remove nonexistent RfA |
No edit summary |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John Reaves}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John Reaves}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/owie123}} |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite}} |
Revision as of 16:27, 5 March 2007
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2nd Nomination | Error parsing votes | Error getting status | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
John Reaves | 56 | 5 | 0 | 92 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
owie123 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ryanpostlethwaite | 80 | 8 | 0 | 91 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Kyriakos | 45 | 18 | 0 | 71 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Luckyluke (2nd nomination) | Error parsing votes | Error getting status | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
KyraVixen | 41 | 17 | 0 | 71 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
AuburnPilot | 78 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Veinor | 55 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2nd Nomination | Error parsing votes | Error getting status | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
John Reaves | 56 | 5 | 0 | 92 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
owie123 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Ryanpostlethwaite | 80 | 8 | 0 | 91 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Kyriakos | 45 | 18 | 0 | 71 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Luckyluke (2nd nomination) | Error parsing votes | Error getting status | Error parsing end time | -- | report | ||||
KyraVixen | 41 | 17 | 0 | 71 | Unsuccessful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
AuburnPilot | 78 | 1 | 0 | 99 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report | |
Veinor | 55 | 1 | 0 | 98 | Successful | Error parsing end time | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 06:08:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Danielrocks123
Voice your opinion (7/12/3); Scheduled to end 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Danielrocks123 (talk · contribs) - I am a good editor with 2500+ edits to Wikipedia. I have a previous failed RfA in which I attempted to become a sysop before I really had any idea of what Wikipedia is all about. I spend a lot of time monitoring Special:Newpages and tagging articles for speedy deletion. Because these articles get deleted, they do not show up in my contributions. Also, I have lately not had access to my normal computer on which I have installed AmiDaniel's VandalProof, but when I am able to use that computer, reverting vandalism is another use of my time. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this self-nomination. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: The ability to block vandals would help me out in my efforts to stop vandalism, but my main concern will be continuing my work monitoring Special:Newpages and deleting articles that clearly don't belong here. I have occasionally become frustrated when I have tagged an article on a clearly non-notable subject for speedy deletion, and the creator simply removes the speedy deletion tag. It has occasionally taken me days to get articles on random high-schoolers deleted.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I would have to say that I am most pleased with my efforts working with the Wikipedia Mediation Committee. I am an active (albeit fairly new) member of that committee, and the opportunity that I have had so far to help resolve disputes has really made me feel good about my contributions.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Of course, as a member of WP:MEDCOM I deal with conflicting parties all the time. However, by remaining neutral throughout the proccess, I am able to avoid directly arguing with anybody. Many people tell me that I am too non-confrontational in my nature, but I feel that it is a positive attribute to be able to deal with other people without becoming angry or upset. I intend to maintain this attitude while I work on Wikipedia.
- General comments
- See Danielrocks123's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
- Ok, well it's clear that this RfA won't succeed, so I'll withdraw. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support - My only nitpick is that I don't see any uses of {{nn-warn}}, though you claim to do speedy deletions. ST47Talk 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good user overall. An RFA is not about who often a user will use a sysop tool but if he/she will use the tool right.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As a NP patroller myself, I know exactly what you're talking about. We need some fresh blood of administrators working the speedy backlog, and you're doing a great job so far. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - high volume of Speedy work shows a clear requirement for the mop, coupled with obvious evidence of the cool-headed Wikipedian we need from his MedCom work. anthonycfc [talk] 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks okay to me. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice editor. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all the oppose votes are based on pure editcountitis. I haven't seen a single intelligent reason to oppose this RfA. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose sorry, but less than 300 edits since November 2006 shows lack of activity, plus a lot of your recent edits seem to be using VandalProof and AWB, I'd like to see more real-life interaction with pages and other editors. However, this doesn't mean to say that you're not a good contributor to WP and the last thing I want to do is discourage your edits here. Spend some more time making edits to articles, communicating with other editors, to show the community how you react in a variety of environments, and re-apply! All the best... The Rambling Man 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, I'm not one for counting edits necessarily, but the user has less than 300 edits in total since the beginning of November 2006. He simply has not been active enough to demonstrate the level of commitment to the project that admins must have. Suggest withdrawal, increased participation, and retry several months later. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned in my answers to the questions, many of my edits have come on pages that have been deleted. Also, as I mentioned before, I have not had access to my home computer. This should change soon, though. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above votes. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per The Rambling Man. Michael 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Less than 2 edits/day for the last 4 months. If you are having trouble with speedy deletions and improper removal of the tag, I would expect more warnings in user talk, or reports to AIV. —dgiestc 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not enough edits, dude! --Mr. krabs 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- This vote was cast by a user blocked as a disruptive sock. Jesse Viviano 04:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose First, I absolutely commend the user for participating in MedCom. I wish one of the default admin questions dealt with helping users through various dispute resolution processes. So I'm sorry you did something I think so highly of, but I cannot support. You state as a reason that you long for the delete button but after reviewing your deletion voting and nominations (particularly) I cannot trust you with that tool. SchmuckyTheCat 06:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant but firm oppose, I do think it is only a matter of time before you get the buttons, but as SchmuckyTheCat points out, your reasoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northgate, Seattle, Washington indicates a lack of familiarity with AfD notability guidelines. Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, isn't that what AfD is for? As an administrator, I would never delete an article without knowing that deletion was the community's concensus. When I say that being able to delete articles would be helpful to me, I am mostly talking about speedy deletions and proposed deletions where it is pretty clear what the result should be. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, needs more experience generally and should have better knowledge of notability guidelines. Lack of edits, hope to see more editing. Terence Ong 11:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per lack of activity over the past few months.↔NMajdan•talk 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't deny that my recent editing has been limited, but I also have lots of older edits that should make it clear that I have no intention of misusing admin tools. My edit count is not as high as that of some other users, but I don't think that should be a reason to oppose. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - You need broader activity as well as more time spent familiarizing yourself with policy and procedure. Come back, though, you are headed in the right direction! Kukini hablame aqui 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Kukumi & others Johnbod
- Oppose per lack of contributions in the past months. Anyway, happy editing, Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral- Lack of edits. But you are still a good user, but I'm not sure if I should support. --Garfield the Cat 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per concerns raised above. - Anas Talk? 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral oper the questionable AFD nomination.-- danntm T C 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral To avoid pile on, please withdraw, do some article writing, and try again in three months. Jaranda wat's sup 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Give it a few more months than come back please, alot of users are like you keep it up though. Artaxiad 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
John Reaves
Final: (56/5/5); ended 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
John Reaves (talk · contribs) - I’m glad to nominate John Reaves for adminship, one of my collaborators in WikiProject Harry Potter . He’s joined Wikipedia since 2005 but specially been very active for the last 4 months with nearly 7000 edits in total. What impresses me is his remaining balance between a good editor and a hard-working wikipedian with Wikipedia work. A dedicated member in Harry Potter project , an industrious editor with huge contributions in mainspace (takes up approximately 50% out of total), a diligent recent changes patroller and new page patroller who readily reverts vandalism, sends warnings to users who have done wrong and tries to prevent them from further vandalizing. John frequently appears in WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:VP/T etc. He’s also helpful to welcome new users and often answers questions in WP:HD. I strongly believe that if entrusted with sysop, he’ll make use of it in the most effective way. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination - It is my pleasure to co-nominate John Reaves for adminship. Having worked with him in WikiProject Harry Potter, where he has an active role, I've been impressed to see his dedication to the Project in particular, and to other fields of Wikipedia in general.
John is a tireless vandal-fighter, and is highly involved in recent changes patrolling, as Causesobad already mentioned. He has made over 100 accurate reports to WP:AIV. John actively contributes to AfD, MfD, RfD, etc; his constructive work includes nominating articles and miscellanies for deletion [1] [2][3], getting involved in the discussion[4], giving useful comments [5] . He also helps out with closing XfDs [6] [7] . His throughout contributions indicate that he has a deep understanding of the policies and that he would apply them rationally using his common sense.
John is a helpful Wikipedian, he is quick to come to the aid of other users and can often be seen at the Help desk. He answers Help Me requests [8][9][10] and warmly welcomes newbies to acknowledge their contributions [11][12]
John has experience of participating in some other Wikipedia spaces such as WP:RFPP [13] and WP:RFC/U [14] [15], where he is a regular visitor.
He has non-controversial signature and userpage, good edit summary usage, and his email is enabled.
John Reaves is a fair, responsible and trustworthy editor, reasonably well-qualified for administrator status. I hereby recommend him to the community. PeaceNT 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. John Reaves (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I'd of course do the usual work at AIV and other everlasting backlog such as CAT:CSD and WP:AN/3RR. I'd really like to help sort out and take care of the occasional misplaced reports at AN/I and AN because they seem to slip by pretty frequently. request for protection , requested moves and redirects for discussion don't get nearly the same amount of attention as other pages (like AIV and AN/I) so I would help keep them clear along with various XfDs. One thing that especially bothers me is when pages remain protected for too long because it isn't in the spirit of the project. So I would be on the look out at requests for unprotection and just generally checking to make sure pages haven't been protected too long (assuming vandalism has died down and the article isn't a vandal magnet). I'd also like to help out at copyright problems, requests for edits to protected pages and the relatively new Wikipedia:Request an account
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I wouldn't say that I have a specific article that I'm proud of, but some of my best work in the article namespace has probably been on random page patrol when I manage to clean-up an article and when I occasionally find some of the dreck that slips by new pages patrollers and deal with it accordingly. I've been pretty active in WikiProject Harry Potter and I feel the work I've done there has been pretty worthwhile.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I've been in a few since starting here. The majority have been with one editor, over various things. The final straw, for me, was when we ended up being briefly blocked for what I would consider one of the lamest edit wars ever. After that, I decided enough is enough and decided no more conflict and rudeness. So I can assure you that I'm done with this type of thing. It's unconstructive, stressful, stupid, useless and not for me. I find that I am much more constructive and able to contribute a better level when I'm not involved in conflicts or when I handle them civily. Also, you'll notice (in the interest of full disclosure) I was blocked for reposting something I made up 2 years ago. I was dumb and completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia and what a great project it is. I encourage you to consider my recent contributions, not my idiotic one from 2 years ago.
- Optional Question from Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs)
- 4. As indicated above and in your block log you have been blocked for edit waring. Wheel Waring is the equivalent of edit warring only in admin actions. Why is wheel waring a bad thing and what steps will you take not to become part of one?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wheel warring is detrimental to Wikipedia and the community therein because it is disruptive and creates unnecessary drama that distracts us all from doing better things. Basically, if I oppose another admins actions, I'll discuss it with them or on the administrator's noticeboard if the user is unavailable or if I still disagree with the action.
- 4. As indicated above and in your block log you have been blocked for edit waring. Wheel Waring is the equivalent of edit warring only in admin actions. Why is wheel waring a bad thing and what steps will you take not to become part of one?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See John Reaves's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Support only seen good things from this user. Majorly (o rly?) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. His AIV reports are accurate, contradictory to what I had previously said (see neutral). Sorry about that mistake. Good article editing, AIV, XfD participation. Everything looks good to me. Nishkid64 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to be a strong editor, could find use for the tools. Ganfon 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With over 7000 edits and over 1 and a half years experience, of course I support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a fine user and an especially fine admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As he said, we've had our run-ins, but as he also said, it ended, largely due to his efforts. I can't think of any non-admin more conscientious about the rules, or in ensuring that they are followed - so I would expect him to do better still as an admin. Michaelsanders 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportMy only concern was his block, but I'm convinced he learned from it.Rlevse 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support naturally as co-nom. PeaceNT 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great contributor. Artaxiad 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh-very-much-yes support. Daniel Bryant 02:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like the various ways in which this user communicates with other users (test1,2,3, etc., user talk, & welcomes). This is, to me, an important part of effective administration. Kukini hablame aqui 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, (me? the nom) of course, sorry for the late vote. Causesobad → (Talk) 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Michael
- Support all my experiences with him have been excellent, definitely would make a great admin james (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I appreciate the openness that John has provided us in the questions above. I've worked with this great editor on numerous articles in the past and have seen no ill-deeds. His experience and work with various tasks (AIV, etc.) shows that he has the will and persistence to go the extra mile. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good, and the answers are refreshingly honest.-- danntm T C 05:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support definitely :). Yuser31415 06:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good user with a good record. Should be a fine admin. - Anas Talk? 11:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good answers to questions 3+4 are enough to not worry about the block, otherwise an excellent candidate. Addhoc 12:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very Good Vandal Fighter and also posses a good record..--Cometstyles 12:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Neil (not Proto ►) 12:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. G.He 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per being a great editor and per not a big deal. The Rambling Man 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was thinking of nominating this user myself, he is a regular at WP:XFD and I would definitely trust him with the mop and bucket.Tellyaddict 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks to be a good editor and we sure need more good admins. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes please, so he can stop filling up AIV and get on to some real work! :p – riana_dzasta 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my fellow Wikipedians have said all there is to say. anthonycfc [talk] 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Checks out just fine. Bubba hotep 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Respectable edits, hangs out in needed areas, seems to have learned from block/revert experience. Not a difficult decision for me. Go. Pigmandialogue 00:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good, should benefit the project. skip (t / c) 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good contributor. Appleworm 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - although I was a bit dubious about the block and edit war, I've never voted anything but Support in any RfA, ever, and I'm not going to start now. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per noms. Sarah 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: A fine candidate for adminship in my opinion. ~Steptrip 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's-about-time support. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Looks like a good candidate for sysop tools. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Garion96 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I'm a little troubled by the 3RR and some recent comments, he seems sincere in his apology and I'm willing to give him a pass on those issues. Otherwise, appears to be a great editor.--Alabamaboy 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Cao Wei 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought John was an admin already support. — S.D. 23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen him around admin areas for a while now and have only gotten good impressions (although their have, of course, been the occasional mistakes and slip-ups). I think John will make a good and helpful addition to the administrative team. Cbrown1023 talk 23:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have seen the excellent work he has done around WP:WPHP firsthand and believe he will make an more useful and greater addition to Wikipedia as a sysop. RHB Talk - Edits 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent user with a lot of wonderful contributions. --Meno25 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Despite the recent mis-step mentioned below, this editor doesn't seem to make a habit of bad behavior. The answers to the questions above are very good, and the editor seems to be very level-headed. I think this editor can be trusted with the twiddled bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support User:brianherman
- Support A very fine user, would do great work with the tools, especially at WP:RPP and WP:RFD Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, another good user who won't abuse the tools.--Wizardman 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, an great user who helps out on many Xfd's. meshach 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --dario vet (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleared for adminship Great vandal fighting work. —Pilotguy (go around) 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good editor, issues are not enough to deny adminship. Will not abuse tools, will use them constructively, will help project. Part Deux 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. I hate to be the nay-sayer, but it is only six weeks since this editor has blocked for "3RR & Edit waring", the episode in question can be seen here. The edit summaries there seem to me grounds for civility concerns, which pop elsewhere, too, for example here and here (made in response to this and this). Bucketsofg 18:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern. The block and war were the result of a previously long standing issue between myself and the other editor which has since been resolved (he's even given me his support in this request). As I said above, I regret my instances of incivility and have since stopped because it is "unconstructive, stressful, stupid, useless, etc" and does nothing but hurt the project. John Reaves (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Im a little worried about the edit on Pyrobooster's talk page. I think the level of anger in the response isn't very appropriate, and ought to be explained.Changed to support. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- See this diff. The page he was referring to was John Reaves (he created it new before the current version) which contained the text:
I admit, I was overly sarcastic, but it wasn't anger, just an annoyed reply. John Reaves (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]John Reaves, former pizza delivery man for Dominoes (TM) now censor for the internationally renowned Wikipedia.com. He has enjoyed a successful career, and is probably not American but an underpaid IT professional in India. Pyrobooster 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- See this diff. The page he was referring to was John Reaves (he created it new before the current version) which contained the text:
- Weak oppose - John is a tireless worker and certainly worthy of being in Admin eventually but I'd like to see him mellow a little first. He can be gruff and aggressive on User Talk pages; which is not a quality to encourage in administrators. In a discussion with me about edits to the Ollivander page, where I posted my views initially for discussion and then made changes (see here), he reverted my alterations within one minute and became quite harsh during the ensuing discussion (see here and here and full conversation here under "Reply"]]). There were certainly faults on both sides - I accept that. However, conversations such as this with new users might discourage them from adopting WP:BOLD or even, in extreme cases, coming back and editing. I will be happy to support him in a couple of months if he relaxes a bit. Coricus 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose Bucketsofg post above worries me. --- SAndTLets Talk 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose Bucketsofg points out some rather dismissive comments, not so civil comments. Calling somebodies message "completely worthless" and saying "You are just repeating what someone else has already said to make your self feel important." are not the type of responses I would like a user to get when the talk to an admin. I am glad you have decided that uncivility is unproductive, but that was just in Feb, perhaps at a later time. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - BucketsofG's diffs make me feel that this user should not be an administrator. I want all admins to be level-headed and calm. - Richardcavell 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral. Would have opposed, but I've seen good work from this user. My only concern is the sometimes-inaccurate AIV reports. I have handled some of these reports by John Reaves, and have had to remove some since the user had not violated the last warning. IIRC, I saw this just less than a week ago. I see he has made many more reports, and they don't seem to be inaccurate, so I might change my mind and support the user by the end of the RfA.Nishkid64 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Not that I doubt you, because we all make mistakes, but do you have any diffs? I'd like to try and figure why I would do that. John Reaves (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The issue Bucketsofg brings up of relatively recent 3RR violations and civility concerns bothers me. It is certainly understandable that this particular issue has been resolved, but I think it may nonetheless show poor judgment in disputes. The issue is neither severe nor recent enough for me to oppose, given that it has been peaceably resolved, but it does raise some questions. —Cuiviénen 01:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Bucketsofg. I think civility is one of the most important things for an admin to have so that they can handle disputes smoothly. It has been a while since the diffs (people can change in a month) and John seems to have learnt from the incidents so I'm going neutral. James086Talk 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Looks like a good vandal fighter but recent 3RR and civility troubles are a little worrying. Keep your nose clean, come back in a month and I will support. —dgiestc 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral as per Dgies. Come back in a month and I will support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to all neutrals: If it helps, I'd be willing to place myself in Category:Administrators open to recall. John Reaves (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Coricus, leaning to support per Category:Administrators open to recall. Good idea, admins should generally be open to recall. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
owie123
Final (0/4/2); Ended 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
owie123 (talk · contribs) - See My user pageOwie123 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A:
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A:
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A:
- General comments
- See owie123's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
Oppose
- "Edit count for User:owie123 counted at 16:29, Monday 5 March 2007 (UTC): (main) 4 User 23 User talk 22 Wikipedia 2 Total 51". You don't have nearly enough experience in any area of Wikipedia for us to have any idea what you'd do with the admin tools if you had them. You haven't even answered the questions; the only information that you've given us in the nomination is a bunch of userboxes. Try again when you are a lot more experienced and have much more idea of how Wikipedia works (and it might be worth reading WP:GRFA as well). --ais523 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and suggest speedy withdrawal, or WP:SNOW is what will happen here. - Anas Talk? 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Despite five deletions and requests to stop creating a redirect to his user page from the main space, Owie123 has just done it again! LittleOldMe 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and also suggesting withdrawing → Few contributions, lack of experience, lack of wikipolicies understanding. Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- May I suggest withdrawing this this request until you have more experience? John Reaves (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Ryanpostlethwaite
Final: (80/8/3); ended 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Ryanpostlethwaite (talk · contribs) - I think Ryan's ready for the mop. In his time here I believe he's proven himself trustworthy to serve the community. He's regularly commenting in admin areas, and he's clearly shown he knows what he's doing. He's a vandalfighter as well, something we can't have enough off, and from his comments on WP:RFCN I can see he understands the blocking policy properly. In addition, he's always civil and polite, and as admins are often thought of as setting an example, I think he'll do well with the extra tools. Majorly (o rly?) 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination - It is my pleasure to co-nominate Ryan for adminship though it is a bit late. I've been interacting w/ Ryan since weeks now as he's been very active at the ANI and RfC. His fairness and balanced views lead me to put my trust on him and i am sure he will be a big asset to wikipedia as an admin. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: As a sysop, I would have 2 main ports of call, firstly AIV, part of my work on wikipedia involves vandal fighting and I see all to often vandals going on spree's in an attempt to discredit the encyclopedia, it is often very important that blocks are issued quickly as a protective measure for the encyclopedia to stop this - hence thats why I view working on AIV as very important. Having said all that, I also feel it is very important for all users to receive the full scope of warnings before recieving a block (unless the vandalism is of very serious magnitude), if blocks are handed out too easily, it can discourage possibly good editors in the future from editing. My second port of call would be CAT:CSD, I have tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion in the past (and just about all have been deleted!), there are often large backlogs here and it is very important that clear nonsense pages or attack pages are deleted from the encyclopedia as fast as possible for the encyclopedia to maintain its credability. Many of the pages that I tag for speedy deletion, I would still tag for speedy deletion rather than deleting outright, it is often better to get a second opinion as to whther an article should be deleted rather than jumping straight in and deleting it. To a lesser extent I would also like to help out in closing AfD's, consensus is key to wikipedia and certainly shouldn't be classed as vote counting, it should be based on the strength of the arguments which I feel I have a good eye for spotting. All in all, adminship is nothing big, it would simply give me the tools to add to the work that I currently do and hopefully allow me to further help the encyclopedia.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: The thing I'm most proud of on wikipedia would have no benefit from admin tools, it is my adoption of User:Boswell, I actually feel I have been a really big help to him, I'm simply a friendly face there to oversee his contributions and generally keep a check on how he's doing, if you look on his talk page you will see the dialogue that we've had. I'm there for him to come to whenever he wants my help. Its very important that new users don't feel alone when they join wikipedia as this can often mean that they leave the project - often we lose good editors because of this, welcoming new users is something else I'm proud of. For the future, hopefully on April 1 (April fools day) I will be fortunate enough to see Red rain in Kerala on the main page which me and a few other users are currently planning on bringing up to FA standard in time for the date - a tough task but hopefully with hard work it can be achieved.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Almost every editors been in a conflict at one time or another, and more than anything the key thing is to remain civil and assume good faith that all editors are here to improve the encyclopedia. I am a firm believer that differences should be discussed and worked through, rather than getting into an edit war. If needs be, it can be best to take yourself away from wikipedia for a period of time allowing you to reflect upon things, and hopefully come back with a clearer mind. Tomorrow is new day, and we all have to work with each other on a daily basis, so whatever conflicts have occured, we must try hard to forget them in order to move on and further the encyclopedia. Getting a neutral view on conflicts can help a lot, and it can allow you to see things better from the other side. With my work on WP:RFCN, there are often very conflicting views on whether or not a username is acceptable, the key is to stick to policy at all times and this often helps to resolve the issue - quoting policy mostly makes users that were previously unaware of the particular part of policy aware of it and it can calm things down.
- 4. If your contributions to Wikipedia talk are any guide, then username policy is your primary policy interest. Could you expand on your interests in username issues? Also, as an admin please describe how you would be likely to deal with cases of bad and/or questionable usernames. Dragons flight 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: My interest in Wikipedia:Username policy comes from my work on WP:RFCN, here we get many usernames that are questionable and often concerns are raised which are not set in the policy, if this is the case, I often take it to Wikipedia talk:Username policy to try and gain a consensus as to what additions if any are to be made. The policy at present is very much open to interpretation, with many admins and users seeing it in different lights, a clearer policy would stop many cases of newbie biting (as usernames that did not infringe the policy would not be blcoked on sight or discussed at WP:RFCN - a very off putting start to any new editors wikipedian life) but it would also make it clearer as to what is acceptable for a block on sight, or which cases should be dicussed first. I have an interest in usernames for a number of reasons; Blatantly offensive usernames can distract people from the encyclopedia, which can only be a bad thing for the project, secondally, I truly hate newbie biting and although very serious infringement of the policy should be blocked on sight, non clear ones should be discussed first, giving chance for the user in question to explain their name and ultimately come to a consensus with the community as to how to move forward. As to how I would deal with username violations as an admin, clear cut infringements would be blocked on sight as WP:U states is the correctthing to do, if I felt for any reason whatsoever that my personal judgement of the username may difer from the community, I would refer the username to WP:RFCN. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. Other than username policy, are there any other areas of Wikipedia policy that you have contributed to, or have thought about working on in the future? Dragons flight 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A: At present, I have not been in any other policy related matters, I have however had some input into WP:MUSIC (the notability guidline for music inclusion in wikipedia) and particularly the section on album notability which currently reads; Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. I personally feel that this isn't really acceptable as an official guidline for wikipedia as it should have much clearer points that the album must meet in order to be included. I have created a proposed addition to this guidline in my userspace (User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album)) to try and make it more like the other notability guidline, we are currently discussing this to gain a consensus on the proposed addition before we make any changes. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 Since you're mainly focussing on editing, are you aware of image licencing policies? Differences between the creative commons licences, public domain, and GFDL? Could you comment on the status of this image: Image:Flag of FOTW.svg =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A I have to say that editing articles is not my major action on wikipedia and it certainly won't be after concerns highlighted in this Rfa, and image licensing policy is not something I actively engage in on wikipedia. I concentate mainly on vandalism reversion, speedy deletion tagging on articles and similar policy matters. I am however aware of the GFDL lisense, which means that images are released allowing anyone the ability to use it or modify it as long as whatever document it is in is under the same license. Public domain images are free of ownership and anyone may use them as they wish. The creative commons license is a way in which the ceators of images may release them into the public domain, whilst still reserving some of the rights, the particular creative commons license it uses, gives the particular rights that are still reserved by the creator, I do not know each of the particular creative commons licenses, so this is something which I have to look up if ever needed, this brings me to Image:Flag of FOTW.svg, this image is released under the creative commons license, specifically attribution 2.5, this means that anyone may share or modify the image, but it must be made clear who the author is (and this must be done in the way the author wishes), it must also be made clear upon reuse, the particular license which the image is using. As an admin I would not get involved in image related matters such as IfD or speedy deletion of images. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See Ryanpostlethwaite's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- First support comes free with the nomination! Good luck mate. Majorly (o rly?) 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. I actually thought you were an admin. Seems like I confused you with Ryangerbil10 hehe. Anyway, I've seen great work from this user, and I was actually considering nominating this user once Majorly told me about Ryan. Great work at WP:AIV, WP:U, WP:RFC/NAME and article editing. Nishkid64 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have had good interactions with Ryan and I trust his judgement as an editor. He will make a fine admin. IrishGuy talk 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent! Somebody who contributes, vandalfights *and* is even British (we need more UK based sysops). Matthew 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've had a lot of interaction with Ryan on WP and he has been an excellent and fair editor. Can't fault the guy! - Alison☺ 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Certainly. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Rettetast 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support-Great user. See him around RFCN all the time. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent work all round (which is where I see him most!) Bubba hotep 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Looks like I finally get to use the "I thought he already was" cliché. Per Bubba hotep, I've seen him all around and he'd make an excellent admin. John Reaves (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great to my eyes. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellent user whom I continuously encounter with through recent changes patrol. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Khoikhoi 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! Great! –Llama mantalkcontribs 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good user overall. [16], and [17] show that this user won't abuse the blocking privilege.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - agree with nom - he's ready. Addhoc 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Meteoroid » 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like a good user.-- danntm T C 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good contributor who is actively engaged in policy. --Kukini hablame aqui 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very dedicated editor and an asset to the Administration..--Cometstyles 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think he will be a fine admin. James086Talk 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust Majorly's judgement. Just Heditor review 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My interactions with Ryan convince me he's ready. – Chacor 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Michael 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ... but I thought you already were? Yuser31415 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support must turn thought into reality. Agathoclea 08:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. PeaceNT 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great and experienced candidate. - Anas Talk? 11:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per amusing photo and general common sense. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure cliché support good luck! The Rambling Man 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support as co-nom. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - another one for the Brit Cabal. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seen him around; generally impressed. Keep up the good work. — Dan | talk 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find him to be well-reasoned, even where I disagree with him. Excellent, trustworthy candidate. --Dweller 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - I have worked with this editor on several occasions. This editor works well in difficult sitautions, such as working at WP:RFCN. I think this editor would make excellent use of the tools. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen him around, seems to be one of the good guys. – riana_dzasta 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. – Steel 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a gentleman, and a scholar! -Manopingo 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not a slack fellow. Busy, trusted by many, helps new editors. I just hope he won't question the appropriateness of my name on WP:RFCN. Pigmandialogue 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go for it. You look like you'll be successful with adminship. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've come across his good work a number of times; I trust him with the mop. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support big time. One of the nicest users I've come across here. delldot talk 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moppable - Georgewilliamherbert 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Causesobad → (Talk) 09:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Ong 09:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Seen him around, seems like a sound chap, no big deal. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, obviously. If this hadn't happened I would have nominated him myself. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good job.--Húsönd 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Appleworm 15:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent wikipedian. Keep going this way. Happy editing Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Deb 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. -- RHaworth 18:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This user is a friendly user. He is a decent editor who I think would make a good administrator; and when other users have been upset or troubled for whatever reason, he has helped them. Acalamari 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- He seems like an active editor who has been around and is familiar with what it's like to be a sysop. The copyright issue is a problem, but his explanation seems adequate. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 06:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have found him to be a thoughtful and considerate contributor when I have seen him at WP:RFCN. Sam Blacketer 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He will make a good admin, enough said. --sunstar nettalk 11:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm willing to overlook the citation thing, since he's owned up to his mistake and is working to fix it, and in any event it seems relatively tangential to the sort of things he'd actually be doing as an administrator. His actual policy- and process-related edits seem pretty good. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've seen Ryan a great deal at WP:RFCN. He always keeps cool and considers different points of view. He would make good use of the tools. Coemgenus 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Incredible editor, I have seen an amazing amount of excellent contributions from him in such little time on the project. With the tools he could be even better. Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I never interacted directly with the user, but I had a chance to bump into some of his contributions and was always pleasantly surprised to see a vandal fighter being able to contribute so efficently to the project, I couldn't support more - Myanw 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Based on your administrator-related work, I would have given you a strong support, but these allegations of plagarism upset me, you need to work on that (which I am sure you will after the response to it in this RfA). Otherwise, you are a prime candidate (hence my support). Cbrown1023 talk 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've been very happy seeing Ryan's civility and constructiveness in many Wikipedia discussions. I'm fine with him as an administrator.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. --Meno25 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This editor seems like an excellent candidate, has good experience, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this nomination for Ryan's wonderful vandal fighting and his ability to keep it cool. Also I can't wait to get those album notability guidelines updated. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I believe Ryan will make a good admin. I have on occasion interacted him at WP:RFCN when I have visited this page. We rarely agree, but if there was always concensus as to how to resolve username probs the page would not be needed. I think his opinions there reflect a wider tendency to generally AGF when others would not but I'm not convinced by those opposing that this is necessarily a bad thing. As to the copyright issues, I take Ryan at his word that it will not reoccur. WjBscribe 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Good-faithed user, will make a fair admin. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sure, he spends a lot of his time at RFCN, but still a great user.--Wizardman 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Strong endorsement given his constructive attitude, devotion to administrative tasks, and the professional manner in which he acknowledged and corrected past mistakes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Though with all the other votes, it looks like he doesn't need mine. Ryan is an excellent editor who makes Wikipedia a much better place through his tireless efforts to combat vandalism. he would make a great admin. Jeffpw 12:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Enough said above. -- Nick t 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Phew! Almost too late! I wouldn't want to miss out on supporting you! · AO Talk 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clear aim. Dedicated vandal fighter. - Microtony 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- support --dario vet (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well, it's not critical at this point, but that doesn't reduce my support :) Leebo T/C 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen this user around and I just cant remember! Good edit count and valuable contributions, could use the extra tools greatly! Aquasplash 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support If Ryan's understood the plagarism rules and resolved not to repeat his error, I'm happy to support his bid for admin. Coricus 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Changed from oppose). I've just been considering the statement Ryan recently put on his userpage and I believe he is most sincere in his comments. I believe he now understands that taking a piece of text and only changing a few words around is plagiarism and I think he understands that it unacceptable both on Wikipedia and academically. I think overall Ryan has been a very good editor and that he will make an excellent administrator. I just hope that if Ryan remembers other articles where he has done similar things with the source material, that he will immediately rewrite or delete as appropriate. More than what Ryan did, I'm disappointed by the blasé attitude some have shown towards plagiarism and copyright because this is a serious issue. But I don't hold it against Ryan and I feel comfortable in supporting his RfA. Sarah 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose. Unfortunately, I feel this candidate needs more time and experience. As shown by the evidence presented on the talk page, many of Ryan's mainspace contributions are essentially plagarism. I am going to assume that this is unintentional due to lack of understanding of our content policies, but it is more than enough reason for me to oppose. While it is okay for admins to focus their time in specific areas of interest, I do expect them to have at least a modest understanding of all the primary areas of wiki activity. Ryan has focused on username issues, welcoming new users, reverting vandalism, and various minor formatting issues to the near total exclusion of everything else. In particular, I can find only a very tiny number of articles where he has made substantive contributions, and most of those appear to lift substantially from outside sources without identifying direct quotes.
To his credit, Ryan is identifying the sources he copies as references/external links, but he fails to make clear that much of his content is verbatim quoting. In my opinion, Ryan does not yet have a sufficient grasp of the requirements of article writing or of our content policies in order to be ready for adminship. Dragons flight 06:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When I noticed Ryan's name on the RfA list, I came straight here all set to give my support, however, I'm very concerned by the evidence of plagiarism which DF has presented. I just can't support a candidate who has plagiarised as recently as last month. Some of the bios like Harold Gaba should be rewritten asap or deleted as copyvios because all but a few words has been copied from the source. Ryan, if there is an explanation for this, please tell us. Sarah 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Changing to support. Sarah 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I did not feel it appropriate to comment on my own Rfa, but I do feel for this particular matter, I owe an explanation. I have myself tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion due to copyright problems, and totally agree that copyright infringements are a very serious issue for wikipedia, opening it up to libelous action. The major problem with the articles in question, is that I have failed to reference them correctly, prior to British Pharmacological Society, these articles were written when I first came to wikipedia, and the only honest explanation I can give is that I have forgottern about them. With regards to British Pharmacological Society (which I wrote last month), I aimed to use the full extent of the reference facility, to curbe any copyright issues. Although I was planning to do this at the end of my Rfa so people would still see the issue, I am now going to fully rewrite, or tag for deletion, all the articles in question, due to the concerns raised. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Oppose per WP:SIG. - NYC JD (make a motion) 02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Withdraw the moral oppose, nominee changed his sig - NYC JD (make a motion) 02:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan is fascinated with WP:RFCN, however, it is a process time-sink which should be merged to WP:AIV and WP:RENAME. Ryan worries on behalf of blatant vandals when they not been read their Miranda rights. The amount of attention he has given to throw-away accounts suggests that he would, despite numerical appearances, be unproductive or even counterproductive as an administrator. That wouldn't be a big deal in itself, with so many other administrators who can actually get things done in the meantime, as long as you are not causing deliberate harm to the project, which brings me to the most important issue being discussed: COPYRIGHT. It would be better for you to edit/create no articles at all than to plagiarize. I really don't care whether it's malice, apathy, or ignorance — any of these traits should disqualify an aspiring admin. Strongly oppose. — CharlotteWebb 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose a difficult decision in someways, individual issue on their own I would quite possibly have just remained overall netural on, combined tips the balance to an oppose. I'm concerned with the WP:RFCN issue, maybe not quite as strongly as CharlotteWebb, but the last few ocassions I have visited it seems to be becoming a bureaucractic process, apparently more interested in rules for the sake of rules than actually the bigger picture of the encyclopedia. This of course isn't directly down to any single editor, but the involvment there seems to be directly a part of that and I'm not sure it's a shining example of the way things should work on wikipedia (i.e. it maybe poor experience rather than valuable experience). The copyright issue is a big one, saying I'd leave an outstanding copyright issue until after RFA so people could see it, seems to be a million miles away from the behaviour I'd expect of a potential admin, if you know it's a copyvio deal with it as soon as practical. Similarly the other statements made above regarding this, such as copyright infringement "opening it up to libelous action.", certainly don't give me any better impression that there is sufficient knowledge in such areas. (What has Libel generally got to do with Copyright ?) As I've said on other RFAs I'm not necessarily concerned about things people don't know (since they'll tend to avoid or ask when faced with it), I am concerned when they claim to know (an be acting on that knowledge) but that knowledge seems quite lacking. --pgk 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I realise that this will make no difference to the outcome, and I congratulate Ryan on his elevation to administratorship, but I have to say that the evidence of plagiarism and copyright violation identified by Dragons flight means that I must vote 'oppose'. I do not support the reasoning given by Charlotte. - Richardcavell 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you read my comment from beginning to end you will see that copyright violations are also my strongest concern regarding this user, so I believe we are more in agreement than your comment suggests. — CharlotteWebb 06:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per copyright concerns raised by Dragons flight. The activity would have been enough to get him blocked if had been caught in the act. I can't support Ryan at this time and I encourage him, despite the majority support to withdraw the nomination until the literally illegal activity has been resolved. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, any issues over the articles mentioned have been resolved. A list of the five articles and their current status is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite - Alison☺ 18:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but how certain are you that there are not more? — CharlotteWebb 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can anyone be sure you haven't any, or me? Well, WP:AGF and presumption of innocence has to come into it, no? - Alison☺ 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I presume innocense when he has admited guilt? How do I assume good faith when bad faith has been proven? If this was a school he would have been tossed out on his ear. Pladgerism is one of the few things that damage the entire project. I'm amazed that so few are taking this seriously.
- This isn't a death sentence and it shouldn't be a scarlet letter... but this hasn't been resolved untill there is a full investigation into his contributions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can anyone be sure you haven't any, or me? Well, WP:AGF and presumption of innocence has to come into it, no? - Alison☺ 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but how certain are you that there are not more? — CharlotteWebb 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, any issues over the articles mentioned have been resolved. A list of the five articles and their current status is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite - Alison☺ 18:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This is obviously going to pass, but the plagiarism is very troubling. Too troubling for me to want this to pass. We're all part of a massive project here, but Copyright issues can do so much damage. It's hard to hold Wikipedia liable for any infringements we make. Therefore, we have to do extra to check ourselves. Anyways, congratulations on the adminship and please do not abuse this position. StayinAnon 11:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. See my original comments in the neutral section. Dekimasuよ! 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- His actions are in good faith, but I've seen comments of his which lead me to question his judgement on multiple occasions. [18], [19], and [20] are by no means all of them. Picaroon 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that Ryanpostlethwaite was much too quick to open this RfC, given that the issue seemed clearly to me to be vagueness in the username policy rather than the actions of any given admin. If he becomes an admin, I would urge Ryan, in future, to recognize the difficulties of making admin decisions and the likelihood of any RfC on an admin attracting a fair amount of trolling, and consider it to be a last resort. I've sorted through his recent contributions, however, and in general Ryan is clearly an excellent editor. Chick Bowen 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not feel it appropriate to comment on my own Rfa, but I do feel for this particular matter, I owe an explanation. I have myself tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion due to copyright problems, and totally agree that copyright infringements are a very serious issue for wikipedia, opening it up to libelous action. The major problem with the articles in question, is that I have failed to reference them correctly, prior to British Pharmacological Society, these articles were written when I first came to wikipedia, and the only honest explanation I can give is that I have forgottern about them. With regards to British Pharmacological Society (which I wrote last month), I aimed to use the full extent of the reference facility, to curbe any copyright issues. Although I was planning to do this at the end of my Rfa so people would still see the issue, I am now going to fully rewrite, or tag for deletion, all the articles in question, due to the concerns raised. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Huh? My comment was on the RfC you started, not on the copyvio issue. Chick Bowen 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that was a duplicated comment from the above section, it was meant as no way reference to your comments RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? My comment was on the RfC you started, not on the copyvio issue. Chick Bowen 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came here with the intent to support, but I was swayed by the evidence of improper paraphrasing. I do not agree that the problem was simply a failure to source, because even if RyanPostlethwaite had referenced his sources, it would still have been a nearly word-for-word restatement of the source, which would still be improper paraphrasing. This leads me to question his judgment, which is why I'm reluctantly in the neutral section. I hope he will give some indication that he understands why it would still be a problem. Dekimasuよ! 09:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Changing to oppose, as my concerns have not been addressed. Dekimasuよ! 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A fine user, but I feel this editor needs a month or two longer to absorb all that is Wikipedia. -- Longhair\talk 08:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Kyriakos
Final (45/18/8); Ended 13:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Kyriakos (talk · contribs) - I've long been observing Kyriakos' activity here in wikipedia, that goes on since December 2005, and IMO his achievements are simply awesome. He has dedicated himself with great passion to both WikiProject Greece and WikiProject Military history, to both of which he participates assiduously, and has recently been elected a coordinator of the latter WikiProject; but his most outstanding edits are in Greek history. Of the many good articles he created, I will just mention here the two he has brought to featured status, Cretan War and Roman-Spartan War. Also important, Kyriakos is always friendly and polite, a quality I much appreciate in him. For all these reasons, I feel Kyriakos will make a great administrator, which would never abuse the tools.Aldux 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:"
I humbly accept Aldux's nomination.
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I plan on helping on several tasks. One of them is AIV. Vandalism is plaguing Wikipedia and I want to help contain users who continously keep vandalising articles. I have currently only been able to report them. Another one of the task I want to help out on is AfD. If there are articles when the time for discussion has expired and a clear consenus for deletion is agreed I would help close it.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: Of all the articles I have worked on I am most proud of the Cretan War and the Roman-Spartan War which have both achieved FA standard. I am also happy with is the Maniots article which I re-wrote and am planning of getting to GA and beyond.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: No, I am happy to say that I have never been in a major conflict. When I first started on Wikipedia, I made a stupid a stupid comment of which I am not proud of but since then I have not been in a major conflict. But if in the future I do become involved in a conflict, I will keep my cool and listen with respect to what others have to say and try to defuse the situation.
- General comments
- See Kyriakos's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Sorry about that everyone, I made a typo. I don't mean RfD I mean AFD. Kyriakos 08:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support An excellent editor who has contributed much to WPMILHIST and deserves the tools.--Looper5920 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Given that the user has been trusted to be an MILHIST coordinator, could need the tools. --MoRsE 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a fine editor and we need more admins who actually edit. It is easy to learn admin chores and I have no doubt he will be a fine admin.Rlevse 10:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nom.--Aldux 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Awesome editing! General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (at war here (screams in the background)) 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Seems as though he will make a fantastic Admin--St.daniel 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Kyriakos definitely would make a great admin. Artaxiad 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with reservations - Very good participation on various projects, seems very active, and generally knowledgeable. My only concern is lack of AIV and RfD participation. But, due to his general activity, I believe him when he says he will be more active in these areas in the future. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No reason I wouldn't trust him witrh the tools. Coemgenus 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Please do visit WP:CRIC some time! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact I've beena member of that project for over a year. Kyriakos 06:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! We'd like frequent visits though! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact I've beena member of that project for over a year. Kyriakos 06:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An enthusiastic, hard working editor who will be a good admin. semper fictilis 04:31, 1 March 2007(UTC)
- Support. You don't need to need the tools, just be trusted not to mess up using them. Grace Note 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent editor, however, more regular visit at XfD, WP:ANI, WP:AIV,.. will enrich your experience as an admin. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Strong Edit History and great Contributor. Keep up the good Work! §†SupaSoldier†§ 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will use the tools wisely, methinks.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like your answers and your edits seem well spread out--양복42 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ruralendeed 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]Support per nominator. Mr. Wikipedian 22 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- SPA; I'm leaving the validity of this one up to the 'crats to decide, but note that the account appears to have been created as a test of the username policy (violating WP:POINT; see their contribs). --ais523 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Likes editing Power Rangers-related articles and RfAs, just like other in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of CBDrunkerson —Dgiest c 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SPA; I'm leaving the validity of this one up to the 'crats to decide, but note that the account appears to have been created as a test of the username policy (violating WP:POINT; see their contribs). --ais523 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, no reason not to. Proto ► 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. What Proto said. Khoikhoi 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per criteria set forth on my user page. Edivorce 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, "no need for the tools" expresses a concern that the editor would use Wikipedia's mops incorrectly. However, I have no such worry with this careful and prolific editor. Even if he only shuts down an vandal once in a blue moon, he will do good with the tools. There is simply no reason to deny them here. Cool Hand Luke 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I feel less than logical on this support. I will dare criticism by saying I have a good feeling about this nom. A hunch, a gut instinct. I fail at applying strict standards in this case. PigmanTalk to me 06:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Trusted user. Oldelpaso 11:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My initial reasons for neutral are not enough. I will support now. Captain panda In vino veritas 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Dedicated, hardworking contributor. --RobthTalk 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The contributions of this user shows that he is an excellent asset for the Wikipedia community. --alidoostzadeh 02:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I doubt he will abuse the tools, writing two FAs is hard work and the person much be knowledgeable in policy to write them. We also need more specialist admins as they know about the subject they are writing and they can revert some edits, like false info for example that a normal user doing RC patrol won't quickly notice. Jaranda wat's sup 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - don't see a problem with this one. Deb 09:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well balanced editor, overall experience acceptable, very good article-writing capabilities, his increased duties as coordinator in WPMILHIST will definitely require the tools, I trust he will not abuse the tools in any way. NikoSilver 11:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, principally because all of the oppose votes annoyed me. To the oppose voters - so what are you looking for? Face glued to the screen all day, commenting on random AfDs and RfDs just to push up the editcount? Is that really a healthy direction to send Wikipedia in? Walton Vivat Regina! 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is my first vote. It should be positive. Besides, he is a good editor, can be a good admin. too.cs 19:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great editor, having created two FAs. Intensive project involvement, as he is now an assistant-coordinator in the Military history project. Also the creator of a great portal of the Military of Greece Portal. Calm, patient (much more than me!), and ready to assist whenever necessary. What else can I say?! Just one thing: he is definitely going to be a great administrator.--Yannismarou 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've seen nothing but constructive edits from this user.--Domitius 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support This is a excellent editor. --Asteraki 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Quality user. SMBarnZy 10:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There are more important qualities than experience. Miskin 10:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the-editor-formerly-known-as-Proto and Grace Note. XfD isn't the domain of rocket scientists, nor is handling WP:AIV requests. The oppose reasons run from the minor, into unreasonable, if predictable, and beyond into outright hypocrisy. One oppose voter, for example, was mopped almost exactly a year ago with around 2500 edits, and such AfD gems under their belt as "Insufficient notability", and "Non notable, 1 google hit, low alexa traffic rank". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Until someone can answer this question satisfactorily: Why would giving this user the admin tools damage Wikipedia? I see no reason to oppose. If this user has made nearly 5,000 edits without any blocks, surely he knows enough not to unprotect the main page, delete AfD, block Jimbo, etc. I find all of the oppose reasons listed unconvincing. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak support. Concern of Dgies is serious but overall the candidate look good. I would definitely prefer more evidence that the candidate had experience in the areas the candidate intended to work on. JoshuaZ 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An asset to Wikipedia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per many comments above and history. I believe this editor can be trusted with the tools. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support valuable editor. --Mardavich 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose You say you want to help with RfD, but I see zero edits on RfDs. You say you want to fight vandals, but I see only 4 edits to WP:AIV. I don't see a need for the tools, nor experience in policies needed to apply them. —Dgiest c 08:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Dgies, with no current participation in RfD and limited contributions to AIV I would suggest there's no clear need for the tools. The Rambling Man 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I don't think the nominee has enough experience with process to be confident that they won't make too many mistakes. You could try participating in these areas even without being an admin; if you want to close XfDs, for instance, try making well-reasoned !votes in them so that we can get an idea of how you'd interact with the process. Try discussing improvements to processes on their talk pages so you get a better idea of how they operate. Most of all, show what you'd do with the admin tools by asking admins to perform actions for you. If you plan to protect things, make suggestions about what should be protected at WP:RFPP; if you plan to block users, make requests at WP:AIV; and if you plan to delete things, nominate pages at the XfD pages, add prod tags, and/or place things in CAT:CSD. You should also consider using edit summaries more, as they make it easier for people to figure out what you've done in watchlists, article histories, and contribs pages (the last is only really relevant during RfA, normally, but the other two will also be useful). --ais523 11:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have actually looked through your recent AfD and AIV contributions (see the random diffs I've generated on the talk page), and they concern me somewhat. One of your four recent AIV requests was denied, and all four were misformatted (you used the template for registered users on an IP), which makes me worry that you might make mistakes blocking users; many (but not all) of your AfD votes either don't give a reason, and some of the reasons you did give were somewhat dubious, so I'm not sure that you'd close XfDs correctly either. --ais523 12:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose due to concerns raised by ais523, especially those about the WP:AIV reports. Needs more experience of admin-related process. Very low edit summary use also a problem. WjBscribe 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Yuser31415 20:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per ais523. --MECU≈talk 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I see alot of people saying that he "deserves" the tools or could be a good admin or "is a great article writer". None of these are criteria for adminship: it is not a trophy, he's hasn't proven he would be a good admin (or has even displayed a understanding of sysop responsibilities) and writing articles has nothing to do with being a good admin (though it helps). This user doesn't have near enough process participation and his answer to Q1 was weak and formulaic at best. NeoFreak 01:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He has displayed a character that is befitting to an administrator. You are right that editing articles is not sufficient as a stand-along criterion for adminship, but then again neither is process participation. Interest in wikipedia can be faked, character cannot. Miskin 10:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per ais523, and evidence of inexperience in wiki-process. Xoloz 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Based on minimal edits to WP:AIV, WP:AFD, inexperience in process, low activity in Wikipedia main space and your statement that you are not very experienced in the first two makes me feel that you are not quite ready for adminship. You are a good editor, but answers to the questions don't show a need for the tools. The areas that you participate in do not require them. Not providing a rationale for your AFD contributions, low edit summary usage and the is disturbing. Will support in three months if your edit history shows that you are ready.--– Dakota 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Serious Oppose: Low project involvement and lack of summary use. Give it another 4-6 months and a lot of boldness, and then you'll have that mop. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Little to no experience in Wikipedia:. --- RockMFR 05:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You are probarbly a good editor in Wiki, but you dont have much experience. try again later Smbarnzy 13:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Removing duplicate !vote, since this one was first, I assume that he has changed his opinion. Cbrown1023 talk 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. I'm concerned that you say "I admit that even though I am not very experienced in those areas I would like to help out in those areas"; you need experience before helping out. Trebor 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -Come back with the above recommended experience and you should do well. --Kukini hablame aqui 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Dakota. Michael 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose → mathobot's results → Low use of edit summary and only 21 minor edits. If you claim to do vandal fighting... Anyway, happy editing Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OpposeNot ready yet, & doesn't need the tools Johnbod
- Oppose - Sorry, need more experience. —Meteoroid » 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per concerns raised by Dgies and ais523. Please work on improving these areas and then apply again. --After Midnight 0001 14:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral Good editor and Wikipedian, but no real need for the tools is exhibited by your project-space contributions. - Anas Talk? 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Impressive editor, but you need more project-space experience.-- danntm T C 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Awesome to see a WP:MILHIST coordinator, but man I can't stand that edit summary usage. It's 5% for major edits and 48% for minor edits. Plus, this user has only made 21 minor edits in the mainspace. That really holds my vote here for now. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)changed to support[reply]- Unless you misspoke and meant to say "only 21 major edits", it's worth noting that minor edits aren't a good determination of a user's editing; I haven't used minor edits in at least a year and a half because I noticed that people were being yelled at for overusing minor edits, so I figured it was easier to never mark any edits as minor. Ral315 » 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to so "minor" in my statement and assumed (perhaps wrongly) that a lack of minor edits indicated the equivilant of poor edit summary usage. Sorry if I posted incorrect points. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Great editing, but the points brought by Captain panda, ais523, and dgies are not very reassuring. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. An extremely solid contributor to articles and WikiProjects. Lacking experience in admin and policy areas though. This candidate could definitely use some more time to get involved in policy and process, although it wouldn't be the end of the world if this RfA passed. He seems like an intelligent and dedicated contributor. – Lantoka (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per above. Probably would support in 2 months if you report a few more vandals to WP:AIV. Also, to be honest, not sure about your formatting - lack of wikilinks and overuse of bold text. Similarly, consider using more edit summaries. That said you are a very good editor. Agree that it wouldn't really be a disaster if you were given the buttons. Addhoc 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I am convinced by both the support arguments and the oppose arguments, therefore must be neutral. Reapply in a few months and I will probably support. Good luck. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 13:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per supporters and opposers. Cbrown1023 talk 18:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I see a compleate and utter lack of edit summaries. I don't care about a 100%... but when 5% for non-automatic edits summaries over the last 100 edits? And dont' everyone get all bent out of shape... I don't think 100% is a requirement for regular edits, but it does need to be near 100% for admin actions. In addition I see very little activity in any of the administrative side of wikipedia. Also, something thats mildy bothersom is the underuse of minor edits. None of that is enough to make me want to oppose the nomination, but it's enough to prevent me from supporting. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Luckyluke
Final (24/13/2); Ended Tue, 6 Mar 2007 20:21:05 UTC
Luckyluke (talk · contribs) - I first joined the Wikipedia effort in October of 2004. Since then, I believe I have learned many lessons into how Wikipedia works and how I can always better help improve it. For starters, this is my second time around in the RfA process. I first, arguably naively, underwent a RfA self nomination process in January of 2006, of which the result was (2/19/0) withdrawn by bureaucrat. The details of the previous RfA can be seen here. One of the most cited reasons for the failure of my previous RfA was my lack of experience. At that time, I had an edit count of 369 and was not too involved in community. However, today I have a total edit count 3262 and have contributed to this effort in many more ways including those of AfD, IfD, TfD, WikiProjects, reverting vandalism, and of course improving articles. I have become an experienced and trusted editor in the Wikipedia community and believe that by becoming an Administrator, I will be able to exercise Wikipedia guidelines, policies and others developed through consensus in the continual hope of improving Wikipedia's overall article quality. I am currently involved with WikiProject Vancouver and WikiProject Hong Kong. I also wanted to point out that I have undergone an editor review. Luke! 20:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept
- Co-nomination by Deryck C.
It is my utmost pleasure to co-nominate Luke, our leading contributor of WikiProject Hong Kong, in this RFA. I first came acorss Luke in an article about a place of Hong Kong. He is such an energetic contributor that he nearly skimmed through every Hong Kong article tirelessly to give ratings and comments. Luke has always been helpful and well-tempered, and he has both strong technical and conventional knowledge about Wikipedia. Moreover, he has great local knowledge about Hong Kong and Singapore, which can make him a valuable asset of Wikipedia if he becomes sysop.
With his energy and availability, Luke can become a good fighter against vandalism once equipped with the sysop tools; with his knowledge and experience, he can become a great mediator and judge between parties when it comes to debates such as deletion and protection. Therefore, I would like to co-nominate Luke in this RFA. --Deryck C. 06:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: As a sysop, I anticipate helping out with those chores relating to AfD, CSD, IfD, reverting article vandalism, and monitoring recent changes for vandalism. I also want to point out that I have closed unambigious AfD discussions before as per WP:DPR. I would also strive to successfully carry out other sysop chores such as page protection, blocks, among others.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: There is no one article that I am specificially pleased with on Wikipedia. I am pleased with all of my contributions to Wikipedia. I have never purposefully intended to vandalize any page of Wikipedia. Among all the Wikipedia articles that I have contributed to, I regularly make edits to those of the Vancouver and Hong Kong realm. I am a participant of the WikiProject Vancouver and WikiProject Hong Kong effort. I revitalized the WikiProject Hong Kong effort when it was, arguably, undergoing a period of low participation.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: No, I have not been in any edit conflicts. I have been cordial and have always assumed good faith in other Wikipedia editors and their edits. As I hope my edit history will show, I have never been rash to act.
- General comments
- See Luckyluke's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- For the previous nomination, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luckyluke
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Support. No evidence that LuckyLuke will explode the Wiki with a few extra buttons. Why the hell not? ♠PMC♠ 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reports to AIV but that can definitely be overlooked, I think you'd make a good admin. Good luck!Tellyaddict 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe this user will help Wikipedia with the extra tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I like the Editor Review, this User looks like they will be a useful addition as an Admin. Smee 21:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Support Appears ready, willing and able. Also impressed by the patience in waiting over a year to try again. Agent 86 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Your're ready and able. You would do a great job as an Admin.The Phoenix Enforcer 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks pretty good. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good editor and shows good signs for adminship, but I'd like to see more interaction with other editors. However, the good's outweigh the bad's, so good luck. The Rambling Man 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Good user, but I'd like to see some article contributions and more user talk discussions. - Anas Talk? 11:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no reason to anticipate any problems or abuse. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets my criteria.-- danntm T C 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. No reason to believe you'd be a problem. Grace Note 07:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]Support. Sentai 398 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Beginskaj 15:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, hope you'll succeed this 2nd nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would make a fine admin. VeryPage3 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- This is the user's 7th edit ever from an account created 4 minutes earlier which shows similar editing to blocked user Wrongporch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). —Dgiest c 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, looks like a sock of User:CBDrunkerson, both reverting Ryulong over some template. —Dgiest c 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck out three questionable votes here. One that I certainly did not make along with one by another sockpuppet and one by this sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per criteria set out on user my page. I am at a loss to understand the motive for signature faking or sockpuppets on the support side in an AfD that appears to be going just fine. I don't see any reason that should reflect on nominee. Edivorce 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems good to me. --Meno25 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as co-nom. --Deryck C. 06:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm with Edivorce; Xoloz's opinion baffles me. WP:AGF extends to assuming a modicum of intelligence on the part of other editors, and with that in mind it seems only reasonable to assume that the sockpuppet support came from someone who wanted to queer the pitch. The image stuff identified by Hipocrite leaves me very unimpressed, and I would suggest Luke rereads WP:FU carefully. Even so, we had, and have, admins who have no better an understanding of image policy. My expectations in this area are low, or maybe just realistic, and Luke meets them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supportgood candidate, admin them! Smbarnzy 13:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very good candidate (Admin Material) and very experienced..--Cometstyles 13:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no real reason not to, although I echo Angus' advice that he reread WP:FU carefully. Neil (not Proto ►) 13:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - why not? Walton Vivat Regina! 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose For someone interested in vandal fighting and XfD debates, you don't show all that much participation there. Administrators also need to be comfortable dealing with other editors and resolving conflict if it arises. Your extremely small number of edits in the user talk space does not fill me with hope. —Dgiest c 23:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Less than half of his minor edits have summaries and 23 edits in project talk space and only 68 in user talk space shows a lack of participation in process and little interaction with other editors, both vital qualities for any admin. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong but until I am there is no way I can support this RfA. NeoFreak 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The minor edits that are lacking in edit summaries (~0.1% of all minor edits) are mostly those prior to my first RfA nomination. One of the cited reasons from my last RfA was that I did not use edit summaries. However, since then I have consistently provided edit summaries. Luke! 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 10:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason behind your opposition? --Deryck C. 10:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you asked, I'll say that Xoloz (below) expresses concerns regarding the vote fraud (in the support section) more politely than I could have done. Also, while 29 months seems like a long time, Luke was inactive or barely active in 25 of them. — CharlotteWebb 04:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason behind your opposition? --Deryck C. 10:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Inexperience in both wiki-space and user talk space suggests that editor not yet sufficient familiar with either wiki-process or wiki-communication. Although not attributable to the candidate, number of questionable supports above also call this RfA into question. Xoloz 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. Please see my comments here on this RfA's talk page for the reason; they're far too long to write here. --ais523 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
OpposeImage:Akrit2006.jpg, which this user uploaded 13 February 2007, is an obvious violation of WP:FU, as it is "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Strong Oppose[reply]- When I first uploaded the image, I licensed it using the tv-screenshot tag which I felt was most appropriate to the image being uploaded. It states that, "...use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." are allowed - in this case, the image was low resolution, encyclopedic in value and used only in the Akrit Jaswal article only. Also allows "...for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" - in this case, the program and its contents were being identified as Akrit Jaswal was on the Oprah Winfrey show and the corresponding article provides commentary on Jaswal. I also felt that this image did not replace any original market role, as I had performed a search for a free alternative before uploading this image. Additionally under the fair use policy, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" are acceptable uses. This was/is my rationale for fair use of this image. Luke! 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As demonstrated, continues to "not get" how fair use works here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first uploaded the image, I licensed it using the tv-screenshot tag which I felt was most appropriate to the image being uploaded. It states that, "...use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." are allowed - in this case, the image was low resolution, encyclopedic in value and used only in the Akrit Jaswal article only. Also allows "...for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" - in this case, the program and its contents were being identified as Akrit Jaswal was on the Oprah Winfrey show and the corresponding article provides commentary on Jaswal. I also felt that this image did not replace any original market role, as I had performed a search for a free alternative before uploading this image. Additionally under the fair use policy, "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" are acceptable uses. This was/is my rationale for fair use of this image. Luke! 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Answers to the question are almost null. I can't support because you don't particularly like any of the work you've done, and may never have been in a conflict. Conflict mediation and resolution are important for administrators, and we need to know how you will react to disputes, particularly since I don't see a reflection of thorough knowledge of policy. It is possible for some editors to demonstrate administrative abilities in 3000 edits, but I think you need more experience. Dekimasuよ! 08:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. In total, you have less than 100 user talk edits, of which only 3 appear to be giving vandalism warnings. Overall, I would suggest you gain some more experience of reverting vandalism and giving warnings. Addhoc 16:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Addhoc. Michael 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user doesn't yet have enough experience dealing with problematic issues. I regretfully oppose. DS 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Mostly for the user talk issues raised by Addhoc and the lack of understanding of FU policy highlighted by Hipocrite. WjBscribe 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I can't currently support someone with so little user interaction on talk pages over such a long period of time. --Dweller 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose same concerns as those above Johnbod 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral A good candidate; great contributor to the project and shows a good deal of patience in waiting so long between RfA nominations. The only thing that stops this from being a support vote is the relative absence of vandal warnings on user Talk pages and no contributions to AIV in the last 500 project space edits. (aeropagitica) 09:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per aeropagitica.--Wizardman 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
KyraVixen
Final (41/17/4); Ended 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
KyraVixen (talk · contribs) - Kyra, who's first edit was in March of 2006, has come a long way in her editing career. Dropping into hibernation for about four months, she resurfaced in September of 2006, and has since shown a great skill for reverting vandalism, as well as contributing other small, though beneficial changes when she can. She seems to be one to always keep her cool, as she has not lashed out at any editor for any disagreements, especially when she occasionally becomes the victim of personal attacks during her routine recent changes patrols. Despite the lack of a large amount of Wikipedia space edits, she appears to have a firm grasp of both policy and guidelines alike. She is also not afraid to admit her mistakes, and will readily clean up after herself when needed. Always willing to assist editors with questions that they might have, as well as having a rather level head upon her shoulders, she appears to be a fine candidate to bestow the mop and bucket upon. Kyra~(talk) 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I hereby accept this nomination Kyra~(talk) 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of full disclosure, I do operate a bot, VixDaemon. Referencing the text above, I did indeed slip up once, and I quickly discovered the error I made and fixed it. Since that error occured, I have gotten into the habit of testing the changes I am going to make before hand in a sandbox so that no errors occur when I do decide to run the bot.
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I'd be more than happy and willing to assist in keeping the speedy deletion backlog clear, as more often than not there are a ton of pages in there, as well as with the proposed deletion category. The administrative intervention against vandalism noticeboard is another area that I'd be most willing to assist in, as well assisting to keep the often massive backlog of images with no fair use rationale and an unknown source under control. Requests for unblock and requests for page protection are two other areas that I would enjoy working in, as well as generally helping to clear any administrative backlogs that might arise. Additionally, while not specific to the English Wikipedia, I'd be quite willing to help with the OTRS queue on Meta.
- Regardless of what process I'd occupy myself with in addition to my normal editing work, I'd use the tools with restraint and respect, as the mop and bucket are not to be taken lightly.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I am not really proud of any contribution in particular, as each edit made to the project helps to improve it, however small it may be. However, by the same token, I am proud of all of them. If I had to choose however, I'd say running into a few persistent linkspammers and reverting all the pages that they added their links to; even though I had to sift through over 50+ pages, I still kept my cool and eventually reported them to AIV when they did not heed the final warning; even so, it's nothing huge in my eyes, I simply enjoy keeping the project free of vandalism and spam.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: The only conflict I can recall was over one editor persistently trying to include information within the Alpental article that was not allowed under the policy of what Wikipedia is not. I assumed good faith on the part of the editor and I explained, rather calmly, to the editor three times that the information they were including did not comply with WP:NOT. In the end, the editor in question was blocked for two days, while a different editor eventually came along and picked up with reverting to the non-compliant version; that editor was blocked for a 3RR violation.
- As for stress, I cannot say that I have been terribly worked up by anything that has happened during my time here, even when personal attacks were made against me by anonymous editors who took offense by my reverting of their vandalistic edits during a few of my patrols of the recent changes. However if I do encounter a situation that did cause me stress (which I certainly hope does not happen), I would immediately walk away from the computer to calm down, and not even think of using any of the administrative rights to resolve the dispute, only returning when my proverbial 'jets' have cooled off. Conflicts between editors are best solved with calm, rational thinking, and making compromises and forming consensus, the administrative side doesn't even come into play for me. Besides, working in a stressed state is not conducive to the optimal editing environment anyway.
Optional question from Eli Falk
- 4. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?
- A:
- General comments
- See KyraVixen's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- I would ask the closing bureaucrat to consider that several of the oppose reasons in this RfA have been strongly contested (though not in reference to this specific nomination) on WT:RFA. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that the closing bureaucrat would take this into account, but I was just browsing the site and noticed that there have been edits to the page since the scheduled close time of 0240 UTC. The last revision before the close time passed was this one, at 0109 UTC. Just thought I should point this out. 72.196.192.45 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Cliche #1 Support - I thought you already were an admin? --BigDT 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Screwing User:Titoxd/RfA standards for a while, Kyra always asks about things that she is unsure about. That is probably the *most* critical factor that makes a candidate suitable for adminship: "Do I decide to ram through something, or do I check first and observe how to do it right?" All my interactions with her have been excellent. No reason to oppose. Titoxd(?!?) 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Super duper Phage support!. ViridaeTalk 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Opposing for self-noms is harmful. So it's unconventional. That doesn't mean it's bad. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that anyone has opposed her candidacy solely (or even partly) for her self-nomination gaillimhConas tá tú? 04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Your self-nom sounded a lot like a user nomination. bibliomaniac15 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support changed from neutral per discussion. John Reaves (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Anas Talk? 12:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, except for the nom, everything is OK. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Appears to have a good grasp of the project and is ready for greater responsibility. No problem with the nom, it's apparent from the sig that it's a self-nom and does not diminish or take away from her qualifications. Agent 86 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Longtime and prolific vandal fighter. Dragomiloff 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I understand the opposers concern about a lack of direct article content, Kyra's edits indicate a good understanding of policy, a substantial commitment to the project, and the patience and reserve to use the admin tools appropriately. JoshuaZ 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Good vandal revert/warn behavior, but pretty rare that you actually report them to WP:AIV. —Dgiest c 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We always need a vandal fighting admin --St.daniel 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks alright, good policy experience.-- danntm T C 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid contributor. Trust she'd use the tools well. Shimeru 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hemmingsen 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Despite the psychologically and stylistically odd first person perspective of the self-nom statement, seems to have good grasp of policy. Favourably impressed am I. PigmanTalk to me 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Three Reasons: Vandal Fighter, Strong Contributor, and really original name ;^)! §†SupaSoldier†§ 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely support. I am happy especially about her vandalism reverting edits. This is important. --Meno25 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support..Been here a long time and over 4000 Edits..why not..--Cometstyles 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, because I believe you really have come a long way. Of course, I could be mistaken c.c — CharlotteWebb 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good candidate, the nom statement is fine by me. PeaceNT 13:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why The Hell Not? Ral315 also finds the objections with her third-person self-nom absurd; he found it humorous, and he thinks given that she signed the nom as herself, that it was an obvious joke. Ral315 » 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support have seen many positive contributions from this user. I would like to see more Wikitalk edits, but then as Shimeru suggested below, she may just prefer to communicate through Usertalk. Either way, ahe's not getting an oppose from me. James086Talk 05:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, opposition raises 0 meaningful concerns, edit history looks solid. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Would make a good admin, with all her vandalism reverts. Personally, I don't see much wrong about her nom statement. Is there a law against making a nom comment sound third person? I highly doubt it. It wasn't meant to deceive anyone, more like a harmless joke. And before someone points out that admins can't make "jokes", see this. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 10:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Will put sysop tools to good use, methinks.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've no problems with the nom, and the candidate looks good. Slight concerns over inexperience in certain areas, but she sounds level-headed enough not to jump into anything controversial. Trebor 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The faux-third-person nom wasn't the best move, but there was no attempt at deception since she properly signed the self-nom. I've seen her around and am convinced she'll be an active and effective admin. Let's put her to work! Raymond Arritt 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Michael 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Trebor. Concerns about a lack of well-roundedness (my spelling checker thinks this really is a word) are fair enough, but the experience KyraVixen has seems to be quite enough to start mopping with. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport. I recently did a detailed editor review of this user, so I'm quite familiar with her work. I was largely very impressed by her friendliness and helpfulness with new users and by her other good work on the project, especially with her willingness to take a lot of time to help show new users around. I did have one concern, which I asked her about and which she addressed quite well on my talk page. I'm convinced this user will make a fine admin. I also think that when contributing to RfA discussions, we should take time to look thoroughly at the contributor's work, looking beyond just the nomination itself or edit count. If she was trying to be deceptive in this nom, it's likely that she would have showed that behavior elsewhere, too. I found no evidence of that. delldot talk 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although not very active but possesses a good bot. Appleworm 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, obviously. I don't see anything wrong with the nomination - she signed it clearly, so there was no attempt at deception. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's patent absurdity to oppose on the grounds of insufficient image space edits or the writing of a slick self-nom. We need admins to help maintain the encyclopedia, not upload images and not write articles. Please. alphachimp 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support (edit conflicted one too). It's hard to overlook the lack of general experience, but adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, which is really what saves you from a neutral vote in my case.--Wizardman 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support (changed from neutral). My concerns noted in my neutral vote below still hold, but I'm changing to support simply to counter some of the ridiculous oppose reasons. The nominee's calm demeanor and reasoned responses on this RfA are enough to convince me that any issues with inexperience will soon be overcome without breaking anything. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the nominating statement. Many people in such instances use third-person when describing themselves and nothing negative should be read into that. —Doug Bell talk 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support My thinking here evolved not dissimilarly from that of Doug Bell, and, per, inter al., JoshuaZ and Delldot, I think it rather clear that the candidate is possessed of good judgment and a cordial demeanor and is relatively conversant with policy, such that I think it reasonable to conclude that the net effect on the project of KV's becoming a sysop should be positive. I should note that, as Dekimasu, I was a bit troubled by the several grammatical errors present in the self-nom; the presence of such errors, though, should militate against a candidacy only where it evidences an infirmity likely to impair a candidate's ability to communicate and collaborate with other users on .en or to understand and apply policy, and neither case presents itself here. Joe 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Garion96 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose Lack of significant article contributions in the way of adding content is a bit disconcerting, as I'd like to see the candidate exhibit a bit more well-roundedness (if that's even a word). gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Gaillimh. Also, I would like to know about your personal policy against copyright images. According to your log, you have uploaded fewer than
fiveten images. Currently, there is a backlog of images which need to be deleted by admins. An admin needs to know which copyright certain images fall into before deletion. Also, what about WP:BIO? What about WP:AFD? Real96 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- What about WP:3RR? What about FA/GA/Stub? What about WP:NOR? Real96 04:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does every admin need to know everything? For example, I probably have zero career edits to WP:AN3 and anything having to do with featured articles. Plenty of admins know nothing about our image use policy and as long as they don't show up at IFD and start closing things based on head counts instead of policy that's not a problem. Not every admin works in every area of Wikipedia. --BigDT 05:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, images must be attributed to the source if they are to be included in the first place. Of course free use (Creative Commons, Public Domain, GFDL and the like) are preferred over fair use images. If fair use images must be used, they must be low resolution, and only be used in article space to comply with the fair use criteria. Images lacking a fair use rationale, per Wikipedia's fair use criteria, all images must have a fair use criteria if they are uploaded after May 4 2006, or they are able to be deleted under criterion I6 after being tagged for a week with {{nrd}}. However, an exception to this is that images uploaded before July 13 2006 may not be deleted without notifying uploader and waiting a week for the editor to provide the fair use claim, and after such time is deletable under I7.
- Images with no source; without the source, it is unknown if the image is copyrighted, as we are not sure who the actual source of the image is, as such creating an ambiguous copyright status. If the source is not provided within seven days, these types of images are deletable under criterion I4.
- Notability of people; of course, the article must first and foremost satisfy the primary notability criterion. Also, notability is defined as "worthy of being noted", or "attracting notice", not "fame" or "importance". WP:BIO essentially adds some special cases, certain types of people as outlined in the criteria more than likely have verifiable information out there, as well as having a good deal of public interest, however they are not catch-alls or an absolute indicator of notability, as each article within the encyclopedia must stand on its own merits.
- The Articles for Deletion process is where the community decides what to do with problematic articles that have either been prod'ed before (and they cannot be prodded twice), or those that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If there is not enough (under a certain amount of !votes) consensus on what to do, the article is relisted so that an accurate consensus can be developed. Keeping and deletions are based on consensus and discussion, not arguments such as liking the article or disliking the article. If there is no consensus, the decision defaults to keep.
- The three revert rule - No editor may make a fourth revert to a single article within the span of a 24 hour period. This prevents edit warring. Additionally, this does not only apply to complete reversions, but also partial reversions, or any edits intended to restore the article to the same revision. Also consistently reverting three times a day can be blocked as gaming the system. Initially, a 24 hour block is given for the first offense and then it goes up from there.
- FA/GA/Stub... not quite administrative tasks; however, in a nutshell, a Featured Article is what the community considers to be the best articles in Wikipedia, Good Articles are those that are, well, good, but unlikely to reach FA status, and a stub is a very short article with useful information, and that can blossom into an article with nurturing and care.
- Attribution now combines both Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. It is also one of Wikipedia's core content policies, the other one being WP:NPOV. Essentially, all material included within Wikipedia must have a source as, as WP:V said before it was marked as historical (however it still carries through to the combined policy), "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Now, if you are asking solely about WP:NOR, the material cannot be attributed to a reliable source, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
- I believe that is all you requested. However, please know that if I was at all in doubt about something, I would ask before doing the action in question. I am not afraid to ask for assistance, as I believe that nothing is worse than charging into a situation headlong without knowing what you are doing. Kyra~(talk) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about WP:3RR? What about FA/GA/Stub? What about WP:NOR? Real96 04:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Wow, what a glowing self-nom. While according to her she is totally great in every way anyone who self-noms with only 5 (yes f-i-v-e) project talkspace edits and such a sketchy contribution history (in usage not quality) is a no-go in my book. Very little process work or discussion and with only 45 user talk edits she is also lacking in interaction with other editors, another required admin quality. Also, lambast me all you want but anyone that thinks they are a fox I wouldn't give the keys to a kennel so much as wikipedia. NeoFreak 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm sorry to do this, but I must. When I read the nomination I thought someone was nominating her. Now I realise that she wrote it in third person narrative in order to intentionally mislead me. This is rather akin to what a politician or a multi-national corporation might do. While it's fair game to mislead people in political/commercial environments, I'm not in a mood to tolerate it here. - Richardcavell 06:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about we assume good faith an accept it was probobly a joke... ViridaeTalk 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because beinig an admin is a joke right? NeoFreak 09:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While your opinion is your own, and as such, valid, I would like to say I did not write my nomination in the third person in order to mislead anyone. Misleading people is something I don't like doing. Kyra~(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about we assume good faith an accept it was probobly a joke... ViridaeTalk 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Inexperience in wiki-space suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Little participation in Talk or Wikipedia; most recent edits are mechanical. Levelheadedness and trustworthiness is gauged by looking at interactions with other users, but there is none of that to see here. —Centrx→talk • 06:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, oppose. Has only really been active for two months, and has only five project talkspace edits. The self-recommendation is not a reason for my oppose, but it does bother me, as do the grammar errors within it. Dekimasuよ! 12:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Gaillimh and Xoloz - NYC JD (make a motion) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for Wikipedia edits and especially talk page inexperience. Seems like a wonderful contributor, but not quite ready. --Dweller 12:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I acknowledge the value of the editor's contributions; however, I see Wikipedia as a largely collaborative effort where an in-depth knowledge of the discursive practices of the community is necessary to succeed as an administrator. The candidate has spent a lot of time in "tasks" but not so much time in writing and collaborating. I think that creates a deficit in the category of understanding the community. --Mus Musculus 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Experience too narrow for now Johnbod 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Very little Talk: interaction, and really has only edited for a brief period, not long enough to feel confident she has a good feel for policy and the community. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. I have no quarrel with the third person nom statement. I believe this user is committed to fighting vandalism. However, two things give me pause here. First, the answer to Q2; the general lack of article writing already noted by others. Alone, that wouldn't be enough for me to oppose, however. Second, the user really only began editing about six months ago. During that six month period, the user edited a moderate amount for four months, and has had a burst of editing activity over the last two. The lack of article writing combined with the relatively short period of intense editing tells me that the user might lack the true commitment to the encyclopedia that administrators need to have. I'm not saying the user does not have this commitment, there's just not sufficient available evidence of such imo. I suggest trying again in a few months if this doesn't pass; I would support at that time if at least moderate editing continues and barring any unforeseen problems. Oh, and please, try creating an article, you might like it! · j e r s y k o talk · 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Not enough article experience. I'll be happy to support in the near future if KyraVixen contributes more to article writing. Dionyseus 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, needs to write more articles, should do more article writing since WP is an encyclopedia. Should socialise more on Wikipedia. Terence Ong 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I applaud your anti-vandalism efforts, but you've never written a single article? Not even so much as a stub? This is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. Kafziel Talk 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I would like to see a bit more experience please. Would likely support next time if the above concerns are addressed. --After Midnight 0001 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral I want to vote support, but the nomination worries me. It is a self-nomination that reads like a nomination made by an ardent supporter. It uses the third person and gives great praise to KyraVixen. Since that was in a self-nom, I consider it to be advertising and for now will avoid voting support. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not intend for the text of my self-nomination to be construed as an advertisement; I would have said the same things about myself albeit in the first person with only minor variations to the text to make it read fluently if I had done so. I was merely attempting to highlight my activities here; I was not attempting to cast myself in a light that is not my own. I just wanted to try and keep out all the 'I's for some odd reason. Either way, I do respect your opinion, I just thought I should let my reason for writing in the tense that I did be known. Kyra~(talk) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralShouldn't the bot name contain "bot'? Although the third-person nom bothers me, it's not enough for an oppose. John Reaves (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, a daemon is a background process, and is also listed under the username policy as implying a bot account; that, coupled with there being no policy that I can locate that designates that 'Bot' must be used along with bot accounts, is why I decided to use 'daemon' instead of 'bot'. Kyra~(talk) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BOT states "Usernames for new bots should incorporate the word "bot" so that editors realize they are dealing with an automaton" but thanks for clairifying (I'm not very techno-literate). A misnamed bot really isn't enough reason for an oppose, so I'm changing to "support". John Reaves (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a daemon is a background process, and is also listed under the username policy as implying a bot account; that, coupled with there being no policy that I can locate that designates that 'Bot' must be used along with bot accounts, is why I decided to use 'daemon' instead of 'bot'. Kyra~(talk) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral The self-nomination is written like another user has nominated you, this worries me a little of your intentions, the posting to article talk pages is a little low but that could be overlooked and yes you mentioned in your nomination that your wikipedia talk edits are lacking, well I agree - there is only 5? I think maybe you should work on that and your article talk pages, and maybe slightly inrease your overall edit count, even though it quite good! Good luck.Tellyaddict 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I have to agree with the above points. I don't like the third-person self-nom. It worries me. Will you misrepresent yourself in other ways, too? Coupled with the four-month hibernation, I have to vote neutral. Come back in a few months and I'll be happy to support. ♠PMC♠ 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I will not misrepresent myself in other ways, nor was it my intention for my self-nomination to come off as misrepresentation in the first place. Kyra~(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't be neutral just because someone took a WikiBreak. That's getting a bit picky if you ask me. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I will not misrepresent myself in other ways, nor was it my intention for my self-nomination to come off as misrepresentation in the first place. Kyra~(talk) 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I read over the oppose voters' concerns and didn't see anything major. However, I would prefer to support candidates who have done more article-writing (it doesn't have to be featured articles, as some say) and who have participated more on Talk pages. I think Kyra's a good candidate, but I would like to see a wider variety of participation. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.I really like the response to the oppose by real69. On balance, I think will probably make a good admin, but the low participation in project space keeps me from supporting at this time. —Doug Bell talk 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Change to support. —Doug Bell talk 03:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Have you ever created an article? --– Dakota 06:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, no, I have not created an article yet. I might in the future if I discover a topic that Wikipedia is lacking an article on that interests me, making sure any article that I submit complies with policies and guidelines, of course. I have no qualms about editing current articles to improve them, but actual creation is not something that has particularly interested me up to this point, but as I said, I am not adverse to creating them if I see a gap that needs filling. Kyra~(talk) 06:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
AuburnPilot
Final (78/1/1); Ended Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:00:05 UTC
AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate AuburnPilot for adminship. He has been editing since July 2006 and is one of the best anti-vandalism patrollers on Wikipedia. He initially expressed doubts as to his success, because he is not active in XfD discussions, but most Wikipedians are starting to agree that XfD isn't the end-all of adminship. We desperately need help at AIV. AuburnPilot is patient with newcomers but firm with vandals, always keeps his cool, follows procedure, and understands policy. It's time we gave him the tools he needs. Kafziel Talk 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. auburnpilot talk 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Optional statement
- As stated above, I was initially hesitant to accept a nomination due to my lack of participation in WP:XfD; an area of Wikipedia that I frankly cannot stand. I prefer, and enjoy, editing articles and fighting vandalism. I realized that no matter how long I waited before committing to an RfA, my deletion participation would not change. I could spend hours at AfD debating articles over the next few months just to look good at RfA, but I honestly do not ever intend to go near AfD even if granted adminship. Thanks in advanced to everyone who takes the time to comment and especially Kafziel for the nomination. auburnpilot talk 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To those who like to add optional questions, I will be away from the computer from 4pm to midnight CST but will address any issues later tonight/early tomorrow morning. auburnpilot talk 21:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: The area I will not be helping with is WP:AfD. I only comment on AfDs when they happen to articles on my watchlist or ones I stumble across while reading the encyclopedia. I certainly will not be closing them. Though I tend to stay away from the broader terms of inclusionist/deletionist, I’d say I lean more towards erring on the side of inclusion. If we are truly attempting to create the sum of all knowledge, we need to relax our deletion finger a bit.
- Areas that I plan on helping with are WP:AIV, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and parts of C:CSD. As a vast majority of my edits come from vandal fighting, I already monitor WP:AIV and help keep reported vandals under control until an admin is able to block. Being able to do so myself would definitely benefit my efforts in this area.
- In regards to WP:SSP, I’ve come in contact with more than a few socks on talk pages across Wikipedia. Though I did not submit the report, as the disruption died off and the report wasn’t necessary, some of my efforts in this area can be seen in archive 2 of my talk page here. Thankfully, the disruption stopped and since blocks are not punitive, I dropped the issue.
- All this said, the majority of my admin actions would still revolve around the areas I focus on as an editor: improving the encyclopedia and keeping vandalism to a dull roar.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: While most of my edits have admittedly revolved around vandal fighting, I have created several articles and a template or two with which I am quite pleased. My shortest contribution, List of Lieutenant Governors of Alabama, is probably the one I’m most pleased with. This was the first in-depth (or what I thought was in-depth at the time) wikitable I had created. While the article itself is short, the time it took for me to put the chart together and have it come out correctly was very satisfying. There were easier ways to accomplish the table, but hindsight is 20/20 and all. In conjunction with this article, I created {{AlabamaLtGovernors}} for placement within the articles created (and to be created) for each of Lt. Governor of Alabama. Again, this may have been a small task, but it was the first of my attempts and more than satisfying to see it come out correctly. Of my other “new” contributions, I am also pleased with Live in the X Lounge, an article about a charity album-series which benefits Cerebral palsy research. Unfortunately, the radio-station and production group behind the series have ceased to exist, and reliable sources have become slim to none. While I’m actively searching for references, the shutdown has killed off some of the best ones out there.
- As far as expansion of pre-existing articles, I’m most pleased with taking the article on the Mountain Brook School System (my ‘‘alma mater’’) from this stub to its current form.
- All images I’ve uploaded can be found on one of my subpages (User:AuburnPilot/Images), divided between fair use and public domain. I also have an account on commons under the same name, which can be found here. I’m currently moving the images I’ve taken with my own camera over to commons so they may be used on any project. Though nobody has requested anything so far, I have listed myself on Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service; I’m available for both ground and aerial shots within Alabama and would be happy to contribute here as well.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I think we’ve all encountered conflicts and a bit of stress at some time or another. I’ve found that simply stepping away from the situation and removing the page causing conflict from my watchlist for a few days to be the best solution to Wikistress.
- Though it had the greatest end result, the smallest conflict I’ve been in involved Birmingham, Alabama. An anon user was adding unsourced claims that corruption within the Birmingham Water Works was the reason water bills had increased and that crime had increased “due to the destruction of New Orleans, which increased the number of poor and homeless in Birmingham.” [21]. I reverted the changes, believing at the time that I was within guideline/policy to do so. I filed a 3RR report [22] and was subsequently blocked for violating it myself [23]. I took this as an opportunity to study the relevant policies and I have insured that I stay clear of three reversions in a 24hr period.
- The longest, most drawn out conflict I’ve been involved with revolves around Fox News Channel. The debate started in mid October 2006 and continued until I stepped away in mid January 2007 (3 months). The debate included 2 RfC’s and 2 requests for arbitration (one tossed as a content dispute, the second the first case to fall victim to the committee’s new ‘‘4 net vote’’ policy; 4/2/0[24]). With discussion that spans multiple archives and more sockpuppets than actual participants, this was an excessive conflict. After 3 months of discussion, I finally stepped away in order to preserve my sanity and the conflict seems to have finally died. Other minor conflicts usually result from vandals upset over subsequent blocks and people who don’t understand Wikipedia isn’t their personal soapbox. I'm fairly calm online and in real life so my wikistress remains quite low and has yet to effect me offline.
Optional question from Eli Falk
- 4. When, in your opinion, should a page which has been vandalized not be semi-protected?
- A: Well, the most obvious answer would be if it's only been vandalized the one time, as protection shouldn't be applied as a first step. The Main Page receives special treatment in this area as WP:NOPRO explains. Though whether or not to protect the main page featured article is up for debate, I agree that protection should only be used in the rare case where editors need to sort things out. This is our "welcome mat" article and it must be open for as many people as possible. One article on my watchlist that receives vandalism, Alabama, is good example. Of the last 50 edits, only one was not vandalism or a reversion. The vandalism is not frequent enough to receive protection as one or two editors may hit the page per day/every few days, but the changes are usually revert quickly. If the repeat vandalism is coming from a specific user or IP, a short block may solve the problem without cutting off the rest of our anonymous editors. We bill ourselves as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so protection should be used sparingly. auburnpilot talk 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General comments
- See AuburnPilot's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Support - I have seen this editor around and would support them as an administrator! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pleased to offer my I-beat-the-nominator-to-it support. This editor seems reasonable and useful, and unlikely to do dumb things with the buttons. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nom and pleased to see that support here is so fast I couldn't get out in front. Kafziel Talk 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good nom & answers, good to see a bold anti-vandalism application and an honest approach to the XfD obsession. All the best. The Rambling Man 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support JoshuaZ 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent Vandal fighter, like Persian Poet Gal, Glen S, and Nishkid64.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom, the candidate's good overall record, and the commitment to help in some understaffed areas. I, too, was not familiar with or committed to participating in every area where administrators work before accepting my nomination. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vandals, socks, speedies, and albums! What more could you want? And the honesty is much appreciated. Bubba hotep 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Excellent at opposing vandals. I find myself blocking vandals reported at AIV by this user all the time. More XfD could be good; however, what's there suggests a solid understanding of policy. Heimstern Läufer 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see his reports to WP:AIV all the time. Excellent work.--Húsönd 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, only seen good from this user (and could've sworn you already were one). Trebor 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - absolutely! A very qualified candidate and not a bad vandal fighter.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support -- "support" because he's a good contributor and "strong" because of his fearlessly candid comments about XfD that made me smile. Normally I like to see XfD experience, but I respect his comments and I know he'll make a great admin handling all the other things admins do. --A. B. (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Air-prove! Active WP:AIV reporter, will put the tools to good use. Majorly (o rly?) 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per solid article writing. Addhoc 23:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with FLYING COLOURS! - enough said, this guy should do well in his new role as admin! --sunstar nettalk 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per fixed criteria for supporting RfA on my user page Edivorce 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Rama's arrow 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support-Great user. Thought he was already an admin. But then I remember that was PilotGuy. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ugh...was on my to-nominate list. AuburnPilot's a great candidate for adminship, and I have no doubt that he'll make a great admin. Nishkid64 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I commented at one of the RfCs on Fox News Channel and I thought AuburnPilot handled himself well in that conflict. Plus, almost anyone who says they'll help at WP:SSP is going to get my vote, we need more admins addressing that page. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - even though your signature is blue and orange. --BigDT 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (cliche omitted) —Doug Bell talk 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definately a good potential admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Edit history indicates no problems. The evidence to which Arjun refers is entirely unconvincing. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- huh: What do you mean alludes, I am simply pointing out a fact which is evidenced in this RFA. I am not trying to make you change that comment...I am just saying that I am not making stuff up as I go along :). I just personally don't like the whole "can't stand XFD things". Cheers. ~ Arjun 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction accepted, was unnecessarily dismissive. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- huh: What do you mean alludes, I am simply pointing out a fact which is evidenced in this RFA. I am not trying to make you change that comment...I am just saying that I am not making stuff up as I go along :). I just personally don't like the whole "can't stand XFD things". Cheers. ~ Arjun 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-27 04:47Z
- Support -- Gogo Dodo 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - NYC JD (make a motion) 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, vandal fighter, needs tools. And XfD participation is only important if you're planning on closing them, which the candidate has clearly stated he won't. – riana_dzasta 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support about time! Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)09:23, Tuesday, 27 February '07
- Support definitely. - Anas Talk? 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Oui, s'il vous plait.--Jersey Devil 12:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 13:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Lack of XfD participation is no prob for an admin candidate who has no intention to close them. Knowledge of policy is shown through contributions elsewhere. WjBscribe 15:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support He went to Auburn University. That's enough for me. While it looks like he's also done a great job editing WP, the Auburn connection just blows away any other qualification :-).--Alabamaboy 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in spite of highly questionable college selection (sorry, I had to...) Anyway, I've seen nothing but good edits from this user, the nom is trustworthy and the answers to the questions are fine. What's not to like? Not concerned with lack of interest in AfD, even though that's one of my main areas of focus as an admin. Not all admins work in all areas, and that's fine! It's natural to specialize in a few things you're good at and interested in. --W.marsh 16:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- War Eagle ;-). auburnpilot talk 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support Good answers to questions. Will raise to regular support if the candidate promises to put himself back up for rfa if the avulsion to xfds subsides and there's some contreversy due to the inexperience of not going into them prior to that (like making a questionable closing). If I could get a pledge that he'd be available for some kind of recall, i'd also raise my support level. Just Heditor review 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I really honestly believe what it comes down to is trust, I have always said that. Trust to me is very important...and when I ask "do I trust this user for the tools" I have to say yes. However I am still going weak because I think that XFD's "are" important; but meh. ~ Arjun 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I really don't see a problem with specialization, when the candidate is a good editor. Xiner (talk, email) 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I find XfD dull too. Anyways, you look like a great user. · AO Talk 20:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Quality editor. I appreciate the honesty about XfD--it's not for everyone. I feel confident that this user would effectively use the admin tools to benefit many other areas that always need attention. -- Scientizzle 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleared for Adminship Everything seems to be in order here. —Pilotguy contact ground 21:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong support I've crossed paths with AuburnPilot many times on Wikipedia, and I have always known him to be a fair, judicoius, and reasonable editor. Our viewpoints may differ greatly, but I can honestly say that if there is anyone who's judgement and fairness on Wikipedia I trust, this is he. I would have nominated months ago, but until recently he was not accepting applications. I encourage the approval of this candidate post haste. /Blaxthos 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - BJTalk 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like an excellent candidate.-- danntm T C 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaranda wat's sup 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One of the most even-keeled and fair editors out there. Would be an excellent addition to the mopped ranks--Looper5920 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Artaxiad 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I believe firmly that Wikipedians need to apply themselves to the areas they have an affinity for. Admins as well. While I recognize the great need for XfD work from admins as basic WP housekeeping, this candidate's views on XfDs does not disqualify him in the least to me. Vandal fighting counts plenty in my book. 'nuff said. PigmanTalk to me 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good answers to questions. Tons of AIV reports, bag 'em and tag 'em. —Dgiest c 07:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.PeaceNT 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support-Excellent vandal fighter and editor, always willing to help out a newbie like me.--Mbc362 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great contribs and great answers. John Reaves (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Is he not an admin yet? His vandalism fighting history is awesome! --Meno25 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Khoikhoi 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very active user and a strong vandalism fighter. gidonb 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Active contributor with refreshingly candid responses to questions. Will be an excellent admin. Raymond Arritt 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this user looks like a good candidate. Admins don't need to close XfD's to be useful. James086Talk 05:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent editor that should be trusted with the mop. Won't close XfDs so not sure why the "I can't stand XfD" comment should be held against him. There's plenty of other work to do.Pascal'Tesson 06:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- A very Excellent choice (Dont Judge a book by its cover).XfD's are just excuses..Best of Luck..--Cometstyles 13:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no reason to anticipate abuse, so what if he'd personally rather stay away from AfD? AfD is not the only admin task. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 16:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good answers, good track record. Irrelevant to your RfA, but I wish you'd reconsider involvement at XfD; staying away won't help to "relax our deletion finger a bit". · j e r s y k o talk · 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen you around and have a good feeling about you becoming an administrator. Cbrown1023 talk 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; I've always thought he was excellent admin material, but I remember a "this user is not an admin and doesn't wish to be one" userbox on his page for a long time. I will presume that had to do with the XfD issue, and support, since I always wanted to. Antandrus (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There is no question that Wikipedia will benifit of you beeing an admin. Good luck. -Rettetast 20:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Michael 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pile on Support. Plenty of tasks other than XFD that need doing. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thorough answers to the questions, and comments in regards to XfD show that he cares more about representing himself honestly than "winning" adminship. Dekimasuよ! 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent responses, trustworthy contributor and I loved the comment about XfD. Self-deprecating honesty is an admirable trait and only helps instil confidence. --Dweller 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You notice how most admins say they're going to help with WP:AFD? That's generally taken care of enough that we can have admins who do other work. support --Wizardman 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent user. I met AuburnPilot some time ago at Talk:George W. Bush and was impressed with this user's balanced and levelheaded talkspace contributions. Also plenty of edits, and good answers to questions above. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Sarah 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Weak Oppose I hope I am not coming off a little too harsh but coming out and stating "cannot stand" XFD's seems a little...odd to me. I don't like that tone and also this user isn't very active in the Wikispace [25]. Also (not as bad) this user just recently changed the "this user doesn't want to become an administrator to the admin hopeful userbox which the change can be seen here. [26]. Well anyway I might change to support but I just don't feel 100% comfortable to do so now, obviously this RFA is looking fine and I wish you luck. ~ Arjun 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)changed to weak support[reply]
- Oppose, like Arjun, but with stronger sense, I find the statement "cannot stand XFD's" unacceptable. The work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs. Moreover, it seems that you're a bit reluctant to accept the nomination. If you succeed in this RfA, will you properly devote to your duties as an admin? Causesobad → (Talk) 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs. Does it? Majorly (o rly?) 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not unless the admin chooses to take up XfDs. There's a ton of work for admins--enough that even if an admin works 24/7 they can't be expected do all the jobs which need admin assistance. The choice of what admin work an admin does is ultimately up to that admin (just wanted to see how many times I could slip admin into this sentence :-)--Alabamaboy 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to "poke the opposers" but there seems to be a direct questions here. As stated in the nomination, my statement, and the answers to the questions, my hesitation was the RfA itself, not the responsibilities of an admin. Not to fluff my own ego, but I believe I will handle the tools responsibly, and my hesitation was that people would not be able to look passed my lack of participation in XfD. I'm not sure why the fact that I don't like participating in these discussions is "unacceptable", but it is simply a personal preference that I wanted to make clear. Granted adminship, my participation in this area is simply not going to change and I wished to ease any fear that I will go knocking down every article nominate. I doubt every admin participates in every aspect of Wikipedia, and I find the statement that "the work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs" to be false. If every one of the 1000+ admins actively closed and deleted items, there would never be a backlog.
- To your final question, I will certainly devote myself to the duties of an admin. I have outlined the areas where I intend to participate and will begin immediately if this RfA is successful. auburnpilot talk 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As my statement above, the work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs and I still hold my opinion. Also, you say that "every one of the 1000+ admins actively closed and deleted items". Do you have any clues that proves your statement? Have you many times taken part in XfDs to know exactly how many admins really active in these fields? If every one of the 1000+ admins thinks just like you "can't stand XfDs", who will do all the tasks there? Moreover, my reasons to oppose not only limit in the XfDs thing, the kernel matter which makes me consider to vote to oppose is your attitude to the work of admin. Just look back, we have over 1000+ admins, a considerable number, in my opinion, but in fact, how many out of those 1000+ admins dedicate to their work? I don't want to vote useless support and then the backlogs still incessantly rise day by day although there're averagely 5-6 successful candidates a day. However, according to your answer, I have no choice but to trust you because you hold 100% pass this RfA but I still keep my oppose vote as a reminder. Hope that you will accomplish your duties as you say. Causesobad → (Talk) 06:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs. Does it? Majorly (o rly?) 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Conflicted. Seems like a great canidate except...yeah XfD. Still, this editor seems to be locked up on everything else and the fact that he has well and acknowledged his weakness in that area is a good thing. I'm hoping he will focus on his "weak area" as is needed when he is granted his adminship. If he were too assure me of that I would have no problem supporting this nom. Either way AuburnPilot will get it so good luck! NeoFreak 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Veinor
Final (55/1/0) ended 19:01 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Veinor (talk · contribs) - It gives me great pleasure to nominate Veinor (talk · contribs) for adminship. Veinor has been a member of Wikipedia since September 11, 2005, and has been highly active since October 2006. Since then, he has amassed over 10,000 edits, in all sections of Wikipedia. Veinor has spent his time here doing RC patrol and contributing to articles in the mainspace. Veinor has also submitted nearly 200 accurate AIV reports (many dealing with spam/advertising vandals) and has actively participated in dozens of XfDs. A member of WikiProject Spam, Veinor is one of the go-to guys when dealing with problems like external links, advertising, and linkspamming in articles. Veinor has demonstrated a thorough knowledge of policy, especially WP:EL and WP:SPAM, and will no doubt be an important asset as an administrator. Nishkid64 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Veinor (talk to me) 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A: I plan on mostly blocking spammers (after fair warnings, of course), and doing a bit of CSD on the side, as well as AIV. I don't see myself handling really heated discussions such as AfD for a while (maybe a couple months, if not more).
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A: I'm proud of the program I made that parses logs from the anti-spam effort and shows how many times a link was added in a day; I'm currently working on getting a more automated version approved at BRFA. I also think I've done a good job overall on the anti-spam front. In terms of actual contributions, I like the way Direct Relief International is turning out, and I think I handled some recent controversy over Tech Support Comedy well (see below).
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Spam removal, of course, generates lots of conflict, and I'm not always right. However, I've always remained civil, even in the face of insults. The worst-handled incident I can think of was when I was 3RR blocked over Painswick over a month ago. Even though consensus seems to agree with me, I deeply regret my actions, and I hope that they don't hurt my candidacy. In the future, I plan to only make more than 3 reverts in more clear-cut cases. Also, there was a recent debate over the length of Tech Support Comedy, a community that I'm involved in. I believe that I maintained a neutral point of view throughout the whole thing, and I can't think of any way I'd change it. As for stress, nothing that's happened on Wikipedia has caused me any stress. I know that Wikipedia is not the most important thing in the world.
- 4. (Optional) What is your personal definition of "spamdalism"? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Strictly speaking, I'd define it as is adding external links/text with the sole intent of advertising, not improving Wikipedia. However, I often find that these inappropriate links are added by good-faith editors, and the term 'spam' is often used even in good-faith cases (e.g., {{uw-spam1}} can be used for both bad- and good-faith external link additions) So in a broader sense, spamdalism is the addition of external links or advertising that doesn't help the article, regardless of the intent.
- General comments
- See Veinor's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
Discussion
Support
- Support A pleasure to be first to support a level headed candidate. --BozMo talk 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Beat the nom support, keep fighting the good anti-spam fight. But don't forget to participate in XfD's and other such backlogs. Good luck. The Rambling Man 19:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support as nom. Nishkid64 19:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good answer, in my opinion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good vandal-whacker so it makes sense to give him a mop. Has surprisingly thin encyclopedic contributions from the looks of it, though. —Dgiest c 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems like he will make a great admin. BJTalk 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support a great user, will make a great admin. ~ Arjun 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good to me. *Mishatx*-In\Out 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support we definitely need spam fighters, and this candidate is more than qualified for the job. - Anas Talk? 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen nothing but good work.--Húsönd 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Excellent candidate, although he/she doesn't provide much other info about their administrative actions other than spam fighting. ~Steptrip 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Spam seems to be a full-time job nowadays. You need the tools for it, and good luck! Please try the other side of Wikipedia (creation, editing) more often though, if only to avoid adminitis and stress! It works. Bubba hotep 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support -- Veinor's daily link report of all links added that day has been invaluable in spotting and fighting spam. Veinor is also a great spam-fighter in addition to his work as a toolmaker. --A. B. (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support bit weak in terms of article contributions, but he's surely demonstrated a need for extra buttons with his extensive experience at WP:AIV and spam-prevention. Veinor also seems to be good-natured, approachable, and easy to work with, so I'm sure his having extra buttons will only benefit Wikipedia, as well as his own volunteer experience gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good spamfighter, will make an excellent admin! --sunstar nettalk 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Afford this user the mop, the bucket, and the flamethrower. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We need more people working on spam. I particularly like that this user is not just removing the stuff, but working to improve the processes by which we remove it--we need more of that. Chick Bowen 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per above. Captain panda In vino veritas 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-27 04:45Z
- Support - he has some great nom points, and he looks more than qualified for me. give him a mop! JoeSmack Talk 05:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems to be a good candidate. --Aminz 10:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thumbs up - good chap. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per nom. Causesobad → (Talk) 15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - jolly good egg, and I like the cut of his jib. -- Heligoland 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. >Kamope< Talk · Sign Here 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good.-- danntm T C 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per excellent work on spam. Having the tools will certainly help this user and the project. John Reaves (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good spam-fighter. Dragomiloff 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support I've had much experiance with Veinor @ the WP:WPSPAM project and I've always been impressed. Spam fighting in all forms is an extremely valuable contribution, and the mop will definately be helpfull. No doubt it will be used wisely--Hu12 12:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The project would benefit from this user gettin' some extra buttons. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sssspamfighter isss goood. Will use buttons for the benefit of all, methinks. My favour I bestow. My english is sorrowfully weird tonight, here. PigmanTalk to me 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Surprised he isn't admin already. A1octopus 12:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. PeaceNT 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Easy decision, really. Xiner (talk, email) 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Good luck! --Meno25 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. While I don't consider "dozens" of XfDs to be alot considering his total edit count and his very weak answer to Q1 he looks good everywhere else and I trust the nominator's ability to find good canidates. NeoFreak 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Has done Quite a lot of Edits in the last few months and User Nishkid64 choices are always good so why not..--Cometstyles 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support unreservedly. Will be a solid admin. -- Satori Son 15:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per all the above. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very active user, excellent record in spam fighting. gidonb 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Support A hard working, excellent user. He is a genuine model for all wikipedia users. BashmentBoy 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)BashmentBoy[reply]
- Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent counter spam channel, will defiantly use the tools to whack a few vandals, letting others contribute to the encyclopedia in peace ;). As usual, adminship is no big deal —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom; good editor. Trebor 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom; very active spam-fighter. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom (who I trust implicitly). Cbrown1023 talk 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems level-headed and trustworthy. Good luck! IrishGuy talk 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Michael 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't like spam either. This user should do well blocking spammers. James086Talk 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Keep up the great work with your anti-vandalism fighting. Does deserve the tools. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 10:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. RB972 13:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WjBscribe 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Willy on Wheels this is Betacommand and I support this user
- An admin who can really help with spam? yay. Of course I'll (edit conflict)support then.--Wizardman 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose- not been active long enough Astrotrain 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related requests
- Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
- Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
- A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.