Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Shortcut:
WP:RFA or WP:RFB

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who should be an administrator (or sysop). Administrators have access to a few technical features that help with maintenance. A user may submit his own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or may be nominated by another user.

This page is not to be confused with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (WP:RFAr, WP:RFArb or WP:ArbCom).

Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list and how-to guide before submitting your request.

Current administrators | Recently created admins | Unsuccessful candidacies (since April 2004)

Contents

[edit]

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Admins have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to high standards, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. That said, adminship should be no big deal. Almost all admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than a basic level of trust from other editors. However, some users set a variety of standards on a personal basis. See also: Kate's Tool for edit counting and List of non-admins with high edit counts.
You may nominate yourself. Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably as showing initiative and desire to serve the community.
Nomination process
Any user in good standing may nominate any other user. Nominations remain for seven days, during which time interested users register their opinions or make comments. At the end of that period, candidates who receive consensus supported will be made admins. The bureaucrats who handle admin promotions review the discussion to see if a consensus is present (the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75-80 percent support). Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureacrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend the deadline or call for a revote if this will make the consensus more clear. Nominations that will clearly fail may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least a month – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination.
Bureaucrats, please use {{subst:rfap}}-{{subst:rfab}} as a header and footer, respectively, when closing a successful nomination. Similarly, use {{subst:rfaf}}-{{subst:rfab}} for a failed nomination.
How to nominate an editor for adminship
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page.
Voting and commenting
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote, including the nominator (however, because the focus is on whether other people in the community trust the user, self-nominating candidates or nominees should not vote for themselves). To add your vote, click the "Vote here" link for the relevant candidate. You may then indicate whether you support or oppose the nomination by signing your name under the relevant heading.
Please include a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination. Remember that we are all people with feelings, emotions and pride: please respect others in your comments and responses.
Neutral votes are also permitted, but not necessarily counted in determining percentages, although they will be considered by bureaucrats in borderline cases. Discussions should be held in the Comments section. Long discussions should be held on the discussion page of the individual nomination.
[edit]

Current nominations

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.

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

Current time is 02:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
[edit]

Goodoldpolonius2

Vote here (24/1/0) ending 03:53 November 13, 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2 (talk • contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I have been on Wikipedia for a year (minus two days one day), and have upwards of 2,600 edits (Kate's tool seems to be having issues, so I will fill in the exact number later). I have contibuted to a wide range of articles, but feel I have made large contributions in areas dealing with business and innovation, Jewish history, and, unpleasantly but necessarily, the Holocaust. I have authored quite a few articles on these topics as well. For different reasons, all three areas seem to have lots of vandalism issues, and the Admin position would be a real help. Despite occasionally dealing with controversal topics, I think I have generally done a good job in staying cool and presenting well-sourced evidence, rather than opinion, and in changing my views when I learn that I was not correct. Hopefully, you will all agree, and support my RfA. Goodoldpolonius2 03:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
After careful consideration, I accept my self-nomination. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Seems to meet criteria. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 04:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support my experience with GOP2 on the redesign of Template:Jew was favorable.  ALKIVAR™ 05:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, Very even-keeled, cooperative editor; I really did think he already was an admin : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, Excelent editor Zeq 09:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Entirely appropriate. --Ian Pitchford Talk | Contribs 13:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support, Good researcher of materials, honest mediator, and other attributes make this editor an excellent candidate. Ramallite (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support I have had the pleasure of working with Goodoldpolonius2 on a number of articles, including the History of Jews in Poland, and no matter how controversial the topic, he has always kept his cool and could be counted to help with moderation. More power to him! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support--Pamri • Talk • Reply 16:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Strong support. A great editor who cares about policy and has a lot of common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. --NormanEinstein 18:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support; confident this user will not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support--Sean|Black 20:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Good editor and vandal-fighter. --Briangotts (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Excellent editor, good consensus seeker, will use tools well. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support per above comments. Good editor. Orane (t) (c) (@) 02:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose for 9 more years until you have 10 years experience Support of course --Rogerd 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support If he/she is not deserving, who amongst us is? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support, good excellent use of edit summaries, especially to discuss changes in "controversial" articles. Normally I don't vote where I haven't had any interaction with a user, but in this case the contributions speak for themselves. Alphax τεχ 10:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Indubitably --Celestianpower háblame 16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Great user and even has a sense of humor! My type of admin.. I'll be watching you, Goodoldpolonius2 :-) Linuxbeak | Talk 19:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. I have seen him interact with a nationalist POV-pusher. He has patience.--Wiglaf 22:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. A year minus two days is clearly too little time on Wikipedia. Wait another two days and then I'll support you. — JIP | Talk 15:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL. Radiant_>|< 17:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Only one more day until I get your support, JIP. If only time could pass faster... --Goodoldpolonius2 23:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

Comments

  • You may want to consider activating your e-mail link. This has been an issue in past RfAs. Jkelly 04:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I took care of it. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems redundant, but "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:" is empty and I've seen past self-noms still say they accept their self-nom... NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • IMHO the correct procedure is to change it to "for the above reasons I have nominated myself for adminship". Alphax τεχ 10:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I expect that I will mostly use my Adminopower(tm) to revert vandals, and to remove spam, which tends to really accumulate in the business and innovation topics. I have a good eye for copyvios, and would be happy to help users, and I am happy to deal with backlog issues as needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I would say History of the Jews in Poland (now up for FA, please vote!). This was, in my mind, an excellent example of Wikipedia community article building at its best. A number of other interested editors, including myself, started from very different points of view and knowledge levels on the subject, and through lengthy, and only occasionally slightly heated, discussion, we managed to advance the article significantly to its current state. Researching the article involved my digging through the New York Times archives from the 1910s and reading scholarly articles, while other editors spoke to various experts in Poland and translated Polish texts. I learned a lot and I think everyone ended up respecting each others work.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I am a bit of a softie on this, as when other editors (who are not obviously vandals or trolls) disagree with me, I usually try my best to build a bridge -- posting on their user page, explaining my points, trying to develop agreement. I think most of the editors I have disagreed with most vehemently would say that I operate in good faith, and try my best to compromise, even if those efforts sometimes fail. Or at least that is hope they would say, I am not necessarily perfect at this, but I try my best.
[edit]

Johann Wolfgang

Vote here (27/7/2) ending 17:54 13 November (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang (talk • contribs) – So, what can we say about Johann Wolfagang? Well, he has 3000ish edits and 4 months experience not that that's important. The best quality I think he has is his willingness to learn. He's always willing to learn something new. If he doesn't know something, he'll ask. He's also a great vandal-whacker. A member of the The Counter-Vandalism Unit, he's avid and would most certainly benefit from that rollback button and block tool. Finally, he's very civil. He doesn't get stressed at vandals, just quietly warns them. I see no reason not to throw him the mop but, as to not violate WP:BEANS, I didn't just say that. --Celestianpower háblame 17:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Johann Wolfgang 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - I've always trusted the nominator. --Celestianpower háblame 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support - Great guy. FireFox 20:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong support - nice and works hard. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strong support - All interactions have been positive. Great vandalism whacker and faithful shows Wikipedians the Way of the Almighty Jimbo. -- Psy guy (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong support, I trust the nominator, and I support vandal-whackers. Titoxd(?!?) 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strong support. Great editor and overall a really nice guy. Robert T | @ | C 20:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support, confident that he will not abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, four months is plenty :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support four months are more than enough --JAranda | watz sup 22:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support per silly oppose vote. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support your local vandal-whacker! Alphax τεχ 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. "four months is not long enough". Why dont we just make a policy that says we need atleast 2 years experience! Orane (t) (c) (@) 00:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support--Sean|Black 00:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Great vandal figher, 4 months is plenty. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support per freestylefrappe's oppose. Just kidding. Solid record, seems like good match. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support  Grue  05:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support I'm wary of this being Yet Another CVU-inspired RfA, but Johann looks like a top bloke, so why not, eh? Journalist: ideally we'd want 2 years experience, 15k edits, at least one edit war over whether or not George Bush became a Muslim, and a signed note from the user's mum promising that, as far as she's aware, he's never kicked puppies. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support, four months is plenty enough in my books. I have seen some users with half the time on Wikipedia who would be ready for AdministrativePower® almost straight away. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support, I've seen enough to trust this editor will use admin tools wisely. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support would be a great admin.Gator(talk) 20:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support --Rogerd 03:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Enthusiastic and shows initiative. Joe I 03:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support Need more people to fight the invading hordes of vandals.--Alabamaboy 16:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose four months is not long enough. freestylefrappe 20:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose just not been here long enough, your on the right track though, support if there is a next time.  ALKIVAR™ 05:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Time is too short, and even after multiple edits to your questions, they are still not formatted correctly. Reinforces the shortness: you need to learn better editing skills first. Turnstep 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose. Although you have 3000-odd edits, it seems that you're still badly inexperienced policy-wise. As far as I can tell (by looking at your edits manually) most of your talk pg edits are welcoming other users (not a bad thing, but something that inflates the edit count without actually giving you a lot of experience interacting with others). You don't seem to have contributed to AfD discussions at all, and from the tone of your answer to question 1, you don't seem to realize that lots of non-admins can contribute to AfD (and even close consensus keeps after 5 days). Your difficulty formatting your answers implies to me that you simply don't have enough policy understanding to be an effective admin. Your answer to question 3 especially makes me wonder (would you go running to a mediator to solve problems?). This is nothing against you, as you seem like a good contributer, but I haven't seen your judgement in action enough to know that you'd be a good admin.--Scïmïłar parley 22:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Upon further review, and conversation with Johann Wolfgang, I'm switching to a weak oppose. He's definitely polite and civil, but I still have some concerns about policy experience.--Scïmïłar parley 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, still too soon. --Sn0wflake 01:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. My oppose vote is not related to time issues, as I have seen editors with less time on WP, with an excellent grasp of policy. My concern is one of maturity. From what I have seen, this editor as good potential but needs more time in which by participating in the wikipedia namespace, he can develop a better sense of the project. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I only found about 10 edits in the last 1000 that weren't either a revert, a welcome message or related to RFA. Needs a lot more experience of other facets of Wikipedia. Proto t c 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    And what are we giving the powers for, exactly? Writing articles? --Celestianpower háblame 12:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Do you see me questioning your support votes? Proto t c 14:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Besides, the point could be made that an administrator with extremely limited experience writing articles (especially collaborative work) would have difficulty with certain administrative jobs; i.e. factual dispute vs. vandalism determinations on the 3RR rule.--Scïmïłar parley 15:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    To Proto, yes I do in you voting oppose, I'm the nominator ;). Even if I wasn't, however, I wouldn't mind in the slightest. I prefer RfA to be more of a consensus-building excersize rather than a vote and asking for extra rationale/challenging others' opinions is the way I think that, within our current system, we can achieve this.
    As to Scimitar's point, I agree. Personally, with my experience with this user, I think that he is unlikely to be rash in his use of powers. I however take your point and, as presumably you know little of the user, I can understand fully that viewpoint. --Celestianpower háblame 16:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Scimitar and time concerns. "Better safe than sorry" vote, and I'll be happy to support after there is more of a record. Xoloz 02:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Use the preview button more, it took you like 7 edits to answer the questions. Jobe6 20:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. He is not ready yet (only four months in Wikipedia). Carioca 22:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Note: Kate's edit counter is incorrect. You can manually view my contributions here. Johann Wolfgang 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have three requests (strike out once they're done):
    1. Set an email in your preferences
    2. Use previews more I will try to use previews more in the future.
    3. Install the fascist edit summary helper to remind you to use edit summaries!
    Thanks, Alphax τεχ 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


I use edit summaries every time, in fact I used edit summaries 997 times out of the past 1000 edits. I hope that is suitable.
Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would plan on participating in Articles for Deletion, Redirects for Deletion, Categories for Deletion, Templates for Deletion, Images for Deletion, Miscellany for Deletion, Stub types for Deletion, New Page Patrol, RC Patrol, aswell as merging, speedy deleting and removing copyright violations. Being an administrator would allow me to participate in AfD, RfD, CfD, TfD, IfD, MfD, and SfD. I enjoy New page patrol and RC Patrol. The block capability would be useful for blocking persistent vandals (A.K.A. Vandal Whacking). I will continue reverting malicious edits aswell as nominating articles for deletion.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am very pleased with Palazzo Vecchio, it is my favourite article and by far the most researched. I am also pleased with my work on gerbil-related articles, (a full list is here) and have also written plenty of short articles and numerous stubs. I have uploaded a small number (33) of images to accompany my articles. I am also content in how many users I have welcomed (I am always glad to answer any questions to the best of my ability).
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. No, I have never been in any conflict with another editor, been in an edit war, or any dispute whatsoever. I however, if any situation should arise, will be civil and calm, and would not let the situation get out of control. If it did get out of hand, I would contact a mediator.
[edit]

BrianSmithson

Vote here (30/0/0) ending 04:26 12 November 2005 (UTC)

BrianSmithson (talk • contribs) – Brian Smithson has been a Wikipedia editor since March 2003, and accumulated 3313 edits in that time—no small feat considering that he spent 26 months of this time in Cameroon, and considering that he can put together an article like Modibo Adama or East Province, Cameroon in five to ten edits. By no coincidence, he's one of Wikipedia's best contributors on all things Africa, but a glance at his user page will show you the range of his interests. He's also active in categorization work and AfD, has uploaded a number of images, constantly reverts vandalism to his watchlist, and helps out regularly at Wikiproject:Countering Systemic Bias, Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics, Peer Review, and Featured Article Candidates. Brian's extremely easygoing, with a patience and thorough respect for WP:CITE that helps defuse conflicts before they can begin (check out his recent Sam Lucas for an impressive example of his footnotey thoroughness). Ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to present to you, Mr. Brian Smithson. Dvyost 04:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (though I was only in Cameroon for 24 months. :)). --BrianSmithson 15:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong West African RPCV Support as nom. --Dvyost 15:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support Solid contributions. Should make a good admin. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 16:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Private Butcher 17:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, unreservedly. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support FireFox 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Kirill Lokshin 18:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. No problems here.--Sean|Black 19:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. PRueda29 | PTalk29 20:38, 5 November 2005
  10. Support hope we don't lose a good Africa editor though. Dlyons493 Talk 21:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, confident he will not abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. I like his work categorizing articles and reverting vandalism. Carioca 22:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Backlogs everywhere - we need more admins. This one will do fine. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support --Rogerd 04:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support - Well deserved. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Orane (t) (c) (@) 05:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support Brisvegas 06:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 12:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Peaceful Support. - Darwinek 13:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. On the whole, support, but I'd like to see you being more careful in the future. That, or becoming an alcoholic. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support.  Grue  05:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support w/ a caveat anyone dedicated enough to work on wiki while in cameroon gets major props. As you've shown a slight bit of "jump the gun"-itis, this support comes with the caveat that you please google anything before you speedy it.  ALKIVAR™ 05:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Another taquila fan, eh? Actually, that sounds like a really good rule of thumb. I'll be happy to adopt it. --BrianSmithson 12:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support, polite and lots of great edits. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support, Tony the Marine 06:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Seems to be a mature, experienced editor who wants to help with requested moves, and answered the questions very well. Turnstep 14:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support - excellent work on Cameroon-related articles, definitely a trusted contributor. Warofdreams talk 14:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Good edits, will use tools well. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Definite support Proto t c 12:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Great editor, more admins watching over Africa articles (and all of wp) won't hurt a bit. I'm sure he'll continue making excellent contibutions, too. Smmurphy 15:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Hall Monitor 18:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Looks good! Linuxbeak | Talk 19:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. As Dvyost said, I'm involved in articles for deletion, so I would definitely keep working there, but I'd also be able to close out discussions and carry out consensus. Similarly, I'd like to help out on requested moves; I haven't been very active there, but with admin abilities, I would be able to be. Then there's the old standby of vandal thwacking. My watchlist is growing pretty large, and I'm always keen to revert malicious changes when I spot them. I also do recent changes patrol from time to time. Probably most importantly, I'm quite eager to continue to help out new editors. I know that this doesn't require admin powers, but sometimes that extra "title" seems to serve as an extra level of reassurance to a newbie that the person helping them does, in fact, know what he or she is talking about.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Most recently, I greatly expanded minstrel show. I had written the original draft of that article back in April 2003. The article was later criticized for being too whitewashed of an account. Well, I was in Cameroon when this point was raised and was thus unable to respond to the criticism or help correct the problem. Upon my return from Cameroon, expanding that article loomed large on my to-do list, and I think my recent efforts have greatly improved the piece. (In my defense, the original article was written with little else in mind but to kill a red link). Speaking of red links, I'm also happy with the supplemental articles I've written to kill minstrel show's red links. There are a few left, but I should have several of those thwacked in the next couple of days.
I'm also quite proud of the Cameroon-related articles I've done. One goal of Peace Corps is to increase awareness of the developing world in the developed, and Wikipedia has been a wonderful vehicle to do that. I've done several province articles (see, for example North Province, Cameroon or South Province, Cameroon), and I've done some ethnic group articles, as well (see Duala peoples). More tangentially related, there's Mami Wata and my photos.
Then there are my Featured Articles. Felix the Cat was the first of these. It was randomly up on Featured article candidate one weekend when I came into Yaoundé, so I was able to help it achieve Featured Article status. More recently, Lakitu was promoted.
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've been fortunate in that I haven't encountered much in the way of edit conflict. My favored corners of Wikipedia tend to be lightly trafficked and populated by very mellow editors. However, I have dallied in video game and other "fandom"-related articles. The angriest I've ever been is probably in the dispute visible at Talk:The Star Wars Holiday Special. Note that the user I was addressing was an admitted vandal; see his userpage. More typically, my "disputes" look like the discussion at Talk:Minstrel show. I try to be very transparent in my edits, especially when someone else's work is being removed.
[edit]

Psy guy

Vote here (38/2/1) ending 02:51 November 12th, 2005 (UTC)

Psy guy (talk • contribs) – Psy guy has been here since July 19th and he's amassed two thousand something edits. A chunk of these are in the user talk space, which is a Good Thing as the number one quality for an admin in my opinion is the ability to interact. He can be seen closing AfD's too, and so far every close he's done has been fair game, so we know he does some of the admin side of things... He has over 500 article edits, so he's contributing to the main goal of the wiki, and he's a very active member of the welcoming committee. Psy guy is never afraid to ask for help, and won't charge ahead blindly when he doesn't know what he's doing. But when he does know what he's doing, he does it... There is nothing in my mind telling me he won't make a great admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am very flattered and truly honored. I accept. -- Psy guy (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Totally deserves it, great vandal slayer. My interactions with him have been nothing but positive. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support I thought he was a admin already --JAranda | watz sup 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Suport- Good vandal-whacker.--Sean|Black 03:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Cool. JuntungWu 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Toh. Tuh. Lee. Good luck, sir! These tools will keep vandals at bay, and I know you'll use them wisely. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 05:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support vandal whackers. Titoxd(?!?) 05:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Orane (t) (c) (@) 05:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Week Support - I dont know this user to well. But I am pretty certiant that they remove vandalism a bit --Adam1213 Talk+ 06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. A solid Wiki-contributor. Brisvegas 08:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Month support OK so he doesn't write many articles? But if he's happy to clobber vandals and let others get on with writing articles in peace - that's fine with me. --Doc ask? 09:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support - I've had nout but good experiences with this user - vandalwhacking makes a great pastime as this user hs found out. --Celestianpower háblame 11:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support - different people contribute different things, and vandal-whackin' is a contribution that merits (and would be assisted by) an award of admin powers. BDAbramson T 14:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support I like that he welcomes newbies and removes vandalism. However I suggest some more article contributions. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Private Butcher 17:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support; am convinced that he would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support FireFox 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support GraemeL (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support - Nevica 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support --pgk(talk) 00:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support Absolutely no reason to deny him tools that will make him more effective at working for us. But be careful to use the blocking option with restraint and discretion :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support - I've seen him in action. A good vandal-fighter. Owen× ☎ 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support --Rogerd 04:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Certainly. -- Essjay · Talk 05:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. - A solid Wikipedian. Brisvegas 10:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 12:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Never let it be said I can't jump on a good bandwagon as it comes thundering by. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. A good guy. Dmcdevit·t 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support; I see him on vandal patrol a lot. Nice work, apt to be a good admin. In addition he works well with others. Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support, seems to handle tasks well that could be boosted even more with admin tools. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Yes. Radiant_>|< 10:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. No cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Keep whackin those vandals! --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 05:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support - excellent contributor. --Ixfd64 18:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Super-duper extreme support. I like vandal whackers! Linuxbeak | Talk 19:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support MONGO 02:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose He seems to eager to please, will he be able to go counter to the admin culture of deference to other admins when it is the right thing to do?--Silverback 16:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If he defers to other admins when it is the right thing to do, how would that be a bad thing? Radiant_>|< 10:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose hasnt been here long enough yet, while his vandalwhacking is a good start, I just dont feel ready supporting this user at this time, definately in the future tho.  ALKIVAR™ 05:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. A majority of his edits are welcoming new users and to his own user page. Looks like he has a done a lot in the way of attacking vandals. Would like to see more contributions to articles. --Holderca1 04:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I feel that I should add that I am a "previewist" in that I use the preview button extensively. Therefore, many of my article edits are under-estimatedly because I may make several changes to articles in only one edit. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment lot of edits to user page. page vandalized by logged in users with few or no contribs,Bobzombi22 (who also has a font emphasis habit,Crypt-Out (really suspicious only interacts with Psy guy) . check user page history. smells like a sockpuppet. plain enough to see.-163.20.85.7 07:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC.163.20.85.7 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I confess! I do make a good number of edits to my user page. It it pretty much my sand box. If I am learning how to do something new, I try it in my user space first. I have a proper sandbox that I use to hide things or just work on things before I put it on my user page. Also, my user page has a lot of very useful links that I refer to commonly. I ususally keep a tab open to my user page when I am on just in case I need something fast. To the other comment, I haven't thought about Crypt-Out in a long time. That was when I first really got into RC. It was actually kinda fun: He would blank a page, I would revert it back, warn him, then he would blank my page. Aww ... memories. :-) -- Psy guy (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • MarkGallagher deleted my comment. The ip's can make comments but of course cant vote. This user violated policy when he reverted my comment.163.20.85.7 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I deleted his comment. I was under the impressions that anons weren't allowed to vote/edit/anything RfAs. I have since been told that this impression was incorrect. Fortunately this fellow has reiterated his comment, so I've not had to dig it up and restore it. I am sorry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a few comments after spending some time looking through your contributions: First, nearly 400 of your edits (385, to be exact) have been welcoming users. While not necessarily a bad thing, they can make the number of edits (which, by the way, I can't tell, since WP:KATE seems to be down) seem inflated. In addition, many, if not the vast majority, of the other user talk comments are either warnings or have an edit summary of ~~~~ (see [1]) — in the future, would you mind using a more descriptive edit summary? Also, I don't mean to be critical, but with the large amount of warnings and welcoming, your user interaction level doesn't seem to be exceptional, though it seems to be adequate. You have recieved 83 comments on your talk page, which isn't exceptional, but enough for an admin candidate (my opinion, of course). Second comment — it doesn't really matter, but I note on your edits and on your monobook that you've been using the rollback Sam has developed. Just out of curiousity, where did you first hear about it, and why did you decide to use it? Third comment: you've been closing AfDs as keep. In the future, would you mind placing a notice on the article talk page that it survived an AfD? Thanks. Finally, my apologies for grilling you — I had an impulse to look into your contributions more deeply than I do normally for RfAs in which I vote on. :-) Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Firstly, I have really enjoyed RC Patrol, so I want to continue with vandal whacking! The block tool will certainly come in handy with this. I am sure that the guys (sic) in IRC are tired of me asking them every 10 seconds to check a vandal for blocking. Secondly, I enjoy closing AfD. Right now, I am trying to be careful to only close those that are for sure keeps. Being an admin should allow me to work more efficiently in AfD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I confess that I have not done a lot of article work. I am proud of Pathological gambling since that was were I started when I joined Wikipedia. I am working on the article off site a little at a time, but it is slower than I like. I am very proud of some of the vandalism that I have rolled back. Coming to the aide of the Almighty Jimbo is an ego boost for sure! If I can speak of "contributions" in general, I would say that I am most proud of my rollbacks. (None have been contested by legit users!)
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. Not really. I try not to let things get me. I try to get advise from other users and maintain NPOV. In the future, if I am faced with great conflict and stress, I will try to continue as I have and back up, take a breath, and deal with it diplomatically.
[edit]

Cryptic

Vote here (64/1/0) ending 21:27 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cryptic (talk • contribs) – Cryptic has been a member of the Wikipedia community for approximately a year and a half (one year as anon, and five months as registered). As a registered user he has accumulated 5600+ edits over a broad distribution of namespaces. He has been very active in vandal fighting with more than 500 reversion edits. He has also been active in copyright issues, transwiki issues, WP:TFD, and discussions on criteria for speedy deletion (each with more than 100 edits). As he describes himself, he does not stress easily ([2]), he is polite ([3], [4], [5]), and offers carefully crafted advice to admins on a regular basis ([6]). Where most of you have probably seen his work has been in WP:AFD where he has contributed more than 1,000 edits. He is possibly one of the most, if not the most, active contributor in that arena. He is devoted to the AFD process and has even crafted the bot Crypticbot to locate orphaned AFDs which he has used to great effect. It is my great pleasure to nominate this very deserving candidate. --Durin 13:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I accept, and am more than a bit embarrassed by Durin's effusive praise. —Cryptic (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per above. --Durin 13:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. I was so shocked that Cryptic was not an admin I nearly fell out of my chair. Very strong support. Thanks for doing this, Durin. encephalon 13:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, yes please, for sure, per Durin. -Splashtalk 14:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. OMFG You are not a admin Support Excellent work in AFDs --JAranda | watz sup 21:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support - will make a perfect admin, no question about it. Owen× ☎ 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. {{subst:admin-cliche}} --GraemeL (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support. A great user who will be a great admin. Canderson7 23:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Short, cryptic statement of support. ~~ N (t/c) 23:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support but not enough edits ;) --Doc (?) 00:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support completely deserves this, I had no idea he wasn't one. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support Shimgray | talk | 00:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Yeah yeah... Redwolf24 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Enthusiastic support! Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Good experiences with Cryptic, no reason to oppose. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. He isn't one? Really? No, seriously? *jaw drops*--Sean|Black 01:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support per nom. --Holderca1 01:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Robert T | @ | C 02:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support and First person getting my new award! Private Butcher 02:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Michael Snow 03:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Wait wait wait... Wasn't him an admin already? Support. --cesarb 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support excellent user, does good work, Durin's nom was rather convincing.  ALKIVAR™ 03:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. --Alan Au 03:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support, RFA Cliche No. 1. Titoxd(?!?) 03:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Vote is barely necessary, as everybody assumed he was one. Xoloz 03:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support of course Dlyons493 Talk 03:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Cool. JuntungWu 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Orane (t) (c) (@) 05:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. I trust Durin's analysis, and this guy's bot seems great. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 06:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support as per nom.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support per nom. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 07:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. And don't be embarrassed, it's accurate. Grutness...wha? 10:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support this very experienced contributor. Marskell 13:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support; believe he would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support FireFox 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support RfA cliché #1 -- Psy guy (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Clear unfuddled support. Again... he's not an admin already?! Wonders never cease. :) Jacqui ★ 20:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. Thought you were already an admin, as did many people apparently. PRueda29|PTalk29, 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support after viewing "worst edit ever". If that is the worst, and you're concerned enough about it to mention it here, that is commendable for both its transparancy and taking Wikipedia standards seriously enough to regret it. Jkelly 23:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. This guy is offering to do more work for us. I say let him. Go get those backlogs! :) Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support without a doubt. -- DS1953 talk 05:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support per amazingly convincing nom. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. Someone who actually transwikis articles. It was a great relief when he started helping out with that (and I feel more than a little guilty about having stopped altogether). Dmcdevit·t 22:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support 172 | Talk 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support Dakota t e 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support, RFA cliché #2 (whatever that is). Alphax τεχ 00:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. BDAbramson T 03:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support  Grue  05:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support. - ψ (ElAmericano)
  52. Support - I like being #50 Tony the Marine 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support, appears ready to be trusted w/admin tools. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. Excellent contributor. I have seen Cryptic active in the important transwiki work, which can often be a bottleneck. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support. Good editor, no issues, give him the tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  56. Have to support a fellow AfDer. Tintin 03:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. utcursch | talk 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support. --tomf688{talk} 12:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  59. Support, support, a thousand times support. Maybe two thousand times. One of the most clearcut should-be admins since Jimbo. A taste extravagansa at a reasonable price. Four an a half stars out of five. Coming soon to theatres near you. Lord Bob 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  60. Support. will be a good admin. Youngamerican 17:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  61. Support - 'nuff said. --Ixfd64 18:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  62. Support. Hall Monitor 18:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  63. Extreme one-more-vote-won't-change-the-outcome support. I admit it: I thought you were already one of us. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support MONGO 02:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose too much of a deletionist.--Silverback 16:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    What's your point, Silverback? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    I dont get that comment I think shes more of a illusionist than deletionist --JAranda | watz sup 22:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

Comments

  • Use of edit summaries is 98% over all edits. Average number of edits per day is 37, 45 over the last 30 days. --Durin 13:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Now that Crypticbot's reduced the time it takes for me to find and list orphaned afds from about an hour and a half to fifteen minutes a day, I intend to go back to what I was mainly doing before getting involved there - new pages patrol. Being able to speedy the worst of the nonarticles that show up instead of just tagging them will be a relief. I also intend to help out with the perpetual backlog at copyright problems, instead of just adding to it.
Unlike many other new admins, I don't see myself clearing out afds in the foreseeable future, unless the backlog gets to be really ridiculous. Afd bothers me, and part of the reason I wrote Crypticbot was so I'd feel less obligated to comment on the orphans I find. It's very easy to fall into a spiral of "Delete, unverifiable", "Delete, self-promotion", "Delete, fancruft", "Delete, I saw a typo in it a couple revisions back" if you don't watch yourself, and as someone who's added very little content to Wikipedia, it's troubling to find myself voting to delete others' contributions. Afd's also one of the least friendly places on Wikipedia, and it's contagious.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm certainly glad that orphaned afds get listed within a day now, instead of hanging around for literally months as they sometimes used to. As my frequent "No opinion"s on relisting them show (pre-bot, anyway), I may not care if a given article is kept or not, but I do have an interest in keeping them from having a permanent afd tag stuck to them, scaring off would-be contributors. This was also my motivation to clear out a six-month backlog in the post-VFD transwiki queue (something else I've been neglecting lately, alas).
I do want to make it clear that, though my main namespace edits may look impressive to editcountitis sufferers, there isn't much substance to them - largely typo fixes, occasional wikification, and even more occasional cleanup. My most recent edits to articlespace are flooded by a spurt of cleaning out {{R from title without diacritics}}, which could have been done just as easily by a bot. Edits contributing new information are all but nonexistent; if I was less of an ignorant lout, I wouldn't have kept coming back to Wikipedia in the first place.
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 don't get stressed by things on the wiki. I come here to relax, and I actively avoid conflict.
A conflict I could have dealt better with was with Halibutt over the re-creation of Template:Support (see here and here). After seeing that he had already called the template's redeletion an abuse of admin rights on talk, and that it had been mentioned on his talk page, I assumed bad faith and just continued to tag the template without engaging in dialogue. As the dispute eventually spread to ANI, DRV, and several subpages of FPC, despite several users reverting him and deleting the template, I don't think anything I said could have calmed him down, but I should have at least tried.
If you're looking for my worst edit ever, though, it's this personal attack. I can only plead lack of sleep and frustration with my browser suddenly crashing every fifteen minutes.
[edit]

Capitalistroadster

Vote here (78/0/1) ending 10:10 November 11 2005 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) – I would like to nominate Capitalistroadster for adminship. I have seen Capitalistroadster a lot on AFD and he has always been a voice of reason and sensibility. He is also a well rounded editor in the very important main article namespace, having made articles on a variety of subjects. Also, he has done a lot of work in major cleanup and overhaul of articles which need major attention. I believe that Capitalistroadster is a very valuable asset to Wikipedia, and will also be a very valuable administrator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Since I also expressed my willingness to nominate CR I'll chime in too - Capitalistroadster is an exemplary editor. On numerous occasions a worthless stub has turned up on AFD and been heading down the tube... until Capitalistroadster has reworked it and expanded it into a fine piece of encyclopaedic material. Not only that, but he is courteous, thorough, and hard-working Wikipedian. Admin material if ever there was one. Grutness...wha? 10:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
  • I hereby accept my willingness to accept responsibility as an administrator. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Nominator supports. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Seems pretty sensible on AfD JPD (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Co-nom support from across the Tasman. Grutness...wha? 10:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Good Lord, yes. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Definitely one of the better editors we have. Punkmorten 21:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Wiibreak support Need someone to support Before I leave wiki for a wikibreak ;) --JAranda | watz sup 23:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Supportive support. Good editor. ~~ N (t/c) 00:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. CR makes a habit of punishing people who afd hopeless, barely-coherent stubs on encyclopedic subjects by turning them into top-notch articles. Cliché though it be, I thought for sure someone would have offered him the mop already. —Cryptic (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. support --GraemeL (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support per above. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Joining the Crowd Support He knows his stuff. Karmafist 00:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support, of course.--Sean|Black 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support per above. --Holderca1 01:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support.....I guess. Private Butcher 02:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support -- Francs2000 02:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Michael Snow 03:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. As Cryptic mentioned, Capitalistroadster is amazing at taking stubs I probably voted delete on and turning them into well-written, encyclopedic articles. Robert T | @ | C 03:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. --Alan Au 03:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Yes, darn it! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Easiest support vote I've ever cast. Xoloz 03:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support see him round a lot. Dlyons493 Talk 04:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support WP needs more incusionist admins and less POV warriors. Klonimus 04:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Full support. Great guy to have on afd and elsewhere. Meelar (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Cool. JuntungWu 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support, we need more level-headed inclusionists (and I've been accused of being deletionist several times) and he gives inclusionism a good name. Titoxd(?!?) 05:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Im sure Ive interacted with this editor...I just cant remember when, and under what circumstances. Anyway, a notable candidate. Orane (t) (c) (@) 05:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. — mendel ☎    #    06:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support, an shining example of a well rounded Wikipedian. Most deserving. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Tupsharru 07:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support good all-rounder --Doc ask? 09:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support definitely adminworthy --TimPope 10:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support good and trustworthy editor. --JoanneB 12:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support: He is an editor of principle. When he sees the remedial, he fixes it. A true genius of helpfulness and the kind of person who puts his work where his "keep" vote is. Geogre 13:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support Excellent work on VfD. Often rescues bad articles on notable topics. Very knowledgeable on music and related topics. Wonderful choice for an admin and has complete support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Holy %#&@!!! He wasn't one already? Inconceivable! BDAbramson T 14:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Or something. — JIP | Talk 16:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    Ah, perhaps it means something different here that elsewhere! When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less. BDAbramson T 03:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    This is the first time I've seen the quote I used answered by a quote from another well-known story. — JIP | Talk 06:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support, I too am amazed that this excellent editor has not been issued with his official mop and bucket already. Thryduulf 15:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. SEARCHING FOR SUPPORT
    ?FILE NOT FOUND ERROR
    READY. — JIP | Talk 16:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support without any reservations. Jkelly 17:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. I've seen him around and find Capitalistroadster a sensible editor. I like how he often fully explains afd votes and found several of arguments convincing enough to switch my own votes. - Mgm|(talk) 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support, I trust that this user will not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support per MacGyverMagic. I've seen him around a lot on AfD, and he knows what he's doing. I'm surprised he's not an admin already! --Idont Havaname 18:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support FireFox 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  46. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support without reservations— long overdue. —RaD Man (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support Looks like this is a done deal, but I want pile on, very worth while canidate. Rx StrangeLove 18:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  49. Extreme pomosexual support. This is one of those times where I'm like, "Wait... he's not an admin?!" Jacqui ★ 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  50. It's about damn time Support. Cap has a calming effect on contentious AfD debates and often saves articles from deletion by doing extensive rewrites. Definitely a trustworthy candidate. android79 22:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  51. Oh yes please. And I second Geogre's, Tito's, and Cryptic's remarks. encephalon 23:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support as per nomination. --anetode¹ ² ³ 00:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. He should be proud of his contribution to articles put on AfD (answer #2 below). Capitalistroadster has turned countless "deletes" into "keeps" by doing real research and editing. Bravo! -- DS1953 talk 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  54. Shoot as a counter-revolutionary, then promote posthumously.-gadfium 08:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  55. d, nn. Keep after rewrite by Capitalistroadster. Alphax τεχ 13:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support. --NormanEinstein 15:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  57. Support. If everyone on AfD were like this, I don't think we'd be complaining that it was broken. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support, strong candidate, strong nominators. --Sn0wflake 18:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  59. 172 | Talk 23:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  60. waves hand DS 00:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  61. OMG he's been around for so long and saved so many articles from deletion and he's not an admin??? Impossible!  Grue  05:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  62. Keep all schools oops forgot this wasnt AFD. Long overdue support  ALKIVAR™ 05:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  63. Support, looks ready to be trusted w/admin tools. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  64. Support--A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  65. Certainly. Radiant_>|< 10:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  66. Re-heated RfA cliche support!. "I thought he was one already". --Scïmïłar parley 15:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  67. Support. Ambi 16:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  68. Support. Now I can cross this person off my list of "people to nominate". Thank you Sjakkalle.  :) Hall Monitor 19:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  69. Support. Good editor, good article saver, no issues. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  70. support. Yuckfoo 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  71. Support, strongly. If only all inclusionists worked as hard as he does not just to keep, but actually make articles worth keeping. Capitalistroadsterization (or "troadsterization" as I call it) is due to become a recognized term for the turning of complete crap into a fine article. He should try his hand at alchemy. -R. fiend 02:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  72. Support. I have been admiring Capitalistroadster's work at AfD for some time now. Clear-headed and well-reasoned. Cnwb 02:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  73. Furry Orange Alien Support Echoing all the above and thanks to the Cap for all the chaff sorting and work put in. Alf melmac 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  74. Support. jni 08:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  75. Strong support. As someone on the other side of the inclusionist-deletionist divide, I've always found his votes well-reasoned and exceptionally clear-headed. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  76. Support. Reasonable in AfD discussions, does his research, and most importantly (as so many have said before) he puts effort into cleaning up borderline articles in AfD. I've changed my vote on more than 1 occasion due to his efforts.--Isotope23 16:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  77. Support. duh. Youngamerican 17:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  78. Support. Good work. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. NeutralI like his work to avoid deletions. How long has he been around? Will he stand his ground against other admins?--Silverback 16:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    WTF. —RaD Man (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Boothyism. freestylefrappe 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. The main ones would be keeping an eye on recent changes and articles for deletion but I would help out when available and required. However, there are some technical duties that I do not have the capacity to do such as a SQL query.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The articles that I am most proud of are the articles that came to AfD in poor shape and that I repaired citing online sources and written sources. My user page at User:Capitalistroadster and User talk:Capitalistroadster have several acknowledgments by other editors of the work that I have done. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 4 November 2005 (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. No on both counts. If such an situation were to arise I would try and sort it out with the other person civilly. If that failed, I would use the processes in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and sort something out.

There are plenty of other tasks to be done in other areas to get involved in unneccessary edit conflicts. In the last resort, I would look at taking a short Wikipedia:Wikiholiday to sort things out.Capitalistroadster 23:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

PRueda29

Vote here (35/0/1) ending 00:06 November 11th (UTC)

PRueda29 (talk • contribs) – I would like to nominate PRueda29 for adminship. He has been a user in Wikipedia for almost a year now and has racked up almost 3000 edits spread across all namespaces. He is a dedicated editor who already has one FA (Columbine High School massacre) and is very helpful with schools and aviation articles as well. He is also helping me to try and get Miami, Florida to FA status. He has excellent command of NPOV and is very civil with other users. I think he would make a outstanding admin JAranda | watz sup 00:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank You, I Definately Accept. PRueda29 00:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support as nominator--JAranda | watz sup 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support freestylefrappe 00:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, support, support! BDAbramson T 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. I like seeing editors with Featured Articles under their belt. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. --NormanEinstein 01:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Come and kneel before my Support. Private Butcher 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. 100% Redwolf24 (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. Looking good.--Sean|Black 02:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Fellow aviation buff Support --Rogerd 03:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Normally, I'd be happier if there were more behind-the-scenes edits, but what there are look good. There is a slight tendency to use pure-votes on AfD, which is rarely helpful and a lack of edit summaries in many places, which is unhelpful and should be improved as a matter of urgency (right now, not after the RfA). The point about only recently starting to tag speedies, but asking for the ability to execute them is also slightly concerning — so please tread carefully. But the good contributions and no demonstrations of exploding when under pressure or in disagreement are nice to see. Then, there's the length of service. It's hard, surely, to be around for that length of time and not just 'pick up' the way things work, and to have managed to conceal any dastardly plots or personality traits. -Splashtalk 03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support user has been around since 2004-12-15 (10+ months check) has 2982 edits in all namespaces (2000+ edits check) seems to be pro-school and has at least 1 FA. I simply can't find any grounds to contest this nomination, keep up the good work!  ALKIVAR™ 04:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support; I beleive this user would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support --Pamri • Talk • Reply 05:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support per Splash and Alkivar. Xoloz 05:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. POKE 53280,6:POKE 53281,0 — JIP | Talk 07:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Good, comprehensive contrib's and no indication anywhere of disputes. Some nice article tidy-ups. Just two things: use edit summaries more often as noted and try and avoid the fair use tag on your images. You've worked extensively with pics which is nice, but that's the only tag I'm seeing. Marskell 08:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support FireFox 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Fantabulous Support! I see no reason to contest! This user is absolutely phenomenal! His work is an indispensible asset to the community! Jesy 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 19:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. He seems to be an experienced user. Carioca 19:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Hispanic Support. - Darwinek 22:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Good editor; works within our policies; very civil. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Cool. JuntungWu 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Orane (t) (c) (@) 05:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support edits look good. Dlyons493 Talk 09:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. Seems honest and strightforward.--AAAAA 14:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support - Good writing, well experienced, FA credentials are an asset. Ramallite (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support sounds good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Strong Support AirOdyssey 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Weak suport . Support as in Anonymous editor, weak as in "The point about only recently starting to tag speedies, but asking for the ability to execute them is also slightly concerning" I have plenty of bad experience from vfd and such :( --Striver 17:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support - Nevica 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support 100% The featured article does it for the Marine. Tony the Marine 07:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support, looks ready to be trusted w/admin tools. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. See no cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral Seems too agreeable. Will he rock the boat and stand up for what is right?--Silverback 16:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Would this question have anything to do with your recent requests to revert a page protected for edit warring back to the version you prefer? Radiant_>|< 23:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I'm most interested in fighting vandalism and have tried to do as much janitorial work as possible with my current status; this includes nominating nonsense articles for deletion and quickly reverting bad edits, as well as placing speedy delete tags on articles (something I've recently started to do). My main goal as an administrator would be to help other users with any problems they have, something I already try to achieve but feel I could do better as an administrator.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Definately Columbine High School massacre. I began expanding the article nearly six months ago, and after some time I nominated it for FA. I received my first barnstar from it, and learned most of what I know about editing articles and adding pictures from my time expanding and researching the topic; it is now a featured article. I'm also very pleased with my current project Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
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, of course, have had stress from editing (it's the reason I got my barnstar, LOL), but I have never been involved in a true edit war. I believe that working with whomever I disagree with is better than constantly fighting over a point of view and generally try to compromise with the other editor in hopes of finding a way to settle the dispute without resorting to anger or petty attacks.
[edit]

Shaddack

Vote here (10/8/6) ending 10:26 November 9, 2005. (UTC)

Shaddack (talk • contribs) – He has not been around long, but seems a good and active user.  Ian13  19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I hereby accept the nomination, with bigger than small dose of surprise. Let's see what comments it yields. Shaddack 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per nom.  Ian13  10:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Positive contributor. Martin 10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Evil Support He's been here since June (where did the 2 days idea come from?) and has more than 3000 edits. He's also self-described as evil (see User:Shaddack for his excellent logic). That's enough for me.--Scimitar parley 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    Not against anybody but the 2 days idea relates to Ian13 who nominated Shaddack. Ian13's got a good start at WP and I believe they will do very well here but I don't fathom the fact that someone relatively new can nominate someone they barely know (nominations are the result of too much interaction between a nominator and a nominated)! -- Svest 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
    Please see below  Ian13  20:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. I think you did yourself a disservice by allowing an unknown member of the community to nominate; when people don't know you directly, they often use the reputation of the nominator as a vouch for your good behaviour/intentions. Nonetheless, you seem to do a lot of good work. Good luck. --NormanEinstein 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. I see nothing in this editor's history to give me any pause. NormanEinstein: it was clear that Ian13's nomination was a surprise to Shaddack, so I don't think it's a question of 'allowing'. Be that as it may, we should evaluate the candidate on his own merits, nobody else's. —Morven 20:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Be bold! Tedernst 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support Looks ok to me. Could edit more when feeling has good content to contribute. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support Seems fine, was helpful with my request. Walkerma 20:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support This is a spoiler vote in opposition to those who oppose a nomination based on the nominator and not the nominated. There is currently space for an additional 8 spoiler votes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support - the reasons for opposition here are weak. We need more admins. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support, no reason to believe this user will abuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support weak reasons for opposition to position that is "no big deal." I think user will be a fine admin.Gator(talk) 13:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose - A very good editor. However, I'd have supported if Shaddack were more interactive with other users and in talk pages as well. I am also surprised by the action of the nominator Ian13. He's just joined 2 days ago! I'll follow up the comments here as this is may not be my definitive vote. -- Svest 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
    It may be worth noting that, yes, I have only been registered 2 days, but this is because I wish to take a more active part in Wikipedia, and help support and expand the community. I have edited for over 10 months, and been reading even longer (my edits are hard to track, due to AOLs IP system). Andthrough my reading before creating a character,I have encountered edits and developments by Shaddack, which I felt highlighted him as a good user. This is one of the many reasons I created an account. I also see how some may think he is not interactive, but I feel all his edits have assisted Wikipedia, and have been good for the community, nonetheless.  Ian13  20:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    Is your opposition also based on the fact that the nominator is new? =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as per Svest. --Monkbel 12:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Good mainspace contributions, and reasonable Wikipedia: space contributions, but extremely few of them. Kate's tool isn't relevant here; I can count them by hand. They are a few V/AfD edits and not much else. One of them is a merge during an otherwise deleting AfD. This is allowed, per WP:BOLD, I very well know, but I don't like it being done since it renders all the other editor's opinions irrelevant, unless someone is going to un-merge after the AfD. I think only one or two of them were 'engaging' edits i.e. not actually discussing but just stating his opinion. This is fine, and what most people do in AfD, but some debating/discussing is essential to be able to see how an editor conducts themselves. So I think I'd like to see considerably more user and community interaction, just because there is too little on which to judge how Shaddack may respond when under pressure or in disgreement etc. Broaden your scope of participation a little, see which behind-the-scenes stuff you do/don't like and how it does/doesn't work. -Splashtalk 14:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Splash. Private Butcher 19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Splash freestylefrappe 21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Splash. Xoloz 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose due to extremely odd nomination: produced by 2-day old account, and did not sign their own acceptance. Sorry, but that last point seems to show a lack of Wikipedia knowledge or attention to detail, both important traits for an admin. Turnstep 19:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    Shaddack signed his acceptance on the third of the month, a day after he accepted and before your comment. If forgetting to sign a comment them remembering a day later is the worst thing he's ever done then I really don't see any problem. Also, the nominator has stated that he has been editing anonimously for over ten months. Do you have any reason not to believe him? Raven4x4x 23:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose for now. I would like to see him interact more on the talk pages. It is important to be able to see how he interacts with others in discussions. This probably explains his answer to number three below. Conflict with others is not a bad thing, it is how you resolve the conflict which is what I want to see, a key attribute of an admin. --Holderca1 01:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Splash. Tony the Marine 07:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose This is a spoiler vote in opposition to those who make spoiler votes in opposition. There is currently space for an additional 0 spoiler votes. Radiant_>|< 11:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I couldn't resist making that remark :) I feel that Shaddack is too inexperienced as of now to become an admin, but would be happy to reconsider in the future. Radiant_>|< 11:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Too few Wiki namespace edits particapate in AFD and RFA more --JAranda | watz sup 01:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral user seems on the right path to adminship, but I will not oppose based on lack of talk page communication.  ALKIVAR™ 08:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Oppose because of: curious nature of nominator (obviously an old editor come back and it all seems a little odd); almost total absence of Wiki edits; somewhat spotty use of summaries, i.e., using them regularly and then forgetting for 10 or 12. Support because of: an exceptional number of distinct articles hit relative to over-all edits; an excellent attention to categories and attempt to sort things out in this regard; some good clean-ups to obscure topics. In sum, I am neutral. Marskell 12:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral concur with much of above. Dlyons493 Talk 04:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Very good editor, but too few Usertalk, Project, and project talk edits. Orane (t) (c) (@) 05:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Come back in a couple of months, show some interest in the Wikipedia namespace, get involved in discussions and I may support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, good editor, but still needs some more experience. I will certainly support in the future. --Sn0wflake 17:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, editor looks good; I would just like to see some more talk page activity so I could better ascertain how he would handle conflict situations. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Hi Shaddack, please sign your acceptance of the nomination using the four ~'s. An unsigned acceptance of nomination sends out a bad signal.--Gurubrahma 14:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion followed. Thanks! --Shaddack 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Where did the two days idea come from? He's been here since June.--Scimitar parley 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This is likely to be relevant to my nominator, not to me. --Shaddack 18:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I have only held my account for two days, dispite being an active editor in the past, and I can see how this can be viewed badly. I have just replied to this question above (Oppose 1). However supporting other comments, surely, the votes should reflect the user, as the nominator is irrelevent in many ways. However I am open to answer questions.  Ian13  20:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. More or less anything that comes in my way, with particular focus on watching over vandalism of obscure topics on my eternally growing watchlist.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Some of my chemistry and material science based ones.
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. Nothing I would rate as a real conflict. I prefer finding solutions over waging battles, and there are too many topics to work on to stress over something specific.
[edit]

MC MasterChef

Vote here (41/0/0) ending 18:27 November 8 2005 (UTC)

MC MasterChef (talk • contribs) – I saw MC MasterChef today when I was doing RC patrol. He is removing vandalism like no one's business. If you look at his contributions, you can see that he is really active in fighting vandalism. I fully expected him to block User:Justinting after he had vandalised Law & Order four times in the same day, but when he didn't, I blocked Justinting myself, and later realised MC MasterChef wasn't an admin. Now I wish that he was made an admin so he could revert vandalism faster and block vandals himself. — JIP | Talk 18:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much, I accept. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 08:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Extreme nominator support. — JIP | Talk 18:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Good vandal fighter --JAranda | watz sup 08:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support at a cheery -27C. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Martin 10:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support I think MC was born to slay wiki vandals! Well-rounded contrib's. Marskell 13:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strongish support Good at remvoing vandalism, could be on a little more often when I am but certain user is on the rest of the time. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 13:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Totally. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support - perfect candidate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:13 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support Private Butcher 19:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support --pgk(talk) 19:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Seems to be an excellent editor. —Morven 20:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. We need more vandal fighters. Carioca 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, per everyone else. I love his username, too.--Sean|Black 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support like it's nobody's business. I agree with Sean Black, awesome username. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 23:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. support GraemeL (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support! All hail masterchef!, scourge of the wikivandals. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support! In addition to being a top-notch vandal-fighter, this guy truly understands how WP works; his Speedy tags are right on the money, and I've even seen him clean up after admins... The sooner we give him the mop and the shotgun, the safer we can all sleep at night. Owen× ☎ 00:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support per above. --Briangotts (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Orane (t) (c) (@) 01:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC
  20. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. The Minister of War(Peace) 07:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support! --JoanneB 07:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support lower edit count than I'd actually like, but he certainly seems to know what adminship entails. Please spend a little more time creating articles in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 08:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support, please give the Chef the mop. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support A valuable member of the Wikiworld already doktorb 16:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support - I trust him. --Celestianpower háblame 18:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support - See him around a lot. FireFox 19:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Keep the the good work. --Briangotts (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. MasterChef beats me to a lot of vandalism reversion without use of the rollback button. android79 14:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Cool. JuntungWu 04:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support, another good vandal-whacker. Titoxd(?!?) 05:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Good work. --Yodakii 14:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support - Nevica 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. You're good people. - RoyBoy 800 23:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. supportive gesture DS 00:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support, great fighter for wikitegrity. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support, looks ready to be trusted w/admin tools; great editor. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. No reason to believe he will abuse admin tools. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Lately whenever I go to clean up vandalism, I find that MCMC has beaten me to it, or had reverted previous vandalism. An overall "good guy" --Bachrach44 01:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. One of the best RC patrollers I've ever encountered. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. I'm always happy to see RC patrollers. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Good work, but maybe a little too quick on the revert button? [7] --Yodakii 05:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, that appears to be a pretty clear error on my part. Not sure what happened; I think I may have been trying to revert an earlier version and missed that it had already been fixed by Jossifresco, when Perle snuck in just before me? In any case I've corrected it now, and will try and exercise greater care in the future. Thanks, — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:MCMasterChef-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Use of edit summaries is 79%, 89% over last 200 edits. Average edits per day is 6 per day, 18 per day over last 60 days. --Durin 14:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. As JIP suggested, with the help of the CVU's IRC bot, I usually do a concerted stint of vandalism patrol at least every few days, so having the ability to enforce blocks and revert pages more easily would certainly be appreciated, as would the ability to delete speediable pages, rather than tagging them for someone else to follow up on. I don't spend a lot of time on WP:AFD, but would be willing to assist with backlogs there if need be. I'm open to suggestions, but otherwise I expect I would continue my usual editing patterns.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. While I think vandalism patrol is an important part of maintaining the encyclopedia, I get much more satisfaction from my editing contributions. These tend to be in the area of international relations (my major in college); current events are fairly well covered by other editors so I try and work on expanding less high-profile (though no less interesting) concepts and topics (for example power projection or the Fragrant Concubine).
I also enjoy reorganizing and cleaning up pages, and so am rather pleased with my contributions to National Intelligence Service (South Korea) (undertaken as part of my membership with the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce, I expanded as best I could on a topic previously unknown to me) and the expansion and merging of Rentier state with Resource curse.
My current top project is the expansion of Civilian control of the military, which, while a work in progress, is progressing fairly well and which I hope to one day submit to WP:FAC. I was initially drawn to Wikipedia after completing a report on the Uyghurs; some of my sources for my research are currently on their way to me in my new home by mail, so I hope to contribute more articles like First East Turkestan Republic when they arrive.
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 I try to be measured and polite in my interactions with other users, so I'm not aware of any outstanding conflicts. Generally when in doubt, I use the talk page first. I try to avoid the onset of any bunker mentality by pacing myself on vandalism patrol. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and don't find it to be a source of stress.
[edit]

Requests for bureaucratship

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They could also change the user name of any other user. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. The expectation for bureaucratship is higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications. Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before nominating themselves.

Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. Vote sections and boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions}}. New bureaucrats and failed nominations are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.

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

[edit]

Kelly Martin

Vote here (47/17/3) ending 04:14 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin (talk • contribs) – I've been mulling the idea of running for bureaucrat for ages now; the various discussions on how RfA is broken and various suggestions made to fix it have suggested to me that we are going to need more bureaucrats because the decisions that bureaucrats will be needing to make are going to get more complicated and more frequent. I think I'd be wasting my time saying much more about myself; by now I think I'm pretty well known around here. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support Great admin, I certainly trust her with the ability to set +sysop. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support we need some more bureaucrats, and Kelly's on my list. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support; obviously, Jimbo realized that Kelly was a trusted and valued member of the community when nominating her for the Arbitration Committee. I support her fully. Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support; hard to find a better candidate, and I think we could use a couple more bureaucrats. Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. (2nd Edit conflict) Strong support, obviously trusted by the community as evidenced by her appointment to the Arbcom by Jimbo. Alphax τεχ 04:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support (after edit conflict) - I have seen nothing but good work from this admin, and good use of admin powers. I agree that more bureaucrats will be needed to keep up with Wikipedia's growth. BDAbramson T 04:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. I support Miss Kelly. Acetic'Acid 05:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Support. As a seasoned admin and an experienced member of ArbCom, she'll bring both fairness and authority to this highly-visible position. And if we move towards the solution I outlined here, we need more bureaucrats, and exactly the type Kelly is. Owen× ☎ 05:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Changed to Neutral, see below. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support and how could I not? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, I don't think that she will be a rouge bureaucrat and not promote (or promote) an admin in cases where it contradicts the consensus reached on the RfB. Titoxd(?!?) 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support 100%, Take it from the Marine, we can't go wrong with Kelly. Tony the Marine 06:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs - David Gerard 11:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support She fully deserves these powers. I have total trust in her having both arbitrator duties, and bureaucrat duties. TDS (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Utmost support. There is absolutely no conflict of interest between being able to set sysop status and being an arbitrator. Kelly is one of the best there is; a rejection here would say more about the process and the oppose voters, IMHO, than about her. Ambi 16:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Tony SidawayTalk 16:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC) One of our best administrators, one of our best minds.
    SupportDespite failing to act a couple times when she should have during admin abuses, I've no reason to believe she wouldn't resolve votes in good faith.--Silverback 16:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Change to oppose. I'd been willing to forgive her treatment of me, but the documentation below makes me realize she has been treating others that way too.--Silverback 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Competent people naturally find themselves in positions of power. How, precisely, will being a bureaucrat and ao arbcom at the same time be any more damaging or cabal-like than being an admin and on arbcom? Bureaucrats basically have one more power- in the area of adminship. I fail to find the oppose voter's reasoning convincing enough to vote against a competent and professional candidate.--Scïmïłar parley 16:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support, absolutely. I'm all in favor of a little well-placed paranoia, but suggesting that we are on the verge of a problem with power consolidation is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. After all, Jimbo and the board have virtually unlimited power here, as does Tim. Further, that argument presupposes a future that doesn't exist. Future policy can be made to cover such concerns when it becomes a problem, or Wikipedia will fork; that's the power of open source licenses. The GFDL keeps the real power in the hands of the end users, regardless of how any "cabal" tries to grab it. Unfocused 17:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. I don't think myself guilty of hyperbole when I say that Kelly is one of the very best Wikipedians. I trust her a long, long way. [[Sam Korn]] 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support FireFox 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Supprt. --Golbez 19:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. I am familiar with Kelly's history and feel that she is capable of representing us very well as a bureaucrat. I have independently come to the conclusion that RFA requires bureaucrats who are much more than vote talliers, so her self-nomination is a breath of fresh air. silsor 20:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Overwrought, hysterical support, because she deserves it and would be a great bureaucrat, end of story. Babajobu 20:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Mild support strong support for the candidate, but fairly lukewarm (although not paranoid) suport for consolidations of power --Doc ask? 20:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Strong support. Kelly's calm head, trustworthiness, cutting insight, and eloquence in her reasonings made her a nearly ideal choice for arbcom and just alike they make her an ideal prospect for bureaucratship. Although there are some roles on Wikipedia which when paired will lead to likely conflicts of interest, I do not think that bureaucratship/arbcom is one of them. Should any such situation arise, I trust Kelly Martin to recuse herself, just as she already must do for conflicts of interest that happen with basic adminship and arbcom, and just as any other bureaucrat. Some of the oppose responses below using Kelly's own words amuse me, because most of her self critical comments are because she has set a very high standard for herself and because she is fairly humble. To me these remarks just further support my position, but her contribution list speaks for itself. I'm thrilled that she is willing to step up to the attitional challenges of this new role. --Gmaxwell 20:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. I'm slightly leery at calling for more power to the 'Crats and then wanting to become one, but apart from that I see no reason why Kelly shouldn't be one. At all. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support Meets the requirements as far as I am concerned. MONGO 21:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support --Tabor 23:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support she has shown herself to be a good editor, a good admin, and a good arbitrator and I believe her when she says that she can still make time for beaurucratic duties, I also trust that she would do a good job as a beaurucrat... MOOO!!!! Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support, per Jtkiefer.--Sean|Black 01:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Orane (t) (c) (@) 02:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Last ever edit Support --JAranda | watz sup 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Robert T | @ | C 03:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Changed to support. IRC conversation with Kelly and other related discussions leads me to change my vote from neutral to support. Good going. Linuxbeak | Talk 03:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Strong support per everyone above. FCYTravis 04:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. Everything I have seen of her participation in Wikipedia convinces me that she is more than up to the task. Without reservations, —Morven 07:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support because she appears to have a daughter. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support --FoeNyx 08:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support - due to her record as an Admin and an arbitrator and her general contribution to the project. Capitalistroadster 08:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. Durin raises a number of interesting points (see "Oppose" below). Having read his list and Kelly's answers, I can hardly avoid the conclusion that even if Kelly's actions could be construed to constitute policy violations (which I doubt) they are highly insignificant. If these are all that a meticulous critic can find, I'd be happy to see more admins and/or bureaucrats with such a record. We are here to create an encyclopedia, not to go to extremes of bureaucratic nitpicking. Kosebamse 08:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support whole-heartedly. Rama 08:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support 172 | Talk 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support, very competent and highly dedicated to the project. Kirill Lokshin 12:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. JuntungWu 12:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support, would make a good bureaucrat. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. jredmond 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. GraemeL (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support - although not having interacted much with her personally, I've heard a lot about her and see no reason to believe that she would abuse the position. --Celestianpower háblame 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  47. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  48. Enthusiastic Support. Mike H (Talking is hot) 01:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support Kelly can be trusted. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 01:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  50. Conditional Support, Kelly Martin must immitate a cat for this vote to take effect ;). Seriously speaking, she is one person I cant imagine abusing power. Hence no reason why not. --Cool Cat Talk 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose As "expectation for bureaucratship is higher than for admin", and this user seems prone to surface reading of events, as well as not respond positively to attempts to engage. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, has only been an admin for 5 months. Also from your user page These days, my contributions are infrequent and unpredictable, especially as my arbitration duties are likely to consume most of my available time., given that your time is limited by arbcom how are you going to be effective as a b'crat?--nixie 04:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Bureaucrat is a serious responsibility but not one which requires a great deal of time, unlike Arbitrator, which is an endless time suck. I can easily take a few minutes out of my day to take care of bureaucratic responsibilities without noticeably compromising my obligations as an Arbitrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Kelly's humbleness with respect to her involvement is somewhat misleading. In the timespan since her adminship she has made over 3000 edits, which is more than a substantial majority of other admins during the same timespan. --Gmaxwell 21:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Kelly is an excellent contributor who's perfectly qualified for bureaucratship, but on principle, I don't think Arbcom members should have bureaucrat or higher privileges on Wikipedia on the principle of not consolidating power in the hands of a few. I want to make it clear that I don't think Kelly would ever abuse this power or that the power of a combined bureaucrat/arbitrator is really that much, but for something as important as preventing the rise of a genuine, no-foolin' cabal, we need to draw the line a great distance before where it would actually be a problem. If and when Kelly's arbcom term expires I will be glad to support and even nominate as she is one of the single best Wikipedians I have ever known of. — Phil Welch 04:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    #REDIRECT [[User:Raul654]] Redwolf24 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Please see my explanation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Kelly Martin. I think the issue I'm raising here deserves ample discussion on its own, separate from other issues in this RfB. — Phil Welch 05:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose regardless of her opposition to my RFA above, do we really need another bureaucrat?  ALKIVAR™ 05:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Phil Welch.  Grue  05:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Kelly's suggestion on RFA talk is to turn the bureaucrats into a committee that judges admin candidates on their merit, rather than on voting, using processes analogous to what the ArbCom does. While that sounds like a good idea in principle, I would strongly object to anybody being on both the ArbCom and the BuroCom if it were implemented. And if it were not implemented, I don't really see why we need another 'crat at the moment. As a side point, Kelly has a tendency of snapping at users and sometimes jumps to a harsh conclusion too quickly. Radiant_>|< 11:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Supporters are saying that because she was appointed to a committee she should have this power as well. That is a non sequitur; the two are separate. The case has not been made, in my view. No Account 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    I would suggest that you judge the merits of the candidate not of her supporters. Moreover, the question of possible conflicts of interests has been sensibly discussed and your representation of that discussion is quite off the mark. Kosebamse 09:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: too often jumps to conclusions and too often brusque in dealings with others -- not qualities consistent with this job. CDThieme 19:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: I am concerned about a number of issues regarding this candidate. Forgive me for being wordy in the following. I've conducted a careful review of this candidate over a couple of hours to arrive at my decision. I would like to say upfront that Kelly and I had a serious disagreement recently. You can read about this disagreement if you like ([8], [9]). However, I would like to make it clear that I tried very hard to bring a clean slate to the consideration of this candidate, without a predisposition to vote against her. Here are my findings with respect to this candidate:
    • Kelly blocks users without warning: [10]-[11] (for a week, for vandalism, first ever block for the user), [12]-[13] (for a week; user was testing response time of RC patrollers, IP had never been blocked before, 24 hours would have done fine). These blocks are, strictly speaking, not outside of Wikipedia policy, but seem rather harsh and too quick. Kelly also blocked an IP indefinitely ([14]) which violated blocking policy, and was undone a day later by another admin. Meanwhile, she's admonished other admins for inappropriate use of blocking ([15], [16]).
    • I've observed a behavior that, lacking a better description, almost seems like "do as I say not as I do". First, Kelly chastises others for ignoring WP:AGF ([17]). In another edit, she infers that an editor must earn good faith before it is given ([18]). Second, Kelly has requested editors refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries ([19], [20]). In the edit summary to her nonsense tagging of Wapol ([21]), Kelly says "Yeah, right". This seems mildly contradictory. Third, She encourages users to use edit summaries on all edits ([22], [23]). Also, in her stated standards for adminship she says "Failure to use edit summaries reliably is a negative factor, however". Kelly's use of edit summaries over her last 500 edits is 64%. Taken in isolation, these aren't significant. Taken together, I see a troubling pattern.
    • Kelly had a presumption of guilt on the part of an editor after administrators had cleared the editor of suspicion of being a sockpuppet ([24]). This seems to violate WP:AGF.
    • I am a bit troubled by some edits:
      • Odd unexplained deletion of an editor's comment on another editor's talk page ([25])
      • This edit removed substantial material from an article talk page, and not entirely wholesale. One user's comments were changed by this edit, and many were deleted as "useless" ([26]).
      • Spent a maximum of two minutes considering an article on Wapol and then applied a {{nonsense}} tag ([27]). Quick google test on "King Wapol" returns 193 hits. Though the original edits Kelly marked as nonsense were not the best Wikipedia's ever seen, the placement of the nonsense tag, especially after just two minutes of consideration, seems capricious.
    • I am also troubled by this candidate's refusal ([28]) to contribute to an RfC she is party to where her actions as an administrator are being questioned. This candidate is a member of ArbCom. To not make even a slight statement of case on that RfC seems to show disdain for process, even if the bringer of the RfC was perhaps out of line.
    • I have seen signs of incivility in this candidate. This edit [29] (against an editor of more than 6000 edits) in particular troubles me and this edit [30] (against an editor of more than 3000 edits) seems fairly incivil as well.
    • I do not see there being a significant reason to oppose based on a notional conflict of being on ArbCom and a bureaucrat; the two areas of responsibility have no overlap. However, I am concerned about the tasking level this candidate is wanting to assume. ArbCom is a backlogged process. WP:RFA is not. Why the desire to take on additional responsibilities for an area that is not backlogged when the candidate is already involved in a backlogged process? Candidates notes that Raul654 is also on ArbCom. Since his election to ArbCom, he's closed roughly 5% of RfAs. Thus, if the candidate were a bureaucrat too, she'd conceivably close 5%? Where's the need? I also note that this candidate was appointed to a temporary posting on ArbCom on October 11. This temporary posting expires at the end of this year. I think the candidate should serve out their appointed term before taking on bureaucrat responsibilities.
    • Also, the candidate herself states she's an infrequent participant at RfA ([31]). If the candidate has infrequent interest in the RfA process, why the desire to be a bureaucrat?
    • With all the above in mind, I do not feel that I can in good conscience support this candidate to be a bureaucrat. Thank you for listening. Again, my apologies for the long description of my opposition. I wanted to make it clear what my basis for this opposition was, rather than there being a presumptive dismisal of my vote because of an earlier disagreement with Kelly. --Durin 19:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Impressive. I myself had forgotten about quite a few of those edits, since many of them were six months or more ago, and therefore predate my adminship. Strangely, nobody raised any of them in my RfA. As to my lack of edit summaries: I tend not to bother using edit summaries on edits of ArbCom-related pages; neither do many of my fellow Arbitrators. Edits to ArbCom-related pages are a substantial portion of my editing activity lately. This really demonstrates why an overly fiddly examination of statistics is not a good measure of a candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I made 22 cites of your contributions to Wikipedia. Only 6 predated your adminship (active as of June 15, 2005). Bureaucrats have typically undergone more scrutiny in RfB than admins in RfA. I do not see anything improper in bringing up behavior across a spectrum, including a small subset (if appropriate and not previously addressed) from before adminship. --Durin 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    I would strongly encourage anyone who is considering factoring the above into their decision to actually read the provided difflinks. I read every one of them, in the vast majority of the cases I did not find Kelly's response to be inappropriate in the slightest and in none was her response inexcusable. I believe that other editors not under the influence of dispute goggles will see things in much the same way I have and would feel the above text substantially mischaracterizes many of the situations, even though it was obviously written with the best intentions. --Gmaxwell 21:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    I agree that individuals read the diffs for themselves. I've read them. I'm not involved in any disputes with these parties. I think impugning them as dishonest goes too far. It's probably best to let participants decide for themselves. --Tabor 21:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (Struck because it was in response to a comment that has now been changed --Tabor 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
    • Regardless of whether Kelly's behavior in any of these diffs was 'excusable' or not, I would like to hear her at least address some of the issues, rather than labeling them all as "not a good measure of a candidate". Radiant_>|< 23:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    "none was ... inexcusable", I doubt any of the rest of us could meet that lofty standard.--Silverback 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Changed from support, see my explanation there.--Silverback 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. oppose because of what durin said Yuckfoo 00:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    But what do you think? silsor 02:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Are you going to ask that of numbers 19, 20, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32 in "support" as well? (That's not a comment on this RfB, but on the incredible rarity of a need to defend a "support" vote while voting "oppose" often brings down the fire.)
    brenneman(t)(c) 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    I thought that issue was already described on Wikipedia:Sheep vote. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Phil Welch and also because of questionable admin behaviors and a very curt reply to my serious proposals to improve Arbcom. Admins/Arbs are held to very high standard regarding WP:CIVIL Klonimus 06:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, seems a nice enough person, but has made a number of disturbing statements regarding policy suggestive of a concentration of the reigns of power. Seemingly possesses negative aspects attributed to "old-timers", despite a relatively short tenure. Has been short w silverback, and aquired some other distressing criticism among the oppose votes. Sam Spade 12:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I havne't seen any evidence of a need for more buracrats. Interactions with this user have given ther impression that the user wants there to be a ruleing clique.Geni 13:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose (vote withdrawn; 18:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)) I object to Kelly using her RfB as a way to prove a point. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think that this is a fair characterization of what I'm doing by not withdrawing this RfB. I ran for bureaucrat because I believe that I'd be a capable and competent bureaucrat and I believe there is just cause to believe that we need more bureaucrats. I elected not to withdraw it not to "prove a point", but rather to ensure that some benefit accrues to Wikipedia from this RfB. (Frankly, I think WP:POINT is one of our most frequently incorrectly cited, and incorrectly applied, policies.) There is, of course, still some chance that this RfB will pass (although as I recall the standard of consensus for RfBs is 90%, which would require, at this point, something like 135 supports, a number I feel I am unlikely to reach, especially since I am unwilling to go out and stump for votes). If this RfB is to be considered "disruptive" (and, to be honest, I don't), I think the onus for causing that disruption rightfully falls on those who disrupt RfA/RfB to serve personal ends not fairly related to selecting qualified candidates, and not on myself for believing that I am a qualified candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    You yourself said you are leaving it going to "provide an object lesson as to how badly broken RfA/RfB are". If the reason you have not withdrawn it is because you want to highlight the problems with RFA/RFB, I think that is indeed "proving a point". The first section of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point says, in crystal-clear terms, "State your point; don't prove it experimentally". I am offended that you would attempt to criticise my vote by implying that I am applying it incorrectly. I thought you were a great member of the community and a good contributor to Wikipedia; my respect for you has now dramatically fallen. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Following Kelly's withdrawal of her earlier comments, I am no longer opposing. I'm also glad for the discussion we had together about it. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose I have seen this editor behave in ways I feel unbecoming to the position she already holds at ArbCom, and I don't see a need for more bureaucrats in any case. Xoloz 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Weak Oppose, on behalf of my brother who likes voting for this crap. She's a great user, but I have to oppose per others. RobertRay 20:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose due to history of incivility and heavy handedness towards others. Silensor 22:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Generally agree with opposing comments above. Bureaucratship is an executive/administrative position, and Arbitratorship a judiciary one. I believe in the separation of powers as an effective way to prevent accidental tyranny. Ingoolemo talk 07:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    And for those interested, I do think that Raul should step aside as a Bureaucrat for the duration of his term as an Arbitrator. Ingoolemo talk 11:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning towards support. Kelly is a good administrator, and she is also human. Like myself, she can get flustered at times. I do not think that should be a reason not to support her. Also, I disagree with anyone who votes oppose with the reason "we don't need more bureaucrats". That's a foolish reason to oppose, IMHO. What's wrong with more bureaucrats? However, the reason why I personally am casting a neutral vote is because Kelly has indicated that she was going to remove her self-nom because it was looking like it was going to fail, and thus how "RfA and RfB" are broken. I do not wish to take any sides with something like that. Kelly, I personally trust you and I think you would make a fine bureaucrat, but now that you have announced that you have resigned hope for a successful nomination I can't justify a stance. Take your RfB as a way to see what people have issues with, and don't beat yourself up for them. Instead, fix them! I bet that if you take all of the comments to heart and apply them, you will have a successful RfB. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak Neutral. I normally oppose self noms, but I normally support bureaucratorships since I believe as we get more and more admin candidates, we'll need more bureaucrats. Kelly is definately one of the most knowledgable people on Wikipedia regarding Wikipedia itself, but I were asked "Can you trust Kelly's ability to make decisions?", my answer right now would be "I don't know" from what I've seen of Kelly so far in random conversations here and there. However, I could be swayed very easily either way, Kelly's an asset to Wikipedia, I'm just not convinced on whether bureaucratorship would reduce or enhance that. Karmafist 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Karmafist, my understanding is that RfBs are always self-noms. If true, then I think RfBs should be excluded from your "no self-noms" philosophy. Babajobu 02:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    Baba, you'll have to show me that policy. Right now, there's a fairly good reason that RfAs and RfBs are on the same page -- they're basically the same thing, except for a slightly more powerful position with different consensus rules. Karmafist 22:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    WP:RFA#Requests for bureaucratship reads, "The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Changed to Neutral. Not long ago, Durin said that most voters on RfA don't spend enough time reviewing the candidate's history before they vote. This was certainly the case with my initial vote on this RfB. On one hand, I admire Kelly's peacekeeping abilities; the way she gets opponents to see each other's point of view, the calming effect her words have on those involved in edit wars. But on the other hand, I am troubled by her occasional temperamental, unpredictable overreaction to what I see as minor infractions (or even to acts in good faith). Considering that I am one of the proponents of giving bureaucrats more powers, these incidents, rare as they may be, make me nervous enough to change my vote to Neutral. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • More of a question. There is a perceived lack of civility in some nominations, I think many people would agree that WP:RFA can be overly contentious sometimes. What role, if any, do you think bureaucrats have in keeping the nominations civil and non-disruptive? this is with the understanding that most go without any problems. Rx StrangeLove 05:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Bureaucrats are selected to determine if consensus to promote exists at the conclusion of an RfA (and to change usernames, if the devs ever reinstate that tool). I don't see bureaucrats as having any special role in enforcing WP:CIVIL and other conduct policies in RfA; that responsibility lies with the community through our existing dispute resolution process and in other pertinent policies (such as remove personal attacks, which is controversial). In the past, when people have been persistently uncivil in RfA we have used the standard RfC process; I am yet to be convinced that there is a reason why this should change. I do believe that editors (whether or not bureaucrats) can remove bad faith nominations and even bad faith votes -- but I would caution all editors to be extremely cautious in determining what a "bad faith nomination" or especially "bad faith vote" is. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to withdraw this RfB when it became apparent that it would fail. But at this point I intend to leave it going to provide an object lesson as to how badly broken RfA/RfB are. Please, continue to rip me to shreds, people, I'm enjoying it. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Reminds me of a typical heated, emotionally-flared campaign for President of the United States... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    ... in a sense that both the position of the President of the United States and the position of a Wikipedia bureaucrat were orignally designed to be "no big deal" admin jobs. But because their actions affect a whole lot of people, campaigns have become rather heated... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, what? I just said that you "sometimes jump to a harsh conclusion too quickly". If you consider that comment to be "ripping you to shreds" then you have just proven my point. Radiant_>|< 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The politics here astounds me. There is a simple question: is Kelly Martin competent to handle bureaucratic duties? That's all we have to answer, by means of oppose or support votes. And for those of you worried about consolidation of power- I don't know if you've noticed or not, but Jimbo Wales still has ultimate authority here on Wikipedia. That means that he can do whatever he want, for whatever reason he wants to. In other words, consolidation of power is already present, and voting based on that fear won't change the facts.--Scïmïłar parley 21:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Quick! Somebody open up an RfC on this Jimbo person! ;-) Karmafist 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the question could be better phrased as "should Kelly Martin be given bureaucrat authority at this point in time?". While that's quite distinct from the question "is Kelly a model Wikipedian and a good person" (thus making, say, most of Durin's criticisms not that pertinent in my view), there's more to it than whether Kelly is competent. As for consolidation of power, simply because consolidation of power exists doesn't mean we should perpetuate it. Consolidation of power is something we're trying to move away from, not towards, and my understanding is that even Jimbo is trying to do this by minimizing his own role in Wikipedia decisions. — Phil Welch 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs. The reason for this is that people tend to like assurance that people of proven commitment and competence are doing the jobs. So you'll get all admins on the arbcom even though that's not a requirement, bureaucrats on arbcom, arbitrators running as bureaucrat, etc. And that's fine because this is a project to write an encyclopedia, not an Internet government - David Gerard 15:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The above comment was accidentally removed by TDS when voting - David Gerard 09:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. I have not been excessively active in RfA of late but I understand the concept of consensus. For the purpose of RfA, it is generally accepted that a 80-20 margin is considered "rough consensus"; in cases that are near the 80% support margin the bureaucrat is expected to use her judgment to decide whether or not consensus has been reached. In close cases, I am likely to give votes which express a particular reason for supporting or opposing a candidate more weight than those that merely state unqualified support or opposition.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. In any close decision I would, of course, explain my reasoning on the RfA talk page. If I was in any doubt as to my decision, I would, of course, consult with other bureaucrats and with other trusted individuals in the community.
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. It's hard to remain ignorant of policy long when one serves on the Arbitration Committee, and I have stayed involved in the policy shaping process for most of the last several months, often to the point that I don't do much else. I'm not aware of any credible claims of unfairness against me. I am well known throughout the community (and even, I am told, over on the German Wikipedia) and quite willing to stand on my reputation in this regard.
4. You recently stated that you were in favor of prohibiting self-nominations for adminship. [32] Since you nominated yourself here, what do you feel is different about bureaucratship nominations? Or has your view on self-nominations changed?
A. I self-nommed because I was informed that it is traditional for bureaucrats to self-nom. I don't particularly agree with this, but it is apparently the way things work. My disapproval of self-noms isn't that strong, and is not shared by very many others, so I don't make a big deal of it. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:RFA#Requests for bureaucratship reads, "The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Requests for self-de-adminship and confirmation of adminship

Requests to relinquish adminship are granted on request and may be made at m:Requests for permissions. Do not place such requests here because the stewards will not act on them unless they are placed at m:Requests for permissions.

If you wish to have the community confirm or re-affirm your adminship, the correct process is:

  1. Voluntarily relinquish adminship by placing your request at m:Requests for permissions
  2. Apply for adminship here utilizing the usual procedure.

If you have concerns about specific aspects of your administrative performance, consider posting a request for review on the Administrators' Noticeboard or employing a Request for comment.

[edit]

Related requests

If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship"
Personal tools