen his work at WP:AIV and other places and he's impressed me with his good judgement. Gwernol 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Don't see any issues here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. DarthVader 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. Deserves the promotion. DVD+ R/W 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support, definitely does good work, and definitely could use the tools -- Deville (Talk) 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support - Well balanced and dedicated. Can be trusted with the tools. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 09:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support excellent user all around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Would you mind explaining what you mean by "trigger happy"? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Users standards taken from criteria page: Nominee must be people person, hardworking, civil, trustworthy, helpful, kind, temperance, friendly, have good manners. An understanding of the english language, have a good vocabulary. Understands the workings of Wikipdia and a be good tutor. I find post counts and time on Wikipedia factor toward the above but may not necessary reflect on the person character. Last thing I want to see is another power tripping Admin that deletes the hardwork of other people for the sheer pleasure of destroying other people's work. While I understand there are limits to wikipedia bandwidth, and server hard drive space. Admin should be open minded, and flexible to variation, and have a broad understanding of what is useful everyone else, rather then what is just useful to me. I feel Admin must be intelligent, wise, clever, happy, unstressable do gooders, that has the time to be on Wikipedia, and that will take the time to both smell the roses, and keep things organized with a clear mind.

   Also be aware this user very rarely supports any users RfAs anyway.--Andeh 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   This "user" rejects being peer pressured, or cabelled toward an unqualified canidate. --Masssiveego 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   For the "Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Eliran Diego Herszman may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, all users are entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)"

   In the above, I've notice there was no attempt to determine if there was a spelling error in the name, what research was done to determine this was really a vanity article, or what if any effort was made to confirm who this Eliran Diego Herszman in. A vanity template without any notes of research or attempt to determine the validity in my opinion is "trigger happy". --Masssiveego 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   I don't mean to try to pressure you, I was just wondering what you meant. As for that case, I'm afraid I can't offer much explanation... I tag a ton of db-bios every day, and don't remember that one in particular. I tried looking up the article, but it doesn't exist, so all I can figure (without being able to see deleted edits) is that is was correct to be deleted. I'll admit to have mistakenly tagged a few things for deletion that were in fact misspellings (all that I remember were redirects to red links, though), but I never do so without first making some attempt to see if there was a correct target for them. Unfortunately, sometimes the search doesn't find them. In every case though, the original author has then fixed it, and the problem is solved. In my opinion, tagging something as a speedy shouldn't be taken as an insult, but rather a chance to improve. The tag we leave on a user's page let's them know that if the person is notable, they should assert so on the page. One case I do remember (though not the name of the article) was where I marked a page as a db-bio for having no assertion of notability. I let the author know, and they promptly inserted one, and the article, last I looked, still existed. In my mind, that is the best result of such a situation. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

   Having looked at the deleted content, Goldom was easily seen to be correct. If any established user is interested, I will email them the full content (I'd rather not put it back on Wiki because it has what might constitute private information on it). JoshuaZ 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Sorry, no FA. -- Миборовский 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Fails my criteria by having much less than 200 main talk edits. I would like to see more article development/interaction. Themindset 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Cowman109

Final (65/3/2) Ended 06:23, 2006-08-12 (UTC)

Cowman109 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate User:Cowman109. He has been with us since late October and has more than 3 thousand edits. He is best known as the former head and current coordinator of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal where he has done some excellent work in. He also fights copyvios [32] and vandalism [33], rewrites articles like Henry Ossawa Tanner and partipates in AFDs [34]. He had one prior RFA nomination in Mid-may Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cowman109 in which he was opposed for inexperince and withdrew early but he is much more experinced now. I think Cowman109 would make an good admin. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Cowman109^Talk 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The area I'm most interested in is helping protections in WP:RFP, as I've seen times when the list is not looked at for several days and people are left without assistance. As I'm also usually involved in dispute resolution, proper use of page protection could stop an edit war in its tracks before it escalates further. I would also get involved in WP:AN3, as that area seems a bit undermanned. I would refrain from using sysop powers on disputants in a Medcab case I'm involved with, of course, as that would conflict with my neutrality.

I admit I don't forsee myself hunting out vandalism as much as other syops do, but of course I would deal with persistant vandals that I come across through my watchlist. As people often say, I would also lend a hand at the speedy deletion backlog when I have the chance. I sporadically participate in AFDs and RFDs as Jaranda stated above, more so on RFDs, though only on overlooked or borderline cases. As for AFDs I admit it's usually only ones that I've come across or if it's one I've proposed myself. :).

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

A: Well, in terms of contributions I'm pleased with, I recently found a chain of copyvio articles (which is pretty evident by my recent contribs) which I am still dealing with. Otherwise, generally my article contributions are usually spread between many articles instead of focusing on one in particular. I recently went on a sort of mini clean-up campaign to clear up Category:Cleanup from June 2005 with the help of the people in #Wikipedia-en, which was quite successful.

In terms of major edits, the majority of my article contributions are indirectly through discussion in talk pages or mediation cabal cases. Though, as Jaranda stated, I have made efforts beyond the mediation cabal for pages as well.

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

A: As I stated in my last RFA, I'm generally a laidback person and few things cause me stress, but when things do, I don't hesitate to take a break to put things back into perspective. As for getting into conflicts, well, that pretty much goes without saying. I'm usually the one trying to fix the conflict.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the concept of administrators putting themselves on a page to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed is inherently flawed as it creates a divide between those who are on the list and those who aren't. It basically says that if you're not on the list, you're scared of getting de-sysopped, which is not what it should be at all. I feel that the system is unnecessary, since if an administrator's powers should be taken away for some reason, there are already processes in place to de-sysop him or her. I have my doubts that this new system of administrators open to recall will result in any administrators being recalled because those who put themselves on the list automatically realize they may be under more scrutiny, so it seems to be more of a badge than a process. I believe that all administrators are always open to recall, as of course arbcom or the community can recognize problems and address them, and that this new category is unnecessary and just separates people into the good and the bad. So, no, I wouldn't add myself to that list.

As for rouge admins, I suppose it could be interpreted as having a deeper purpose of making people realize that sysops aren't out to get you and they are here to build the encyclopedia as well, only stated in a more humorous tone. I'm indifferent towards it, however. Cowman109^Talk 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Cowman109 (over the 3379 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 257 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 06, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 23, October, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 20.25 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 170 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 3379 edits shown on this page and last 1 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.03% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.47% (16)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 5.03% (170)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 75.97%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 1 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1101 | Average edits per page: 3.07 | Edits on top: 10.98%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 40.13% (1356 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 32.82% (1109 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 21.16% (715 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 4.53% (153 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 20.54% (694) | Article talk: 8.38% (283)
User: 8.23% (278) | User talk: 25.3% (855)
Wikipedia: 32.88% (1111) | Wikipedia talk: 3.28% (111)
Image: 0.09% (3)
Template: 1.09% (37)
Category: 0.03% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.18% (6)

• See Cowman109's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Cowman109's edit summary usage with Interiots Edit Count Tool

Username Cowman109
Total edits 3330
Distinct pages edited 1075
Average edits/page 3.098
First edit 04:12, October 23, 2005
 
(main) 671
Talk 282
User 269
User talk 842
Image 3
Template 37
Template talk 1
Category 1
Wikipedia 1108
Wikipedia talk 111
Portal talk 5

• Cowman109's detailed edit count using Ais523's Tool (click the "Show" link below and to the right) alphaChimp ^laudare 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Click Show to View Results

Article namespace: 692

Manual vandalism reverts: 35

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 186

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 103

Redirects: 6

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 3

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 15

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 311

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

No edit summary: 28

Talk namespace: 283

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 5

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 1

Link as edit summary: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 4

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 244

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 16

No edit summary: 10

User namespace: 277

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 28

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 3

Welcomes: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 2

Addition-related edit summaries: 5

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 1, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 10

Unrecognised edit summary: 181

No edit summary: 45

User talk namespace: 850

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 17

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 3

Link as edit summary: 13

Welcomes: 11

XfD deletion-related tagging: 2

Deletion-related edit summaries: 2

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 2, oppose: 0, support: 0

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 16

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 3

Unrecognised edit summary: 555

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 16

No edit summary: 58

Wikipedia namespace: 1110

Manual vandalism reverts: 1

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 4

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Redirects: 5

Welcomes: 1

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Speedy deletion-related tagging: 8

Deletion-related edit summaries: 72

Addition-related edit summaries: 31

Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 10, oppose: 3, support: 13

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 2

Unrecognised edit summary: 934

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 15

No edit summary: 8

Wikipedia talk namespace: 111

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Redirects: 1

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 1

Addition-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 102

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 2

Image namespace: 3

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 2

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Template namespace: 37

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 4

Unrecognised edit summary: 31

Template talk namespace: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Category namespace: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 1

Portal talk namespace: 5

Link as edit summary: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 4

• Hm, well that's definitely not my edit count. It's completely different from what's listed above, at least. There seems to have been a mixup somewhere. Cowman109^Talk 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  My sincere apologies. I'm just working out the kinks of posting this count, and I mistakenly forgot to correct the userspace transclusion. It should work now. alphaChimp ^laudare 21:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Cabal support. --Keitei (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support The main concerns for opposes in Cowman's last RfA we're not enough mainspace work and lack of time here. Neither of these are reasonable causes to oppose at this point. He has helped at many articles making both major and minor changes. In some cases such as Henry Ossawa Tanner he has completely rewritten the articles. JoshuaZ 06:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Michael 06:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong support as per last nom. Kimchi.sg 06:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Edit conflicted Support. I looked over your contibutions and I am very impressed by your involvement with other users/mediation cabal. Good luck. Viridae^Talk
7. Support. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. - Cabal experience as well as large amount of Wiki-experience indicates a good admin in the making. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Looks like a good admin candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support per above—WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support Yes. Very yes!!! Cowman is a helpful, knowlagable, excellent user, who totally deserves the tools. Best of luck. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. A kind, capable user whose committment to the project is admirable indeed. Brisvegas 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Where-did-I-put-that-"thought you were already an admin"-cliche support for a very dedicated user. WP:RFP needs all the help it can get! --james^(talk) 11:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
14. You betta smile, smile, smile... He'll be great, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Will not abuse the tools. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:41, 05 August '06}
16. Definitely. -- Steel 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Support per nom., etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Will he abuse the tools? Nope. alphaChimp ^laudare 13:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Support I trust the nom, and see no reason to oppose. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Merovingian - Talk 14:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I've seen this user around and believe he's certainly to be trusted with the extra buttons. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Support. This is one of those "thought you were an admin" situations. Any interaction with Cowman has been a pleasure. SynergeticMaggot 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Strong There Is No Mediation Cabal Support. Meh. CQJ 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. A truly hard worker. --Gray Porpoise 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. G.He 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Perfect score. I've actually entrusted cowman109 with much harder tasks than adminship already. Kim Bruning 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Moo. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Excellent editor. Will be an excellent admin. Has a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm impressed with the nom's mediating skills. --FloNight ^talk 21:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Strong Support a great editor that looks like he definitely could use the admin tools. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Strong support per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Strong Support, great asset to the project. Roy A.A. 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Thanks for helping me cite DECv ;) --Deon555|talk|e 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Yes please. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Support He always do lots of work in Wikipedia, and never abused tools. Good editor. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support -- ADNghiem501 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Yanksox 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Seems like a good maintanence person. He has helped to point out some oversighted overprotected pages. I hope you help me out with WP:PP after making admin.Voice-of-All 05:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Support excellent contributor. Stubbleboy 05:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support positive contributor to Wikipedia, including posts aimed at educating editors. Stephen B Streater 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Ack! I got up in the night and look at the auto-updated userpage of mine, and it says "Hey dummy, Cowman109's on RfA" and I just had to stop and give my MedCab Obligatory Support. You couldn't ask for a fairer, more reasonable admin! I'd offer you luck, Cowman, but you won't need it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Support, positive contributor. --TheM62Manchester 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
44. No reason not to... Support ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Support hell yeah! Computerjoe's talk 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Dedicated to helping the project in whatever ways he can - absolutely! --Aguerriero (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support -- per comment on the oppose vote --T-rex 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
48. Support, I think we have nice admin material there :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Has significant experience in controversial matters, and definitely can be trusted. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
50. 50th support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per the above. --Coemgenus 01:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
53. I Tawker with the power invested in me to vote in this RFA do indeed support Cowman109's attempt to obtain adminship. This support does not contain any fine print whatsoever however it comes with no warranty whatsoever and may be backed by uncited claims. Use of this support is at your own risk and Tawker will assume no responsibility for it (and man I write bad legal crap :o) -- Tawker 01:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
54. Support. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
55. Support as solid contributor, will make responsible admin. —Xyrael _{/ 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
56. Support per Xyra: will make a solid admin. Bucketsofg✐ 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
57. --SB | T 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
58. Support. I've had nothing but good experiences with you. You seem very level-headed. Luna Santin 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
59. Support. As I said when I opposed Cowman109's RFA last time for lack of experience, "I anticipate supporting in the future", and here I am doing so. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
61. Weak Support; low on the article work. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
62. Support looks great. No problems here. Wikipediarules2221 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - He's good to work with on MedCab and he's definitely ready for the upgrade. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
64. Holy cow - I thought I had already supported! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Good Cowboy. Weird Bird 13:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In my opinion administrators should have experience on article creation, commitment and improvement and I don't see enough of these to support. Joelito (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hello Joelito : - ) I agree that it is important for all users to work on articles. Our community's primary mission is writing an encyclopedia. That's why I was pleased when I saw the work he did on this article with a cleanup tag. [35] IMO, the nom did a good job cleaning up the article and getting rid of one of our many articles tagged for cleanup. Take care, FloNight ^talk 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Nice, but ultimately not enough to change my vote. Joelito (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. No FA? None I can see, anyway. -- Миборовский 23:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   You might want to consider grounding your opposition in logic.--SB | T 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   One could apply the very same advice to your own participation hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Miborovsky means that he'd like to see at least one featured article. That's actually not a bad criterion for a featured article type admin (see RFA talk for my comments on that). Do note that Cowman109 more of a mediator/wikigovernance kind of person. Kim Bruning 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. neutral Little actual editorial contribution to articles, and <1k mainspace edits. Popular enough with the RFA crowd to get adminship, but I'm unmoved by editorial contributions. Pete.Hurd 05:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hi Cowman, in answer to your question about my neutral comment on your RFA. As an admin you will be making decisions that relate to edits made to articles in the encyclopdeia, sooner or later, everything here boils down to what goes into the articles. I think it's reasonable to expect some experience in making substantive contributions to articles. In the past, some RFA voters have voiced the opinion that an sucessful candidate ought to have made a real contribution to an article that has reached featured article status. My expectations are not nearly that high. Pete.Hurd 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Great answers, seems like a great candidate, but I believe that my criteria of 1000 article edits is not overly excessive. Looks like the nom will get the tools, but if he doesn't I will support on re-app with a few more edits under his belt. Themindset 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

#Neutral (edit conflict saved this from being a weak oppose) - Nothing personal, and has been doing some admirable work identifying copyvios in the Scrubs articles. He did (politely) ask me if an article I'd created was a copyvio from certain sources. Since it clearly wasn't, this possibly shows a lack of initiative and confidence in making a simple judgement? (this quasi-incident was very lame and flimsy so I don't want to make a big deal from that, esp. since Cowman was doing admirable copyvio work). My second reason for oppose is that he didn't respond to my reply; just a quick note to say 'OK thanks' would have been appreciated. I think this shows a lack of an important communication skill: asking if a user is being honest in their submissions should be treat with care and optimum politeness. Nothing personal at all, and keep up the great work. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - withdrawn due to subsequent polite msg. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

Ryulong

Final (54/35/12) Ended 20:20, 2006-08-10 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) – Ryulong is a very experienced contributor who has been editing since February of 2006, and has made more than 11,000 edits in his 6 months here. Recently, Ryulong has contributed heavily to the counter vandalism effort, and this is where he has consistently displayed a need for the tools. I have never seen a user that he has reported on IRC go unblocked, and he reports quite a fair number every day. Giving him the power to block these users would help to decrease the amount of vandalism to Wikipedia. Ryulong has also made many valuable contributions to pages in: Category:City of Heroes, Category:Xiaolin Showdown, Category:Power Rangers, and Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project. Ryulong has demonstrated a clear need for the mop, and has given no reason to suggest that he would misuse it in any way. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Ryūlóng 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would assist in the reports at WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:AN, which I already browse every so often as part of counter-vandalism measures, as well as continue my work in the CVU IRC channel by dealing with unrepetant vandals that are alerted to users through the channel. I will also work in the various deletion discussions, particularly for pages on WP:AFD that have been nominated for deletion, and may have been recreated by the original author (I have occasionally browsed through the AFD logs and searched for such links, and either contacted an administrator or listed the pages for speedy deletion under CSD G4).

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

A: I am particularly pleased with my contributions to the various articles about Power Rangers to keep the pages in as good a condition so that one day they can be perhaps Good Articles, instead of fan forums or fan pages. I am also proud of my contribution to WikiProject Hawaiʻi so that finally their ʻokina can be viewed by all users, Internet Explorer editors, FireFox editors, and Mac editors.

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

A: Of the few editting conflicts I have been involved in, most of them have been due to my status as an RC Patroller, as well as some truthful vandal reverts that I had been temporarily blocked for due to 3RR. I have, and will continue to try and defer to others if necessary to prevent my breaking of any rules. There have been some users that have caused me a bit of stress, but to relieve my stress, I have used methods of calming myself, such as taking short wikibreaks to calm myself with music and other stress relievers.

Question 4. by FloNight

Your Wikipedia email account is not activated. Why? Will you activate so that users can contact you regarding admins issues? FloNight ^talk 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer It was only recently (within the past week) that I had even put in anything related to an e-mail address into my preferences. I have not activated this, yet, because I am currently using my personal e-mail address (not a hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc. account). If I can, I will change the e-mail address associated with it to the one I have through school (which instead will redirect to my personal mailbox so I will be able to reply easily). Ryūlóng 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now enabled e-mail from other users. 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

5. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware about voluntary recall/review, but if such a situation were to occur if I were to become an admin, I would not object to such a review. It would give me constructive criticism as to my (currently hypothetical) status as an admin and my faults as an editor, just as the various opposition votes below are calling into question now. I have heard about Rouge admins to an extent, but I have not really looked into the situation (the most I know is that "Rouge" is purposefully used instead of "Rogue", and I can discern that it must mean that the admins have gone rogue/AWOL/amok in some form). I do see that the process of Rouge admins is calling into question the faults of the user, albeit in a humorous fashion. If another admin felt I was going "Rouge", then I would take it as it was intended, constructive (yet funny) criticism. Now, I have to see what "WP:WONK" is. Ryūlóng 23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: I have recently commented on Emory's talk page explaining myself, and I have realized that I made that reversion due to edits made by the IP editor on the talk page, and I checked his edits in the article and I did not pay attention to the time frame. His edits at the talk page were originally reverted by Misza13 due to the sheer size and the alterations of what may be others' comments (several of the comments were not signed, and the IP editor had not made any edits on the page prior), and when he editted, again, I reverted the edits after Misza13's reversion because it was another large edit as well as removals of others comments. This is why I editted the main article and listed it as vandalism. Each time that I have falsely reverted someone, I have calmly apologized to them, and that can be seen in my archives. With the IP editor, I had no means to apologize, as as soon as he found the reversion, he proceeded to personally attack me on my user talk page, accusing me of vandalism, when the entire issue was a content dispute that elevated into a personal attack war on which I did not retaliate. The only comment I made to him after my original warning was an {{npa4}} warning after the capslock tirade. Ryūlóng 05:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I had asked some of the admins in the IRC channels at one point if it was all right to deny unblock requests of blatant vandals that had been indefblocked, and it was said that I could. Ryūlóng 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-- I've already switched my vote once, so I'll not do it again. I am concerned, however, about oppose votes based on "0FA". I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in WP:AFD and WP:DRV are affecting the quality of Wikipedia. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Wikipedia are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas.. :) Dlohcierekim 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user Ryulong (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 17 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 04, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 18, July, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 56.8% Minor edits: 21.62%
Average edits per day: 481.93 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 446 edits): Major article edits: 93.4% Minor article edits: 24.32%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 39 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.42% (21)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 14.92% (746)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 11.71%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 36 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2291 | Average edits per page: 2.18 | Edits on top: 21.9%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 9.76% (488 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0.86% (43 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 41.06% (2053 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 33.92% (1696 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 51.7% (2585) | Article talk: 8.4% (420)
User: 3.82% (191) | User talk: 24.8% (1240)
Wikipedia: 7.04% (352) | Wikipedia talk: 0.92% (46)
Image: 1.08% (54)
Template: 1.86% (93)
Category: 0.18% (9)
Portal: 0.04% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.16% (8)

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

Edit count from Tool2 at 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Total edits	11456
Distinct pages edited	3853
Average edits/page	2.973
First edit	20:12, 6 February 2006
Main	7202
Talk	711
User	228
User talk	1857
Image	345
MediaWiki talk	2
Template	260
Template talk	35
Category	31
Category talk	2
Wikipedia	711
Wikipedia talk	70
Portal	2

Support

1. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — as nominator.
2. Support - Recent good experience with this user, his/her thoughtful consideration of an issue changed my opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Looks great to me. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Impressive numbers! Gladly support. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support (2x edit conflict) – will not abuse the tools. See my standards. — FireFox ^(talk) _{20:47, 03 August '06}
6. Strong support The user seems very competent, has a strong presence on both article and user talk pages (and I'm a big fan of admins who freely use talk pages), has been pegged as an excellent editor by many other editors (as judging from his user and talk pages), and has tons upon tons of edits. I see absolutely no reason Ryulong could not and should not be an admin. -- Kicking222 20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Support. Seems to be a well rounded editor with clear uses for the mop. Themindset 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote based on this diff [36]. I will wait to see how this RFA plays out. Themindset 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Reaffirmed support. I find the nominee's explanation of the Emory diff satisfactory, I don't see him abusing the tools. Themindset 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support per my experiences with the user. G.He 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Rama's arrow 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support I've seen this user often on RC patrol and I believe the extra buttons will allow him to become much more productive hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Couldnt find anything I'd disagree with. Contributes pretty much everywhere. SynergeticMaggot 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support I've seen you around and you're a great editor. You'd be even better as an admin. Roy A.A. 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per nom. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support for reasons of my own, though I'd like to suggest being careful with that block button. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per nom and consistent with my standards. Joe 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Strong support Requests for adminship/Ryulong is a dedicated, hard working wikipedian that has shown me sound judgement, I have no problems in supporting him, the diff's in oppose fail to sway me Benon 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Weak support Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters. based on edit count and time meet User:Dlohcierekim#Standards. However, I agree with User:Jaranda that the User:68.221.59.61 - Emory University affair could have been handled better. Comment- After reviewing 68.221.59.61 Contribs and User_talk:68.221.59.61, I believe the edits were questionable but not quite vandalism, and that the situation escalated beyond reason. I would suggest that User:Ryulong step back from confrontation and be a little less quick on the draw-- or to condemn. I was RCPatrolling at the time and almost tagged User:68.221.59.61 myself. Either User:Ryulong beat me to it or I had a doubt and stopped. The other item marked by Jaranda also concerns me. We are less WP Police than coaches. Wikipedia is not a paper (or granite) encyclopedia. We can always change edits we don't like. We cannot bring back editors driven off by overly zealous RCPatrolling. :) Dlohcierekim 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

17. Strong support - great vandal fighter and a dedicated editor abakharev 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Does this user ever sleep???? Crazynas ^t 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    True Wikiholics don't sleep. ;) --Andeh 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Sleep is for weak people. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

19. Support. Maybe he can sleep when he becomes an admin...I hope. Excellent user. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Support, good vandal fighter, editor, will make a good admin. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong Support His dedication to this project speaks for itself. Although, he had made a few mistakes along the way (see the oppose comments), it is not right to view them in an exclusive manner. His positive contributions outweighs the negative edits considerably. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Only positive interactions with this user, plus he has four time my edit count! RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support I have seen this user's diligence and hard work and support this nomination. Michael 04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Good user; admin powers will be in good hands Brian | (Talk) 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support He deserves to be an admin. dedicates himself to hard work on Wikipedia for becoming admin. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Support, reasons under oppose don't make me think the user will be a bad admin.--Andeh 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
27. I doubt he'd abuse the tools, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support, meets my requirements, and everyone makes mistakes. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support take the mop :P —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Deb 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Support ticks all my boxes! A solid user. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Support per nom! —Khoikhoi 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. - Mailer Diablo 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Supprt'. As per nom. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Strong Support. I've worked with him in the past and found him to be a good, responsible editor, and a hard-working vandal-fighter (which is why I'm temporarily coming out of Wikibreak to support him). Also, I commend him for not mollycoddling those who come to Wikipedia to destroy its integrity. jgp (T|C) 01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Ho-hum. I had been mentally mulling over (granted, I have a tendency to mentally mull things over without actually doing them...) a longish nomination for this user when I see I've been beaten to it. On the "rvv" thing: There are much worse crimes. I've seen it a few times, and it has sometimes bothered me (only sometimes; most of the time they are without a doubt bad edits that should be reverted anyway) and I had been meaning him to needle him about it. So, yes, he's made mistakes in the past, and I'm glad that this RFA has highlighted them; there is no doubt in my mind that he will learn from them. The long and short of it is, however, that he's a good editor who knows what he's doing. As such, he should not be denied use of administrative tools, as far as I am concerned.--SB | T 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Support -- Tawker 06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Adult Fan of Lego Support - Friendly editor, experienced. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Strong support Strong RC patrolling record; appears able to handle things in a calm manner. Seems to be handling the User:YourCousin issue well. A few mistakes are inevitable for a dedicated RC patroller, given the blur that RC edits can become. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 10:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
41. Support MER-C 10:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong support Already a valuable contributor, Ryulong's potential as an admin is extensive. --Gray Porpoise 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
43. Strong support I have seen him at work shows he is a valuable user Betacommand 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
44. Support Most of Ryulong's edits that I've personally witnessed have been AFD contributions and RC patrolling, and have mostly indicated to me that the contributor will be a responsible admin. — NMChico24 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
45. Full support. This editor is a valuable part of the project; I'm confident that now or later, whenever this editor is given the mop and bucket, it'll be a net gain for Wikipedia. The opposition votes seem overly picky. Give this editor a mop! JDoorjam Talk 06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
46. Strong Support. Active vandal-fighter and helpful in patrolling edits on a wide variety of articles. Often I'll go away from a page briefly intending to come back and fix it after a short break, only to find he's already done what I'd intended.--Rosicrucian 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
47. Support --CFIF (talk to me) 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Support - Keep up the good work against vandals! With the right tools, they won't know what's hit them! Wikiwoohoo 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Duplicate

    Support - a very friendly, reliable and consistant editor. Wiki would benefit from Ryulong getting the mop. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Duplicate

48. Support He'll be a good one. rootology (T) 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. Huge asset to counter-vandalism efforts; I will heartily encourage you, Ryu, to work on civility and AGF-ness, because some people have brought up good points in that regard. On the other hand, your effectiveness as a vandalfighter will be dramatically increased by the extra buttons, and I don't believe I've ever seen you !admin for a bad block. Good luck. :) Luna Santin 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. DarthVader 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
51. Support very dedicated editor, i believe he will make a great admin. Wikipediarules2221 01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
52. Support active vandal fighter. --physicq210 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
53. Support as per nom. Kitia
54. Support Impressive record.--Runcorn 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose active vandal fighter but too new in my opinion [37] was worriesome, as he never did vandalism, instead he was blocked for 3rr content dispute. I don't see any vandalism from edits like [38] nither. I'll support in 3 months. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Too new? Your points are valid, but he has been here six months. — FireFox ^(talk) _{21:22, 03 August '06}

   I know of an unnamed admin who RfA'd one and a half months after joining the project and who is currently a well respected member of the MopSquad.... :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   I mean too new as not experinced enough yet. Those edits are from 2 days ago. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, I guess I don't follow. Which edits? Ryulong has been here 6 months, or are you talking about something else? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Jaranda's got a point: the second link's edit summary is rvv when it's clearly not vandalism, a big pet peeve of mine; I see rvv used far too much, and for things that are not vandalism.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   The edits he's refering to are above. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Fails WP:civility and WP:assume good faith. The Emory University incident is very disturbing. If he had the mop, I wonder when he would have blocked the anon user and for how long. How many potentially good editors has he turned away from Wikipedia? Looking at his Talk page, I see some other cases of shooting from the hip (reverting content changes). Large volume anti-vandalism probably does that to you -- but administrators need to be able to step back. In addition, I have also seen an instance of what appears to be making up rules (anonymous users and user pages). Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose I'm going to have to oppose given the all-too-recent Emory U incident. AdamBiswanger1 03:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per the Emery U diff. Kimchi.sg 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I think that you need a little more time to learn how to identify vandalism accurately. -- JamesTeterenko 03:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Reluctant Oppose. You are a great vandal-fighter, and I see your name often on the vandalism-reporting boards... but rvvs for non-vandalistic edits stick in my craw. I could be convinced to change my !vote, if there was a good reason, though.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose I see you on IRC countervandalism channel, you do hard work at fighting vandalism. But, I'm afraid you too quick to want rangeblocks for long durations for petty vandalism, too quick to use the summary 'rvv' for all reverts, too quick to assume vandalism and bad faith. When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies. There's too much biting on the newbies. You need to get a lot more good faith and wikiettique toward people who make newbie mistakes. Rethink how wiki treats its newer users, who aren't accustomed to policy, and do want to help, but make otherwise silly mistakes. Example: [39], they didn't know. They may not even know the history exists. And if they did, they'd likely be driven off by you telling them to go back to their fanforum. Here, [40] where you attack the anonymous editor for mistyping 'meet' into 'meat'. There's other stuff. Edit summaries, and lack of real project space edits, tagging images with fair use tags w/o also adding fair use rationales... I do not believe you are ready, Sorry. Kevin_b_er 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

   If that's the worst difs you can come up with, then I think you are over reacting.--Andeh 09:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Sorry must Oppose per these diffs [41], [42] [43] and other points made by Ted and Kevin_b_er. The diff. shows that the nom is not well acclimated to Wikipedia culture and does not fully understand how to implement policies and guidelines. Also the nom does not have their Wikipedia email activated. FloNight ^talk 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose as per TedE and the Emory University diff. Too recent an incident. Sorry. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose In addition to the Emory University incident, I noticed that the nominee reverted this piece of vandalism (if vandalism is the correct term to use) and then a whole five minutes later gave the user an unnecessarily harsh warning, even though the user had already been warned for the same incident. These kinds of things are appearing to occur too often for my comfort. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose based on various oppose diffs. Lapinmies 13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Jaranda. I was under the impression that only an admin could review an unblock request, so Ryulong had no business reviewing the block. (Not stopping him leaving his own comment, but to replace the unblock template with the unblock reviewed template was very odd in my book. Especially when it states that the block has been reviewed by an admin. Other things brought up - especially with regard to the attitude to newbies also worry me. I will consider supporting a few months time if you change your attitude. Viridae^Talk 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong oppose at this time for all of the above reasons, with no prejudice against supporting the user for a future adminship once he's a little more familiar with the system. I'm concerned by all of the whack-a-vandal admins we're trying to move up lately. -- nae'blis 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong oppose per apparent lack of knowledge of basic rules. MonsterOfTheLake 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm assuming the main reason your opposing is because of the dispute you had with the user on your userpage.--Andeh 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    The nominee did not know the user page policies. I believe that it should be taken for granted that any nominee would know the MOST basic policies. MonsterOfTheLake 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Looks like the user was warning you for removing warnings from your talk page, and it carried on for a while. Looks like it is still occuring, See MonsterOfTheLake talk page history for more info on this.--Andeh 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Actually, I'm right in the situation -- but never you mind that, must help out your buddies right? Even if I were at fault here (I'm not, and you could already click on the link from all my sigs, no?), it still has no place in the adminship discussion. You can't simply attack critics. Whatever I do, it still doesn't take away the fact that this user acts on his friends' influence, doesn't contact the user he exerts force on, and did not, until I pointed it out today, know a very simple userpage policy. MonsterOfTheLake 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Why are you accusing me of helping out my "buddies", I simply gave the link so other users can see the situation. For someone who has "Wikipedia sucks" as a userpage and has edit summaries like this, I think it's important to give users links to any situations that are occuring so they can make their own decision whether to support or not.--Andeh 12:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Indeed: You appear to have indicated that you do not want any messages on your talk page, and have blanked it repeatedly. Your talk page is in fact the page for other users to communicate with you; it is distinctly seperate from your user page, and its policies are different. Removing warnings and messages indiscriminately from your talk page without archiving them is not permitted; there's even a template for warning users about this, which Ryulong correctly used in your case. I'd suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies and etiquette, MonsterOfTheLake. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

16. Oppose due to fresh improper rvv use, per above Oppose diffs. Please review our policies. Vandalism generally occurs when the editor clearly and intentionally, in his/her own mind, intends to reduce the quality of WP. Just posting something many would disagree with is not vandalism. After you show understanding of this issue for a couple of months, I would support the nomination. We do need vandalism fighters and thank you for the effort - don't give up! Crum375 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Mild Oppose Not good awnsers to the questions, and also per above. Maybe later. --WikieZach| talk 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Polite oppose. An excellent editor, but one who needs to work on civility some more. Not everyone who makes a bad edit does so out of assholishness. DS 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per basically all of the above diffs. I'm concerned about the newbie-biting, I really don't want an admin doing that. Maybe in a few months if the civility problems are resolved. BryanG^(talk) 06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose Sorry, but just on my rather short observations, I don't feel this editor is ready. KOS | talk 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters. That, on top of the aforementioned incivility tips me to oppose. Editor needs to tone it down a bit and develop a more urbane approach. Please note my comments under my stricken "suport" vote. Thanks  :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment to more fully explain my vote change. I believe the User:MonsterOfTheLake affair, coming on the heels as it does of the Emory affair, shows this user is not ready for adminship. It is another example of overly aggressive over reaction and mistaking a difference of opinion or ignorant error for vandalism. Instead of seeking a meeting of the minds, he tries to bludgeon others into obedience. His apologists do not help my confidence either. Rushing in their zeal to argue with oppose voters, they make me wonder if he seeks adminship more for their benefit than for that of Wikipedia as a whole. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 11:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

22. Oppose don't think he is ready yet, my own experience is of being rather too quick of the mark, requests for page protections and blocks which are in my view premature even if they sometimes ultimately prove right. --pgk^(talk) 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Emory and especially [44]. Not only Jaranda's worries about it being 3RR instead of Vandalism, and thus an unblock might have been okay in some circumstances, but importantly, the fact that non-admins should not be denying unblocking. The confusion over 3RR/Vandalism was one good reason why admins should handle this, not to mention the actual wording of {{unblock}}, which states that "one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request." He was not an administrator, and in my opinion, he needs a bit more time before he becomes one. Ral315 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per FloNight and Ral315. Editor cannot yet be trusted to follow wiki-process, and always to enforce NPOV. Xoloz 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
25. oppose as per Ral315, and diffs supplied by tariqabjotu, etc Pete.Hurd 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Weak Oppose per Ral315, and other diffs above. He's doing valuable vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a slightly more civil tone than I see in some of those edits. I would support in two or three months if there are no recurrences; Mike Christie 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose constructive criticism: please remember to think twice before reverting as potential vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose. He is clearly a hard-working editor, and I would not oppose for making a mistake. Heck, not even a BIG mistake, if he owned up to it and learned from it (which he did in his comments). But I see a poor attitude toward new users to this project, which has an immeasurably larger negative impact than making a revert mistake. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Sorry, I know I've gotten a lot of good vandalism tips from you on #vandalism-en-wp, but at this point, given the concerns raised above, I feel it is best that your counter-vandalism actions be filtered through a current admin until you can demonstrate better judgement on how you would use the tools yourself. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
30. O per Ral's diff - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Mild oppose. He is well intentioned, but I know the user on IRC. He is a little quick to make judgement calls on blocking to give to admins, when blocks aren't merited. I think, if given the tools, some unjust blocks could be made.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Unfortunate Oppose for his use of the F-bomb in an edit summary. A similar scenario was discussed in the recent RFA for HighwayCello (talk · contribs · count). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
33. High edit count but 0 FA? :( -- Миборовский 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    "FA"? o_O Ryūlóng 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Featured article. Miborovsky seems to be saying that only those with a Featured Article should be admins. :) Dlohcierekim 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oh... Is it necessary that admins or people wanting to be an admin have or work on a featured article? Or is it just a really odd Support/Oppose criterion? Ryūlóng 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well, I have my opinion. I think you should judge for yourself. You might want to look at the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Requirements_for_RfA. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

34. Oppose per the comments above and the incidents reported by Jaranda (above) and Xyzzyplugh (below). These leave me with an uncomfortable feeling about providing this nominee with the extra tools. Agent 86 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Oppose per above complaints - assuming good faith is pretty important to Wikipedia, and it looks as though this user clobbered a newbie in the Emory University incident. - Bootstoots 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Strong neutral The above-referenced incident ([45]) is troubling, given the apparent good faith and earnesty of the anon, only to be crushed with a {{blatantvandal}} tag, or something of the like. I would call that biting the newbies. I also do not see any evidence of familiarity with policy. AdamBiswanger1 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Moved to Oppose

1. Neutral Great vandalfighter. We're frequently on IRC at the same time and his dedication to keeping vandalism off of Wikipedia is strong. My only concern is that I've witnessed him being both uncivil and uncool during intense bouts of vandalism against him ([46] edit summary). I have no problem with venting in the vandalism channels, as that's one of their functions -- to support each other during the fight. But when it spills onto Wikipedia it can be a problem. I do not doubt his intent, but being given admin tools may set the stage for more violent reactions. I had informed him of the relevant policies on IRC right after he made this edit, so I am reluctant to oppose as he has had sufficient time to read up on stuff like this, and has made no similar edits since then that I can find. But change doesn't always happen fast either, so I'm also reluctant to support. Just some advice: when you're stressed out from editing, take a break and do something else -- play computer games, take a bike ride, do some housework, anything. Staying cool has less to do with never getting riled up, and more to do with recognizing when you are about to explode and finding another outlet for it. I like to play Sauerbraten and pretend the ogres are vandals. =) --Chris (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per most of the oppose votes. Maybe he could unlearn some newbie-biting habbits while an admin, but maybe a good month of using more good faith and more non-vandal patrolling would be better.Voice-of-All 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per opposition thoughts. Looks like a promising frontline vandal fighter, but could do with a few months of higher levels of civility before being trusted with the tools. —Xyrael _{/ 11:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)}
4. Neutral. Numbers are impressive, history as vandal-fighter shows heart in the right place. But, I can not support when incivility raises its head. If you can convince Ted then I'll change my vote. Ifnord 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Very unsure from above. Attic Owl 04:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Very actiuve vandalfigther but oppose votes raise concern. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral - I have decided to be neutral on this one. On the one hand, Ryulong is an active vandal fighter and has worked hard to fix the mess they make, yet having seen some of the reasons in the Oppose section including the user's attitude towards new users, I have withdrawn my vote, favouring instead to sit on the fence. Wikiwoohoo 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral I have never participated in a Request for Adminship discussion before, and I'm not sure exactly what the requirements for Adminship should be, so I won't be voting. However, I have myself observed what I found to be a potential problem with Ryulong. See User_talk:Cute_1_4_u#A_note. His introductory note, suggesting that Cute_1_4_u essentially leave wikipedia, I find to be unacceptable. Then, when she defended herself, stating that she was improving wikipedia and that she writes multiple articles every day, he responded with "Whether or not you create those articles doesn't mean you are improving the Encyclopedia. Those articles can be about nonsense, or they can be serious. You can write an article about a cookie you are eating or you can start an article about something that has just appeared on a national news program. Creating articles and edit counts are not important. You should focus on quality over quantity". Now, I understand that Cute_1_4_u has been misbehaving, shall we say, she's repeatedly posted copywritten text from other websites, even after being told not to. On the other hand, she's only 11 years old, and she has created a number of non-plagiarized articles, as well as many hundreds of decent edits to articles, so she is not a vandal, just a kid who needs to be watched over. Suggesting that she leave wikipedia, or that her articles aren't high enough quality, are both inappropriate and counterproductive. My concern is that Ryulong, having spent so much time in vandal fighting, has taken on too harsh of an attitude towards those who might be breaking the rules. Having said all this, though, he's obviously overall an asset to wikipedia, and administrator or not, wikipedia is better off thanks to his work. --Xyzzyplugh 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   I am not sure if it is right or wrong to reply, but I was not suggesting that Cute 1 4 u were to leave Wikipedia. I was using a template devised by WAvegetarian to be given to users who treat Wikipedia more like a social networking site such as Myspace. I then proceeded to explain myself to her repeatedly to explain what I meant, but she continually took it as a "Don't edit Wikipedia" message. She and another user (who has been blocked many times due to admission to sockpuppet accounts and personal attack violations) were both given the same message, and I kindly tried to explain to them the true meaning, none of which they took to heart. Ryūlóng 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

   I find it to be a terrible template to use, unless directed towards someone who is, in fact, only using wikipedia as a myspace account. Towards someone who has been a regular editor for a few months, with 1000+ edits, I think it's totally inappropriate. I think the fact that both Cute 1 4 u and whoever else you were warning got pissed off about the template demonstates my point. It may be that I'm wrong, though, and that I'm overreacting to this, I'll leave that for others here with more wikipedia experience to decide. --Xyzzyplugh 00:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Neutral - While I do not think that Ryulong would abuse the mop, I am concerned by several things. First of all, many of the above diffs are a little worrisome. However, more concerning to me is Kevin's allegation that: "When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I'm still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies." I am concerned that Ryulong may fail to assume good faith (especially in the case of newcomers) and "scare" them off. The Emory situation is far too recent for my peace of mind. However, I strongly believe that this user would never purposely abuse the powers and once he gets a bit better at assuming good faith, I will certainly support him. Srose (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral per misuse of that template to try and intimidate someone off the project, and other concerns listed above. --Guinnog 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    As I stated earlier, I was not using the template to try to intimidate anyone off of the project. The users who I had given the messages to have a near equal balance of edits in the Main article space and the user and user talk spaces. They were utilizing Wikipedia more as a way to make friends and play games with each other as much as they were contributing to the project, including making "friend lists" and at least one user made an imposter account of a famous person (I'm not exactly sure of this practice on MySpace, but I do know that the same thing is done on Facebook; Aquaman went to UM for a few months, and Mahatma Gandhi still does, and he also goes to Dartmouth College, Boston College, Purdue University, Louisiana State University, Bard College, Newstead Wood School, University of Pennsylvania, and American University), which was proven through a checkuser. In fact, I have improved the template to make it an even softer warning than it was to begin with (WAvegetarian was once told that the warning was too soft before I asked him if I could modify it). The updated template can be found here. Ryūlóng 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    It's a bit better but I still don't like it. Was there a community consensus to introduce this template? Also, what happened to WP:AGF? --Guinnog 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    WAvegetarian showed this myspace warning template at the bootcamp IRC channel. When I saw the actions of the users through the constant conversation at the bootcamp channel and their extreme use of {{helpme}}, we would constantly find their games. I decided that the template could be introduced to these two first, as they were focusing on "GUESS MY NAME" contests between each other on their user talk pages (along with actual rule violations that they have been warned for, and blocked for as well). Ryūlóng 01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry for not assuming good faith myself there; I had no right to say you were 'trying to' do anything as I cannot read your mind. I was influenced by the fact that the recipient was a little kid. I still very strongly dislike the template and think you applied it unwisely. Just sorry about how I expressed myself there. I wish you well. --Guinnog 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    That is all right. I have found out that the user(s?) is 11 years old, and that they are fairly good contributors to the project. It is just when a good portion of their contributions are focused in the user and user talk spaces, sending each other message along the lines of "Yo, let's be friends," and making a subpage that is specified and named as a chatroom (that may have been a different user, but still in the same boat as the users I sent the messages to) is going against one of the precepts of what Wikipedia is not and what is against the policy of what is not allowed on user pages (although I am unsure as to whether or not the guidelines set there includes what goes on user talk pages). Ryūlóng 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

11. Neutral I've tussled with this for days, and I can't decide. He's a terrific vandal fighter - no question. I've made my share of mistakes in reverting, particularly when I first started, so I know what that feels like. But I share Adam's concerns about premature blocks. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral Ive thought quite a bit about this one (thus the lateness in posting). Ryu demonstrates great tenacity in vandalism reverts and notification, however admins need to display a certain amount of diplomacy and civility above and beyond regular editors, by virtue of their access to the flamethrower (block) together with the mop. If in the coming short-term Ryu demonstrates a bit of mellowing, I'd be glad to support his next RfA. -- Avi 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

---

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 approvals.
• 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

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