Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) at 03:30, 22 May 2006 (moved horizontal line). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Lua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil).
Current time is 00:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Lua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil).
Current time is 00:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

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

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Committee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

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

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[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 added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

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

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with the extended confirmed right.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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.[3] 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".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

Shortcut

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion if there is one. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]

Current nominations for adminship

Add new requests at the top of this section.

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

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

Current time is 00:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Blnguyen

Final (160/1/0) ended 03:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen (talk · contribs) – It is with great pleasure I nominate Blnguyen for adminship. Blnguyen (from Sydney, Australia) is a user who personifies the term ‘silent contributor’, notching up 10,500+ edits since September 2005 without letting anyone notice. He is a (hyper)active member of several (11 to be exact) WikiProjects like WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject Adelaide etc . He has even created two highly useful & informative portals: Portal:Eurovision & Portal:Swimming. He votes actively in AFD’s & RFA’s. He even finds time to be an active RC Patroller & is also found to be an effective vandal fighter, which can only improve on recieving admin privileges. Other than being a tireless contributor, he is also a really nice guy. He is a member of the Welcoming Committee & Esperanza. I have found him to be polite, couteous & very approachable. He is also one of the most prolific members of the Barnstar Brigade, letting deserving users know their efforts are noticed & much appreciated. I have interacted with the Blnguyen in the Cricket project where he is one of the integral members. His contributions, especially NPOV enforcement ,are extremely valuable in cricket articles. Just check out his User Page (which I think is the most organized user page on Wikipedia, Damn he’s like Monica on steroids!) & you will know why he so deserves the mop, bucket & the keys to the janitorial closet. Thanks Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Adelaide, South Australia actually.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to co-nominate with Srikeit. Blnguyen is a first rate Wikipedian who contributes maturely and intelligently to articles, projects and debates. He remains cool under fire and thinks before saving. Adminship will enable him to be even more of an asset to the Project. I have absolutely no reservations handing over the keys to someone of his calibre. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thankyou very much to Srikeit and I@n for their kind words. Thankyou to the community for turning out to review my contributions and activity to Wikipedia.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. An excellent contributor. Calm, polite, friendly. Snottygobble 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extreme Nominator Support Hell yeah! --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rfa cliché #1. RadioKirk talk to me 02:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, most definitely. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support, absolutely. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jaranda wat's sup 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I don't see any problems as far as I can see. joturner 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Fully capable of mop and bucketing! Ziggurat 03:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Tintin (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moral Support Bwahaha. Master of Puppets That's hot. 03:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Has lots of stellar reviews at WP:ER, and is very familiar with processes like AFD and RFA. Also has portal talk edits, so the last excuse for not supporting is gone. --Elkman - (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - Ganeshk (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support of course, and meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Totally edit conflicted support, excellent candidate, good editor, experienced in administrative tasks, and always polite and encouraging. Kusma (討論) 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support with full confidence. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oh heck ya! Been after this one to stand for a while now. More candidates like this one please!™ Support ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. DVD+ R/W 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support from downunder for the fellow Aussie. - Richardcavell 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support I'm a little concerned with the lack of Article:Talk edits (other than Project templates). The most he has ever edited in Talk is 6 for Dravid. He is civil in his dealings with others, but I don't see much evidence of the ability to compromise or work through problems. Ted 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. RfA support cliché #2. Seen him doing good stuff everywhere (not really). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A great contributor whose work I've seen and admired. Can be trusted with the mop; making him an admin will improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, he's dipped his hands in many areas of Wikipedia and is worthy of the mop the mop is worthy of him. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweet, I'm worthy of someone! Master of Puppets That's hot. 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support a devoted Wikipedian with diverse interests and contributions, with more than enough experience for the role.--cj | talk 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per above, a good balance of contributions across all facets of WP life, a well rounded editor who will make an efficient admin. --bainer (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support everything above. Teke 05:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Absolutely. Rebecca 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - too many damn Aussie admins already oh, all right - support :) Grutness...wha? 05:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. What can i say?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 06:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Great editor and a promising potential admin. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support  :) Dlohcierekim 06:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I look forward to working with admin Blnguyen. michael talk 06:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support edit history looks good, no sign of potential for abuse of admin tools.--MONGO 07:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Of course!!!! Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sounds like a great candidate Valentinian (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support.Bharatveer 07:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - a fantastic editor should become a fantastic sysop abakharev 07:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Sure, he may be a "silent editor" but I've definitely noticed this editor around. From my experience, Blnguyen is a very solid contributor and would make a great admin. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Return Support GizzaChat © 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. --Andy123 talk 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. DarthVader 07:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Nomination and co-nomination say it all. Blnguyen has both the knowledge and temperament suitable for the mop. Let's give it to him. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, well-rounded and conscientious contributor, will make a fine admin.--cjllw | TALK 08:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support! It was about time, B! :) Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, based on my experience with Blnguyen. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support and excellent work with the Gastroturfing. Arbusto 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support, I have seen him a lot on the project, and my interactions with him have been positive. Great Wikipedian and he will make a fine admin. --Terence Ong 09:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, also based on my experiences with Blnguyen. --Roisterer 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support - Very mature user and will become a great admin. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Only positive experience with this user. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Looks ready to move up. Mostly Rainy 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support 10,000+ editors is a rareity :), serious wiki-addict it appears.--|«Andeh?»|Talk? 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, of course. --kingboyk 12:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support A great contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - obviously a brilliant contributor. Will make a fine admin. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Punkmorten 13:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong support, very nice nomination too. You have my full confidence.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support despite two edit conflicts. Strong contributor, good work on AfD. Hadn't noticed the silence, particularly with regard to RfA fishing but seems to be a strong candidate for mop status. MLA 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. --Bhadani 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, definitely. Proto||type 13:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support: Naturally. Kukini 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support--Jusjih 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - great user. --Tone 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Very active. Steveo2 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support--blue520 14:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Obvious choice. Tangotango 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Great editor and will be a good admin. Pecher Talk 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. What can I say. enochlau (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Absolutely, everyone else has said it already. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. On one condition – that he does not revert to the almost indecipherable signature that he was using until very recently. (Users need to be able to read an admin's username.) Zaxem 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Long awaited. Rama's Arrow 16:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. He is a perfect example to all wikipedians! User:Prince06 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote should be discounted. It comes from a proven sockpuppet of Prin Anwar 23:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support On Wheels On Wheels lol you deserve it richly. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per above.—G.He 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strong Support Trustworthy, polite, patient, kind -- perfect candidate. Xoloz 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. No worries support. Deizio talk 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Extremely good contributor. With 10,000+ edits he deserves to be an admin. Jordy 19:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support per Jordy. —Khoikhoi 19:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Absolute support. Our paths cross often in our various editing capacities. I think he'll make a great admin. Sue Anne 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. What, ... <RFA CLICHE REMOVED> Support WerdnaTc@bCmLt 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per Xoloz and Jordy EurowikiJ 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Can't oppose. Royboycrashfan   21:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Looks like a good contributor who is ready. Yamaguchi先生 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, without reservations. Sango123 (e) 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support; I've seen nothing but good contributions. — TKD::Talk 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support, of course. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 23:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support DGX 00:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support as per noms and own positive experience with Blnguyen. — Donama 01:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Full support. I have come across this editor frequently and he will be an excellent admin. --Bduke 01:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support JoshuaZ 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support; yes, absolutely. Antandrus (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - he's done some great work on WP and is a really good contributor. (JROBBO 06:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  97. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. From his posts at WP:AN I had thought he was already an admin! Isopropyl 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Bumped into him on vandal duty a few times and he has always shown control and consistancy. My pleasure to support. Rockpocket (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    99!!!! WP:100 :) Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote Tangotango 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, wasn't a vote, just wanted to add a comment on how close we were to the 100 mark. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Hardworking contributor on a number of Wikiprojects and well deserving of adminship. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support good work. JPD (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. A fantastic contributor who has repeatedly displayed the skills required to make a good admin. Rje 11:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Fair dinkum support. Wow! 10k+ edits already! Obviously a committed member of the project! Brisvegas 11:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Another bandwagon support. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Joe I 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support- I see this guy everywhere, and I'm always impressed with his contributions. Reyk YO! 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. support did you say 10,000+ edits? --Bachrach44 20:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Tie me kangeroo down support - Friendly, helpful editor who already does a useful share of vandal hunting and would therefore benefit from an extra button or two. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I've seen Bing in action on several occasions and everything I've seen suggests to me that he'll be a good admin. Bucketsofg✐ 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I've crossed paths with Blnguyen in my counter-vandalism efforts; I have no doubts he'll make a great admin. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. I've seen him around and he's a trustworthy and responsible editor. --Muchness 03:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Why haven't I supported yet? Support- Will make a good one. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - give him a mop Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 05:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Looking at his history, I am quite impressed by this guy. Even though it's not needed, I stand squarely behind him. --Alphachimp talk 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - Trustworthy fellow Australian ed. that deserves a go. --Arnzy (whats up?) 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - haven't interacted much with him but he sure displays a cool head from the little I have seen at Ajith. Also, I trust the nominator. --Gurubrahma 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support!!! Cos he has the same birthday as me, haha. :D-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support per nom Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Though I have no experience with him, he seems good, and Anwar below is blatantly POV about him. Alethiophile 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support; confident in this user's potential as an admin. Aquilina 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support--A Y Arktos\talk 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Strong support, although at this point I'm just piling on... :) and yet it was edit-conflicted! --Deville (Talk) 21:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. I thought he was already an adim support ILovePlankton ( L) 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Have your Support!!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support do a good job! -- Samir धर्म 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. A salve for vandalitis. Shenme 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Merovingian {T C @} 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support per norm --K a s h Talk | email 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Great Wikipedian. --TeaDrinker 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Oh Yes! --Shultz IV 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. --Nick Boalch\talk 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support, I especially like the friendly or at least neutral talk page comments. -- Kjkolb 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support See him around often. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. I have run across this user very frequently and have seen nothing unhelpful. No reason at all to oppose. Grandmasterka 06:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Good editor. Will make a good admin, I think. --Firsfron 07:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Agathoclea 09:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Awesome editing. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (History of War) 16:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support, of course, per, for example, MONGO. Well on his way to becoming the Ian Thorpe of Wikipedia (whatever that means).  :) Joe 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thorpey would say: Blnguyen is fully sick! -- I@n ≡ talk 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support pile-on! Seems like the right kinda-person for admin. ---J.S (t|c) 17:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Unnecessary but morally reassuring Support – willing to do boring stuff AND WikiProjects, good combination – Gurch 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support, can't believe I haven't already supported, a very friendly user who has a ridiculous number of fantastic contributions! -- Natalya 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. I fear this RfA might struggle to get up, but I'll vote support nonetheless. Too bad I couldn't have been the 138th person to give Blnguyen heaped-on praise and wished him all the best with the mop and bucket. Oh well, try again in a month? Harro5 11:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Harro's edit summary was "support" and he upped the support tally by one. I suspect he's posted in the wrong section but have asked for clarification on his talk page. --kingboyk 15:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Australian sarcasm is lost on the Yanks. Blnyugen has my un-wavering support, and I'll go back to the standard "support, well-deserved" comments in future. :) Harro5 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, but I'm not a "Yank". I'm what you folks would call a "whingeing Pom". --kingboyk 09:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the error; either way, support. Harro5 09:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Strong Support I just think its a good Idea. -- Babii-Gurl-Ray 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support.Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support from the sunny Czech Republic. I like your articles about suburbs of Adelaide. - Darwinek 11:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support A great, kind, and helpful wikipedian. He deserves this mop. -- Banez 12:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support of course! --Mmounties (Talk)   15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Will be a good admin.--Dakota ~ 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - oh no! My vote made it 151 which is an odd number! --GeorgeMoney T·C 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Well overdue. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Extremely Strong Support, 10,000 edits is an automatic "yes" from me. --Evan Robidoux 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Absolutely Spprot, He always provides the good information on article, and just being nice to everyone. Daniel5127, 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Yes! Why aren't more people piling on? Flowerparty☀ 02:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Per Nomination, and meets my requirements. ~Linuxerist   E/L/T 02:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Whoops, I don't want to miss this one! --Cyde↔Weys 06:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Good all round contributor, break out one extra new mop. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Strong Support: I am confident, he will become excellent admin. - Holy Ganga talk   19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Presumes bad faith in dispute resolution. His idea of cleanup is blanking out whole lines, paragraphs, sections and even supporting links without even a pretense of discussion. This is evident particularly in Ajith. Pushes his POV as NPOV. Unusually high participation in AfD shows herd mentality. Poor judgement of who is editor and who is vandal. Supports majority vote even in matters of fact. Amateur contributor. Vandal-fighting is a irrelevant criterion to become admin. Last but not least, fails miserably Mailer Diablo's test. Try again next year. Anwar 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment At least once a week I see Vandal-fighting is a irrelevant criterion to become admin. or along those lines. From what I can tell, that's primarily what an administrator does: Blocking, protection, rollback. Are there special article editing features that an admin has that I'm not aware of? I'm serious here, because I see so many oppose votes based on article experience; as far as I know it's called a mop for cleanup and not a pen for writing. If I am wrong, please let me know because I'm confused as to why that's a criterion for opposition all the time. Teke 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment How exactly does a high participation in AfD show "herd mentaliy"? It seems to me that that would make a person a good contributor. Alethiophile 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bcoz vandal-fighting needs only a brainless bot not a balanced admin with good judgement on the quality of the contribution and contributor. Mailer Diablo's test establishes the candidate is a serious contributor to this encyclopaedia. Anwar 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, vandal-fighting does not need "only a brainless bot". You must try it someday and then you will realise that it is actually very hard and tiring work which requires a well-balanced mind to face a lot of brainless vandals who constantly disrupt wikipedia. And I am sure that some of the vandal-fighting bots around here have a brain (atleast TawkerBot2 seems to have one) :)- Aksi_great (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tawkerbot2 only gets about 40% of the vandalism you know, we always need humans to catch the close stuff -- Tawker 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These are serious allegations. Could you point me to specific diffs that illustrates the points you make? It would be very helpful to me and I'm sure other editors too. Thanks, Gwernol 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Blnguyen, who has been here for over 8 months, has 10,000+ edits, 15 DYK's to his name, has started 2 Portals & has wide community approval (78 Support votes with no opposes excluding this at the time of writing). Stating that he has "Poor Judgement" & is an "Amateur Contributor" without any evidence is quite uncalled for. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, please add new comments in a separate paragraph and don't edit like you did this time as it is difficult to follow discussions this way. Now, coming back to your allegations. The community consensus (and not the author's own wish) was that use of words like "Mega-hit" and "Mega-star" was making the article un-encyclopedic and hence it was needed to tone down. Discussions regarding this have been indicated by Blnguyen as answer to Question 3 below. I would consider high participation in AfDs a good sign and not a bad one. Can you explain in which context you are saying he has poor judgement in identifying vandals. What I request is to provide us reference(s) where he showed poor judgement which was evident as community felt otherwise. This will help us decide if it indeed were "poor judgement". Vandal-fighting is considered by many as an important criteria for an admin so I am not sure if this point needs to be countered at all. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a quick look at Ajith Kumar as recommended above by Anwar. Blnguyen's first edit to the article is here. He added a POV tag to the article; changed the infobox name from "Ultimate Star Ajith" to "Ajith"; changed the initial statement of the star's name from "Ajith" to "Ajith Kumar"; did some cleaning up and rephrasing; and gave the edit summary "(use his real name not his glorifed nickname, massive pov violations, need help from knowledge people)".
    Blnguyen then left the following message on the talk page: "The most hagiographic article on WP?? The whole article is utterly ridiculous. I tried to do some rephrasing, but someone who has watched more of his films will have to intervene because the content is also rather ridiculous."
    Anwar responded with "Its not POV. Editors who negate this article as such have their own POVs that are anti-Ajith and pro-Vijay...." and shortly afterwards partially reverted the article back to the "Ultimate Star Ajith" version, including removing the POV tag.
    I am satisfied that the article was indeed grossly POV. At the time the first sentence was: "Ajith (born 1 May 1971 in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India) is a immensely popular Tamil actor and a race car driver with a huge fan following" and it went downhill from there.
    Blnguyen's subsequent edits to the article are clearly repeated efforts to remove the blatant hagiography from the article. I applaud Blnguyen's effort in this case, and have no qualms about his conduct.
    If this is Anwar's evidence for his assertion that Blnguyen "pushes his POV as NPOV", then Anwar's claims above must be disregarded.
    Snottygobble 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anwar's complaints should definitely by disregarded. It is clear that it is Anwar who is at fault, not Blnguyen. He has been sulking about this for a while now, opposing all Indian RFAs, opposing all Indian FACs, FPCs etc. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should be prepared to file an WP:RfC. He is going too far. GizzaChat © 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  1. Well, thankyou to all of the community for turning out to discuss my presence on Wikipedia. I am extremely flattered by the raw turnout and gracious comments, especially from so many Wikipedians with whom I had not directly interacted - I am rather surprised at how many people had been keeping an eye on me. I hope to live up to the trust imbued in me by the large show of the support from the community. I look forward too continuing to work productively with everybody in the future, and will be talking to everybody personally in the near future. Thankyou. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username	Blnguyen
Total edits	10950
Distinct pages edited	7513
Average edits/page	1.457
First edit	22:40, September 14, 2005
	
(main)	5238
Talk	749
User	323
User talk	1384
Image	67
Template	202
Template talk	36
Category	232
Category talk	14
Wikipedia	2413
Wikipedia talk	166
Portal	118
Portal talk	8
 G.He 23:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry completely slipped my mind! --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:54, 22 May 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I spend most of my maintenance work doing WP:RCP, WP:NP, and WP:AFD, so I would anticipate helping with WP:AIV (where I have reported regularly), CAT:CSD, and in deleting pages at AfD as consented by the community. As I am a WP:DYK enthusiast, I would help to update DYK more frequently, as I feel that exposing more quality work on the front page is an important part of maintaining morale of article writers and of the community at large, as most article writing would appear to be quite lonely. I feel that keeping community morale high is an important facet of maintaining Wikipedia's success. I would also be happy to help with requests such as page moves that require admin powers, having done close to 100 myself.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have one featured list, Swimming World Swimmers of the Year, and also have accumulated 15 DYKs, mostly on my more comprehensive articles. Aside from that, I created Portal:Swimming and Portal:Eurovision. A personal project of mine is to have a relatively detailed (although information is unfortunately rather scant in some cases) biography of every Australian Olympic medallist in swimming: Category:Olympic swimmers of Australia has increased from around 25 to a 130 since December, and there are only 8 which are still missing.
Aside from that I've written some articles which fit into the category of Category:Hopf algebras (mathematics) and Category:Statistical mechanics (physics),geographical and psephology (election) articles about South Australia, where I live, as well as maintaining and expanding Cricket articles.
I also keep an extensive list of material on my userpage and the subpages which document what I have been doing at Wikipedia, if anybody would like to read. Vertex model was a quite difficult article to write. Although it was one edit, it took me about 6-8 hours to work up outside of wikipedia.
On the procedural side of matters, I participate in NP and RC patrol, which explains my 600+ deleted edits, report vandals to WP:AIV when I see it and write up a lot of AfD nominations. I have also participated at Pages needing translation - it appears that I am the most active user with a knowledge of Vietnamese on the English wikipedia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The thing which makes Wikipedia great - it's open sourced nature - "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit" will inevitably lead to people who are overenthusiastic or have differing opinions on what should be included in certain things - discussing POV edits on the talk pages can solve this . For people who try and use WP as advertising or for political marketing or soapboxing, this is something I was always mindful of; so this always keeps me philosophical when these things happen. This is how I stay relatively unruffled throughout content disputes. I try and use 1RR and discuss the matter on the talk page, until both parties agree unanimously, or until more third parties arrive and reach a strong level of consensus. I try not to escalate the dispute, and try to debate on the talk page at eg, Talk:Rahul Dravid, Talk:Sachin Tendulkar and Talk:Jason Gillespie. For the record, I had a very minor anxious moment in a content dispute at Talk:Ajith Kumar regarding the Tamil actor Ajith Kumar, which I believed to be very hagiographic, in that it included repeated uses of "!", "mega-hit", "mega-star", resembling a fan-site. I tried to tone it down, and cut some matter that I felt were unencyclopedic, but after Anwar saadat complained on the talk page that I had vandalized his articles and was engaging in trolling, I decided to take a step back and use the talk page and wait for others to comment. After many other editors commented on the matter at User talk:Anwar Saadat/Archive 2, User talk:Anwar saadat, and [1], my minor apprehension subsided. Anwar seems to editing and contributing normally now, which is also good. In future, I would continue to think philosophically, that the editing conflicts which arise are a very small downside to the benefits of having a free enycylopedia which is built by hundreds of thousands of volunteers from across the face of the earth. I would continue to try and restrict myself to 1RR, and discuss on the talk page, slow down a bit and wait for more reaction, and think that this will prevent me from becoming stressed. Observing Jason Gastrich from close quarters, and seeing other users get death threats, etc, keeps to help things in perspective with the editing disagreements that I encounter, so I don't anticipate getting stressed in future.
4. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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.

Tijuana Brass

Final: 76/1/4 ended 02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tijuana Brass (talk · contribs) – I've been keeping an eye on this editor since we first interacted. He's got a great, well rounded contribution history, (as of this writing, and taking lag into account, it's over 2600 (and growing) as measured via Interiot's tool) and he's shown his ability to remain composed under fire. He shows good sense, a willingness to communicate and work to resolve differences, but doesn't shy away from doing the Right Thing, and he remains true to the 5 pillars, all for the good of the encyclopedia. (A few examples: [2], [3], [4], [5]... nothing earth shattering, just civil discourse, polite vandal whacking, calm and reasoned RfA talk, and friendly concern for other editors) Plus he likes Herb Alpert, one of the smoothest cats ever. I think he'll make an excellent admin and I'm pretty excited to be nominating him. It is with great pleasure that I bring you this nomination (which has been on ice till the candidate was ready) and ask you for your support. ++Lar: t/c 11:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Of course. Goes without saying. But those of you that know me know I never miss a chance to point out the obvious! ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (yes I will re-sign once accepted) ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (re-signing to show I mean it and that yes, I'm that much of a policy wonk.)[reply]
  2. Strong Support per Lar. Rama's Arrow 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, great contributor, per nom. jaco♫plane 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC
  4. Support Make a great admin...ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)
  5. Support. Good user.—G.He 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support but... oh no... it doesn't seem like he has helped out on a featured article! joturner 02:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Urp! I missed that!!!! I wonder if there's still time to get Herb Alpert there by the end of the RfA ?? ++Lar: t/c
  7. Support. Seen this one around, no doubts for me. RadioKirk talk to me 02:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: TB has a different set of philosophies from mine on policy, but he works to help the uninformed and never resorts to assuming that the other person's opinions are worth less than his own. Geogre 02:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support definitely.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jaranda wat's sup 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Superstrong Support God, Lar, you always beat me at these things. Anyway, I've known this editor for a while too; he's very civil, thoughtful, and experienced. Master of Puppets That's hot. 03:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support JoshuaZ 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Gwernol 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support without question. -- Jjjsixsix (t)|(review)@ 03:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per nom, good answers to questions. Also per [6] and [7]. (Though the second one rightly shows how destructive my own behavior has been.) Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. DVD+ R/W 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Dr Zak 04:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ¿Pero como no? i.e. yes. Redux 05:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support despite edit count < 3000 - 4000, based on your advice to User:Zpb52 re: question 5 on his RfA . Cheers, besides, I thought you were one.  :) Dlohcierekim 07:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per the Community Justice cabal. Computerjoe's talk 07:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support-o-rama. Poked around this editor's contributions and didn't find anything questionable. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. DarthVader 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, definetely ok by my book. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Terence Ong 09:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support Have seen him around quite a bit & must say am very impressed by his work. Will handle the mop well. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 10:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, I look forward to this user having the tools to better mediate conflicts and the other things that this user could do to better the project.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. -- Seems ready for further custodial duties. Kukini 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom --Mhking 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, nothing to see here, move along. Proto||type 13:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support--Jusjih 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, sure. --Tone 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, strong contributor. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Willing to learn, a good quality to have. ~MDD4696 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Reserved Support despite the dearth of article edits, and b/c adminship is no big deal, or so they tell me. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Innocent. The Land 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, making all the right choices. And I'd be making the wrong one by opposing this nomination. ;) Royboycrashfan   21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Picaroon9288 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Sure! Sango123 (e) 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Penguin support. Per above. Fetofs Hello! 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support DGX 00:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support based on own positive experience with (very responsible) Tijuana Brass. — Donama 01:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A little low on edits, but its what you do with 'em that counts in my book. Rockpocket (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Tijuana Brass appears to be able to communicate well with other users, this is a very important trait in an admin. Rje 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC), forgot to sign earlier, sorry.[reply]
  47. Support; sufficiently experienced and able to keep his cool under pressure. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, a quality editor. -- Natalya 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Joe I 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support based on past observation of excellent consensus-building. - Reaverdrop 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support He's a great editor who knows his way around. Besides, I used to listen to the Tijuana Brass when I was a wiseguy and rode around with my crew. Tony the Marine 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Bucketsofg✐ 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support. Death Eater Dan   (Muahaha) 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Definitely. I've seen this editor around; trust isn't an issue. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Seems like an excellent contributor, as well as a deserving and active member of Wiki society. DakPowers (Talk) 00:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. All interactions have been positive. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. I have not always agreed with this editor (e.g. in the Hardy Jackson debate I think my views were more in line with JJay's) still, I have never found his tone to be inappropriate or disrespectful. He seems to be a good editor with a long history. Give him a mop. -MrFizyx 06:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Firm Support A nice funny member. Will be a great admin. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support Very nice user, good contributions, deserves a mop! The Halo (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- definitely --Deville (Talk) 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Looked through the contribs which all look great. I thought Tijuana Brass was quite reasonable with respect to Hardy Jackson. Has my support. -- Samir धर्म 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Merovingian {T C @} 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support good nominate --K a s h Talk | email 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Nice to have some extra help around here. --Shultz IV 06:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, we need more admins who stay cool when the editing gets hot. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  66. Support on the bandwagon. Adminship is no big deal and you'll definitely make good use of the mop --james °o 11:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Has room to improve... but don't we all? ---J.S (t|c) 17:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, good answers to questions and good contributions. Kuru talk 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, seems to make a pretty good job of being man-in-the-middle of controversial topics while (proverbially) remaining cool. Alai 23:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Good user. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support per most everything above. ~Linuxerist   E/L/T 02:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support seems a very good candidate. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support of course. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Jude (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I had a negative personal interaction with this user. I doubt he has the temperament to be an administrator. -- JJay 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to this exchange? If not, could you let the readership know via link or diff what you're referring to? It may help others form a clearer opinion. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now, I'm still studying it. I'm concerned that TB is not far enough up the learning curve yet. For example, his messing up the counting for a straw poll at Talk:Criticism_of_Mormonism#Proposed_merger_with_Anti-Mormonism. I've done that myself, but always managed to correct it. Is this lack of knowledge or lack of caring? I'm still studying his edits. Ted 03:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you bring up Criticism_of_Mormonism, I'll just say that Tijuana Brass has been a ballast of diplomatic contribution in this and other "battleground" articles. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does not meet 1FA, but has made active participation in process and RC. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. neutral leaning towards support. Good user, but I'm quite surprised by the ratio of article edits to edits overall. I've certainly no objection to editor participation in user talk discussions, but it seems abnormally high. Other than that looks a pretty good candidate. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Can't Support, because I have not found this editor to always AGF; can't Oppose, because he is too good an editor., can't Oppose. Raichu 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you say why, please? Thanks, Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username	Tijuana Brass
Total edits	2902
Distinct pages edited	1364
Average edits/page	2.128
First edit	04:23, May 5, 2005
	
(main)	1204
Talk	200
User	136
User talk	686
Image	8
Image talk	1
Template	22
Template talk	6
Help	1
Wikipedia	532
Wikipedia talk	106
 G.He 23:23, 23 May 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: My interests center primarily around correcting vandalism and mediating in conflicts. In regards to the former, I'd particularly appreciate the use of the rollback feature to revert vandalism, as it greatly speeds the process, and the use of blocks, protects and semi-protects when necessary. Regarding the latter, I anticipate frequently participating in issues brought up at the Admin watchboards; they tend to generate a lot of conflict, and I would like to serve as a neutral voice in the matters there (while having the tools necessary to enforce decisions). I also monitor AfDs from time to time, and would expect to close nominations when appropriate.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The article of which I am proudest is actually one at Wikinews which grew into a resource for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina — an uplifting example of the immediate impact that a Wiki can have. Here, though, I'm happy with the recent addition of an article on the Samaritan Institute, an organization I've worked with previously. However, some of my most pleasing moments on Wikipedia have been those when I've felt that a contribution I've made has encouraged another editor to take a greater part in the 'pedia; all too often, infrequent editors, whether new, anonymous, or otherwise, are overlooked and their interest wanes, when it takes little effort to welcome them into the project.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Typically, if I'm involved in a conflict of opinion while editing, I'll first step away from the article for a while and edit elsewhere. If necessary, I'll ask a few users whose neutrality I've grown to trust to review the issue and offer their advice, and establish some means to come to a consensus in the framework of Wikipedia policies. A kind word goes a long way, and people tend to take things more personally online than they would in person... something that I try to avoid.

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

4. Could you expand on your answer to question 3, with specific difs if possible?
A. Sure thing. At Criticism of Mormonism, I perceived a POV problem and made some changes accordingly. Another editor reverted me. I contacted him to ask for a discussion on the article talk page, and then asked for some outside comments from trusted editors: [8], [9] and [10]. We then began a dialogue on the article talk page to review the article in detail — one that I momentarily withdrew from due to a move and new job (this is a good reminder to jump back into it, actually). Hope that helps.
5. You are involved in both Esperanza and Community Justice. Could you discuss your work with those projects. In particular, has your work with them given you any experience that would be help for an admin?
A. I appreciate the concept behind Esperanza and am disappointed by some of the conflict that's arisen within it lately. I monitor the Alerts page, where users seeking support when caught up in frustrating conflicts will sometimes add their names (or have their names added), and do my best to drop a line on their talk pages to hear them out and assist in a neutral manner. If this adminship goes through, I'd also seek to take an active role in the admin coaching program when reasonably experienced, a concept that I wish had greater interest on the part of skilled admins.
I see a lot of similiarity between Community Justice and Esperanza; the former is still figuring out its role. It has a number of dedicated users trying to lead it; as I'm not on the recently-elected governing council, I've done my best to suggest ways in which CJ could better define it's aspirations as a Wikipedia organization. In a more informal sense, I try to act as a peacemaker in conflict, as described in other responses above.
That peacemaker/mediator role, to me, is relevant to adminship. In RfAs, sometimes it can be easy to focus solely on the predicted use of specific admin tools without giving consideration to less tangible measures of a potential administrator's duties — those that relate to promoting an enviorment conducive to harmonious, productive article editing. Conflict throws a wrench in that process, so I do what I can to resolve it.
6. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. While I appreciate ShootJar's interest in deterring vandalism, I disagree with his proposal. I feel very strongly about the need to allow anyone and everyone to edit at Wikipedia; the edit tag should only be disabled in rare instances, as it is with the current policy. There are a great number of useful anon and new user edits to articles, and it's a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater to limit those. I also suspect that it would have a chilling effect on the amount of new users signing up.


The above 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.


Conscious

Final (75/0/0) ended 20:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Conscious (talk · contribs) – Conscious joined the project on 31 May 2005, and since then has amassed over 14,000 edits according to Interiot's toolserver based counter. An editor who undertakes a lot of maintenance work, he is an active member of WikiProject Stub sorting, and can often be seen at SfD as a result. In terms of article writing, he has made significant contributions to the featured article FIFA World Cup and the featured list List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries. I regard him as an asset to the project and fully deserving access to the mop. Oldelpaso 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. Conscious 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support because this user will very likely be promoted by a unanymous desicion.  :) Mostly Rainy 05:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Oldelpaso 18:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Hard-working editor, should be a good Admin too abakharev 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Strong Support per above and below. A very hardworker and should've been admin a long time ago. :) G.He 00:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, level-headed in disputes, a lot of maintenance work, knows WP, works in a wikiproject, etc. P.S. I predict a support vote from Francs2000. feydey 21:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I have met Conscious before, and although we have had a small conflict (or was it two?) he has been very mature about them. Overall, I know I can trust him with the tools, and know he will put them to good use. -zappa.jake (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Will make a great admin and will be very responsible with the tools. ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)
  8. Support per above. DarthVader 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per below. Master of Puppets That's hot. 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Trustworthy editor, mastery of maintainence tasks already thoroughly demonstrated. Xoloz 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, of course. Raichu 23:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rfa cliché #1 RadioKirk talk to me 23:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A great user who would be a great admin. Mr. Turcottetalk 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Nick Boalch\talk 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, just my type of candidate! (well, isn't he everyone's type?) Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Me too! WerdnaTc@bCmLt 00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support seems to be a great candidate, taking a look at contribs I see no reason to oppose and user has shown the tools would be a help -- Tawker 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good chap.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Will be an asset with the mop. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Very Strong Support Will be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nominator. Mostly Rainy 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nom. Rama's Arrow 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Jaranda wat's sup 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Civil in his dealings with others. Was able to work with a bunch of footballers, so that has to count for something! Narrow interests, but seems to be able to deal with others. Ted 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support of course, and meets 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support. How the f#$%$#@ did I fail to notice Conscious wasn't an admin? If I had I'd have nominated him myself! Grutness...wha? 05:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support per nom. and Grutness. Valentinian (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support no evidence that nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 07:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. No alarm bells after a brief but careful inspection. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, unlikely to abuse tools, good editor. --Terence Ong 10:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. No problems here. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support, well balanced edits, over-all good user.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support, with no qualms at all. Proto||type 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support--Jusjih 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. The world of football can always use another level-headed mopper. Kukini 13:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. support. A-class stubsman. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. --Tone 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. -- Zaxem 16:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. MaxSem 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support the P.C. term is "stubsperson", O Lizard. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. --Irpen 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, has done too much for me to oppose. Royboycrashfan   21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support DGX 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Absolutely.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Hard to argue against that amount of edits without putting a foot seriously wrong. Rockpocket (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I thought he was one!  Grue  07:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, of course. haz (user talk) 07:56, 23 May 2006
  49. Support, :) Dlohcierekim 10:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. A very hard working editor, shouldn't have had to wait this long in my opinion. Rje 11:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Joe I 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Robert 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Asterion talk to me 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC) We have come accross a couple of times regarding WP:SFD. He strikes me as a very civil wikipedian and definitely hard working![reply]
  54. Support per above --Alphachimp talk 05:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support the mop must be given to this user. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. No interesting comments here, move along... Seriously, I think you'll be a good admin. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Merovingian {T C @} 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom. Sophy's Duckling 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --Shultz IV 07:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support better late than never support here. I've come across Conscious a couple of times recently and been impressed with his judgement. Gwernol 12:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support what everyone else said. --Bachrach44 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Civil, mature, and hard working; ready for adminship. Yamaguchi先生 01:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Anything I might add has already been said. Joe 16:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good user will be a good admin. ---J.S (t|c) 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support So many edits, so few enemies. Looks good to me. Stephen B Streater 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Just-offered-to-nominate-him-myself-without-realizing-he-was-currently-RFA'd support (i.e., strong, if befuddled). Alai 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Another stub-maniac :). - Darwinek 11:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support A very good user with a wide range of good quality edits. I feel, he would be extremely valuable as an Admin. Jordy 18:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. How could you not? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Weak Support Great editor, though User Talk edits are surprisingly low. ~Linuxerist   E/L/T 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 05:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support good editor. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Seems an excellent contributor. Afonso Silva 15:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Last minute support per the above. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Comments 

Username	Conscious
Total edits	15032
Distinct pages edited	12266
Average edits/page	1.226
First edit	04:07, May 31, 2005
	
(main)	12426
Talk	165
User	63
User talk	264
Image	22
Template	182
Template talk	9
Help	1
Help talk	2
Category	742
Category talk	7
Wikipedia	1035
Wikipedia talk	85
Portal	29
 G.He 23:34, 23 May 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I prefer janitorial tasks, and am ready to help where backlog arises. I'm most familiar with WP:SFD and WP:CFD, but also interested in services like WP:RM, WP:CSD, or WP:CP (I have managed/am managing a few copyright claims there). I won't be looking for someone to block, but I know the blocking policy and what vandalism is. Conscious 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Most of my content contributions concentrate around football, or, as we say here, football (soccer). The first article I started was Russian Cup. As Oldelpaso mentioned, I have contributed to a featured list and a featured article as a part of my work with the guys from WP:WPF. I also try to give a better coverage of Russian football by writing articles about competitions, clubs, and players.
On the other hand, I have sorted a good deal of stubs and taken on other cleanup tasks like article categorization and clearing Special:Uncategorizedcategories. Conscious 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I tend to work in the darker corners of Wikipedia. This and the very first advice from WP:DR (improve rather than reverting) leave me with no major conflicts. Talking also helps; for example, today I tried my persuasion on an anon, and it seemed to work. Among my stronger impressions is a not-too-pleasant discussion with Karmafist, when he engaged WP:WSS in December. Conscious 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks even more complex than proposed Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, which has been criticised (in some variants) for the amount of maintenance needed and (in some other variants) for the lack of effectivity. Conscious 18:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above 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.


Kevin Baas

Final (8/26/5) ended 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baas (talk · contribs) – I am a longstanding contributor with a good knowledge of policy. I believe, in principle, that policy should be followed and applied rigorously, and I think I can put more of my spare time to good use as a janitor. Kevin Baastalk 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edit a lot of contentious articles. Someone's got to do it. I am not alone in this, there are a number of editors that I run into a lot, and who contribute to many of the same articles i do. I'm interested in politics, like they are, so that's how things turn out. But I do my research and work towards making these articles factual and complete, and i adhere strictly to policy, esp. NPOV, and expect others to do the same. if you want to hear what i have to say about NPOV, take a look at my user page. Kevin Baastalk 23:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New: For the sake of disclosure, I and almost all of the editors of a contentious article were named by Phil Sandifer (formerly Snowspinner) in an arbitration request. You can examine it he6re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Election. Kevin Baastalk 22:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. Kevin Baastalk 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Looks like a win-win situation to me. Sarge Baldy 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. A quick perusal of this user's edits suggests a strong knowledge of policy, particularly WP:DR, WP:NOT and WP:RS. RadioKirk talk to me 19:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral RadioKirk talk to me 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Changed back to support, I'm satisfied with the answers. RadioKirk talk to me 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support An experienced user. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Looks experienced, sincere and highly motivated. Happy with answers to questions below. Will look further if vote seems close. Stephen B Streater 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Very experienced user. DarthVader 22:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I was impressed by the answers to the questions. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support (moral), we need admins that edit contentious articles too.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support (moral). Hopefully the candidate gets better.--Jusjih 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    left vague like this, it's a personal attack. one should write, rather, "i believe that the candidate can improve in x. examples of where is failing and why... how person could have done better. Kevin Baastalk 15:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand why you call it a personal attack while I have never meant any attack. I just wished you better. I have checked Wikipedia:No personal attacks but could find nothing apparently supporting your claim. Please explain why exactly you called it an attack.--Jusjih 16:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose for now, see below.--Jusjih 17:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt mean to impy that it qualified as a "no personal attacks" violation. perhaps i should be more precise: it is destrucitve criticism. theres nothing you can do with it but be condenscended. I understand that you were not trying tobe offensive. i want you to understand that without you being more specific, what you wrote is worthless to me. what do you perceive my shortcomings to be? what are some examples? How would you have acted? why do you think that's "better"? that kind of information is useful. Kevin Baastalk 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, good nom. Royboycrashfan   21:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I very strongly object to this user being made an administrator. Raul654 19:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    May we be enlightened? RadioKirk talk to me
    Kevin Baas is a POV-pushing problem user and giving him adminship will only increase the problems he has a history of causing. Consider: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily (where the arbcom found he participated in revert wars on numerous occasions), 9/11 conspiracy theories (see the talk page history; or the 950 redirect pages, leftovers from his page-moving warring to new titles including: 9-11 domestic conspiracy 9-11 domestic conspiracy theory 9/11 U.S. complicity theories 9/11 Bush Administration complicity theory 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories); his actions on the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (which led Snowspinner to file a request for arbitration ([11]) echo the same POV he was warring over in the 9/11 article. This user should not be an admin. Raul654 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, see my answers to the questions below, where i have a history of solving problems, not causing them. I was not originally in that arbcom case but i asked to join in to put a few words in and because in retrospect, i realized i had violated 3rr on occasion on the article in question. I believe i explained the history of that below. those page moves were me trying to come up with an agreeable name. then someone kept blanking the page and redirected it to a page that links to it, even though the article had not been through an AfD. I informed him that this was a violation of policy, and eventually snowspinner, now phil sandifer, after becoming involved in the conflict himself, protected the page (a violation of policy). snowspinner aka phil filed actions not because of me but because of his frustration in general. he should have tried mediation, first, though. Kevin Baastalk 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Added questions below. RadioKirk talk to me 20:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Raul, you've made some serious accusations, namely that 1) i am a POV-pusher, 2) that i am a problem user., and 3) that i have a history of causing problems. can you provide any evidence to support these claims? (and btw, i like your laws, and am especially flattered by the first.) Kevin Baastalk 00:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose involved in current RFAr Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election and the answer for number one is just plain bad, I see few vandalism reverts in his edits, lack of wikipedia namespace, maybe later Jaranda wat's sup 19:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, Phil is having trouble on a page and he should have tried mediation. His choice does not reflect on me. if there was a ruling againgst me (which would also be a ruling against pretty much every contributor to that article except Phil), that would be different. I really don't expect that to happen. regarding vandalism: People usually beat me too it. But w/anti-vandal tools I would imagine it'd be different. Anycase, look back in my history further if you want to find vandalism reversions. I don't expect you to believe that I don't revert vandalism. Kevin Baastalk 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I saw a few reverts but not much, but that RFAr worries me and the answer for number one is just bad. Jaranda wat's sup 19:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you refering to by "the answer for number one" and why do you think it's bad? Kevin Baastalk 20:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And in all fairness, if you're interested in the solving/causing problems question you might want to look at Snowspinner's (now Phil Sandifer) past RFCs. That might also give you some insight into the nature of the RFAr. Kevin Baastalk 20:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer for number one doesn't really tell how you want to use the tools, anybody could revert vandalism, it's also way too small. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. I'll write a more thorough answer there. Kevin Baastalk 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Agreeing with Jaranada. If you want to be an admin, you need to be reverting vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose based on this statement "Beyond the non-justicableness of this case, from my prior experience with them, I have no confidence in the neutrality of the arbitrators who have accepted this case." in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election#Statement by Kevin Baas. FloNight talk 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it was non-justiciable because 1.) it is not a user dispute, it is a content dispute, and 2.) Phil Sandifer did not try mediation, so it's out of process. My confidence w/those particular arbitrators on the case is diminshed by 1.) that the accepted what on the surface is a non-justiciable case, and 2.) my experience with them in editing controversial articles. Kevin Baastalk 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, per Raul. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I also strongly worry about this users POV habits, he has voted on an issue in [Talk:Iraq_War#Casus_belli] and said simply "popular opinion does not support this association.", however when asked for a survey or even a source of where his information on what popular opinion is he never replied. I worry about this for 2 reasons, its possible he voted in favor of where the majority was voting hence his statement, or he was voting strictly by his opinion and stating it "popular opinion." While voting ones opinion is fine, he lacks any sort of support for it with evidence. This is what makes me worry about his admin abilities as he doesnt support things with evidence, and does not follow up for requests of information regarding his findings. An admin needs to be concise and willing to follow up and resolve issues, not simply throw information around or be unwilling to state why they made such a choice, at least in my opinion. --Zer0faults 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I forget about that question, Zer0faults, thanks for reminding me. You can go ahead and ignore/disregard my vote until I do. Sorry about that. Regarding POV - these are contentious pages and everyone sees things differently, it's important to realize that and it's not constructive to call eachother POV-pushers because we have different opinions on some things. So long as we're all working towards consensus I don't think anyone of us can be righly called a "POV-pusher". Kevin Baastalk 20:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. oppose - spending too much time trying to minimise the various problems... particularly dislike the response to the copyvio block... and starting replies with "Ya" is irritating William M. Connolley 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Oppose seems to be experienced, but admins and point of view shouldn't be together, at least not on Wikipedia. Master of Puppets That's hot. 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Raul. --Nick Boalch\talk 23:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Raul. Naconkantari 00:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, -- With a pending RfAr, user all ready seems pretty busy. Seems to feel conflict is a natural part of Wikipedia, rather than not. Lacks anti vandal edits and claims lack of tools. I had made a couple thousand or so before I got VandalProof. BTW, you can get anti-vandal tools without adminship. (I haven’t tried “pop-ups,” but VandalProof is wonderful.) As a suggestion, some time away from contentious articles may give user a needed respite from a stressful situation. Perhaps after the dust settles and after he has more experience RCPatrolling. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, I'm only concerned that he doesn't seem to know why he really wants admin tools. The answer to question #1 is most telling in this respect. Spend some more time on that, then come back. Ted 03:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Raul654 and Jaranda above. (And don't come to my user talk page saying you want me to reconsider -- I've had too many people asking for that lately.) Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Does not appear to meet 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Raul and Jaranda. --Terence Ong 10:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose due to seeing 2004 election articles as an accomplishment. Phil Sandifer 15:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose because of his involvement in the conspiracy theory nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I intended to give a moral support, but I cannot agree what he just called me as personal "attack" while I would like to nake a positive wish in response to disputes above. Wiktionary defines hopefully as "it is hoped that; I hope; we hope; in a hopeful manner". What exactly is wrong to wish someone getting better? Sorry, but I have to change my vote now.--Jusjih 17:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Per Raul. Arkon 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Kevin's got a lot to contribute, but the history I've read seems to suggest he is most committed to ensuring that his POV is fairly represented in a variety of US politics pages. That itself a decent contribution to Wikipedia, but not really related to admin duties. Maybe Kevin could spend a few months cleaning vandalism and/or mediating and re-apply. TheronJ 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Somewhat unstable in conflict, see the results of this: [12]. Also, not much reversion of vandalism as mentioned already. --Knucmo2 21:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting interpretation of that event. I'm actually quite proud of that RFAr. As I mentioned in the questions below, me and a number of others were putting up with a serious problem user (VeryVerily), and after much effort, we solved it. (also thanks to the judicious minds of the arbitrators). I was not indicted in that arbitration. I voluntarily joined so that I could have a say. and if you look at the conclusion to that RfAr, you'll see the arbitrators didn't see it fit to take any action against me. at first, they didn't even think i should be in the case. but woa and behold, as a newbie facing an extremely disruptive user who violated the 20RR every day for over a month when the 3RR was not being enforced, i slipped a few times, a loooong time ago. I cited that as an example below of the most stressful situation i've been in on here. the arbitrators would have overlooked had i not insisted that they enforce policy rigorously, even when i'm the violator. i thought that was also a good example of self-discipline and equinamity, mantained will other users (such as Gz) cracked. but you have an interesting interpretation. my name is only mentioned once in the results, in the findings of fact, because I brought that to their attention for the sake of fairness. If they didn't put that there, I would have asked them to. Kevin Baastalk 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Per Raul. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I believe Kevin is here mainly to promote a specific POV. Rhobite 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Per above. DGX 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Raul. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral per Raul654 and Jaranda. I can't oppose, but the possibility that the knowledge of policy could be used to push an individual POV with admin tools has me far too nervous to continue with any support. RadioKirk talk to me 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Changed back to support. RadioKirk talk to me 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that knowledge of the non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy in particular would preclude that possibility. Kevin Baastalk 19:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So would I. New questions below. RadioKirk talk to me 20:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Experienced, put too POV. Raichu 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Neither would I be wholly comfortable giving this user admin tools (principally because I retain concerns apropos of his temperament) nor would I be fully able to justify an oppose (I'm not wholly in accord with the justifications offered by Raul, et al., and I think it eminently likely that Kevin would use the mop constructively (although ostensibly infrequently), but I can't be sure that he wouldn't use it disruptively (even if avolitionally) on occasion. That is, I guess, the definition of neutral. Joe 05:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral There are enough checks and balances in Wikipedia policies to "deal" with any admin that abuses admin tools. With that said, I do not think that Kevin would abuse admin tools. My concern is that Kevin has been with us for a long time (over 3 years) and there are only 750ish edits to the wiki project pages. I would like to see him be more active on RC patrol and Afd discussions outside of his major scope of interest. The is no doubt about Kevin's IQ, as I believe he is exceptionally intelligent and would generally make wise decisions administratively.--MONGO 07:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral (but could be swayed) We have agreed to disagree on a couple of occasions (the Bush Impeach articles, most notably), and though Kevin has certainly been cordial enough in that regard, I don't feel comfortable enough to turn the keys over unless I can see some better "even-handedness" in relation to POV. Perhaps some better examples of NPOV? --Mhking 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    could you provide some counterexamples? Kevin Baastalk 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if you want some examples of NPOV, take a look through my contributions. they should be pretty easy to find. Kevin Baastalk 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm very torn. As may be obvious to some, Kevin and I rarely agree on issues. We have (sometimes very heatedly) debated various topics. In the past I've thought, "Man, I would never support him if he tried for adminship." However, I am starting to change my mind. KB does have a strong POV. He sometimes does let it slip some. But as admin tools do not include an "Insert POV" button, that is a slightly irrelevent point. We all have a POV, and coming from someone else who edits some contentious articles, it can be hard to maintain perfect neutrality when you see something that is glaring against your POV. We all struggle with it. But does this make Kevin a bad editor? Does it automatically mean he is not ready for sysop tools? Of course not. Kevin is knowledgable of policy and he is a trusted user. Would giving him the power to rollback hurt WP that much? Just about every admin action is reversible. So if he slipped up, we could all be there to help right the ship. I may not like his views (or even find them logical ;-)), but I respect him for standing up for what he believes. So after all of this, I am neutral leaning support, actually. And who knows, if he messes up, we could always impeac, er, desysop him later. ;-) But seriously, he is unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Not a fan of the arguing with the opposers and the advertising of the RfA, though. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 15:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username	Kevin Baas
Total edits	7041
Distinct pages edited	761
Average edits/page	9.252
First edit	14:09, March 12, 2003
	
(main)	2423
Talk	2649
User	379
User talk	718
Image	72
Image talk	4
Template	28
Template talk	4
Category	10
Wikipedia	502
Wikipedia talk	252

—G.He 03:14, 22 May 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Vandalism, and I'll certainly have enough time in addition to that to get into the others as I start to feel comfortable w/the process.
B: Basically responding to requests - such as on the Administration Noticeboard and requests for protection/unprotection. As well as mantenience tasks like deletes/undeletes from VfDs on so forth. You know, the stuff that this role is there for.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and related subarticles, because I played a substantial role in writting them, because the main article has over 130 references, and it has seen many improvements from other contributors.
B: Metric tensor - because of this: [[13]]. When this comment was posted, most of the content on the page was my writting, from boldy revamping a much earlier version. The page looked pretty much like this: [14]. (Since then, the intro's been esoteric-ated.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Oh, ofcourse. If you haven't dealt with edit conflicts, you haven't been "initiated". Others have caused me stress, but now my wiki-tolerance is much higher, and my wikistress stays at green. There was a particularly stressfull incident a long time ago with a user "User:VeryVerily", who has since been banned for that incident, among others. I discussed with him a lot, but he had a view that his version was the consensus, even though everyone else on the page agreed that a different version was the consensus, and tried to enforce his "consensus" through brute force, reverting the page so many times that it went through 7 consecutive page protections on that basis alone - i imagine there's a couple hundred of his edits in a row that were all reverts to his preferred version. so as a newbie, i went to arbitration first, thinking that this was a serious enough violation to bypass mediation. it was thrown out on the basis of not having gone through mediation. so i went through mediation, while 3 different arbitration cases from other users against VV built up in the RFAr. eventually the mediation case was forwarded to an open RFAr, and remedies were enforced. (see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily) That was probably the most stressful conflict i've ever had on wikipedia.
Since then, I believe I've improved in handling conflicts. I've interacted with people with a lot of different views, some more receptive than others, and have found people to be more reasonable than I would first expect. I've become more specific when discussing something that is disputed, and i've become familiar enough with policy that I cite it directly when I feel it neccessary. I feel that in my time on wikipdeia, I've learned how to resolve conflicts more quickly and peacefully, even on very controversial matters.
4. User_talk:Kevin_Baas/Archive6#Copyright_violations seems to be a block. Do you have any comments on this? Also, I'm not involved with US politics, but you seems to edit a lot of potentially contentious articles. How would your admin status affect your approach to these? Stephen B Streater 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Ya, someone found a text copyvio that had unique and interesting info and just deleted it, and i was trying to get him to move it to the talk page or at least a link to it so editors would still have access to that info. i thought he would see the reasonableness of that, but i was wrong. live and learn.
B: Re: admin and potentially contentious articles: Per policy I could not use any admin tools on disputes that I'm involved in, so I would have to say not at all. I would not use my admin tools on these pages at all.
5 by RadioKirk: after having run through your edits in August and September during the issue presented here by Raul654, I'm concerned that mediation might have been the right route for all involved, yourself included, and that you might have attempted to enforce not so much a solution as your solution. I also wondered if this edit didn't come awfully close to violating WP:POINT. Are my concerns correct or incorrect, and why?
A: Last question first: the other side of the dispute had not been discussing for a couple of days, as i was waiting for a response. One could take this as tacit consent, and go ahead and follow the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Be bold, or one could take this as no consent sit and wait (possibly indefinitely). I didn't think that we had actually reached agreement, so i did both in a way: what i meant to say was : "hey, there's still an issue here, what do you guys think of this version? let's discuss it..." I guess that would have been a much better way to say it, and looking back at that situation i see that as a big mistake there, in addition to the fact that we probably should have been trying mediation at that point, but I really wasn't trying to disrupt wikipedia to make a point - as i said, i should have stated myself differently, and your concerns are correct in those respects.
6 by RadioKirk: how would you handle the same situation today?
A: Stated myself differently, left a message on the user's talk pages saying that the issue needs to be discussed and resolved before anyone makes any controversial edits. If that step didn't work, seek mediation.
The above 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.

Robchurch

Final: (142/61/10) ended 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Robchurch (talk · contribs) – Rob is an amazing contributor to Wikipedia. He's been around for quite a while, and was previously an admin. There's a fair bit of community history to consider (noms RfA 1 (unsucessful) and RfA 2 (successful)) He voluntarily deadminned himself as a way to make amends and to apologise for actions he felt were inappropriate, and after some time, he asked for the community's support again (RfA 3), which the community chose not to give. It takes a big person to decide you're wrong, atone, and go back and ask, and keep contributing anyway even after the community chooses not to support your request.

Lesser folk would perhaps have thrown in the towel, but Rob has not. Since that failed RfA, he has continued to contribute to the community in many ways. He's one of our most prolific developers and always stands ready on IRC to answer questions, help out newbs, give advice, explain how esoteric things work, and just generally be fun and helpful. A fair bit of what he does with the software and mediawiki pages needs admin power to actually implement (editing protected templates, style pages, and the like) So he has a need, beyond just fighting vandals and so forth, a need that we should grant because it will help him make the software better for all of us.

What you, dear reader, have to consider though, is not just that history of contributions (you've probably recently used code he has touched, like namespace filtering in watchlists, tres useful!) because adminship is not a trophy, not a reward... but rather this: will Wikipedia be better or worse off if Rob was given adminship again? To me the answer is clear, however you might view what has happened in the past, we need people like Rob working hard to help the encyclopedia out, and if he's willing to take on the admin bit again, we should give it to him. Wikipedia will be better off if Rob is given adminship again. I am proud to be bringing this nomination before you, and I ask you for your support. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. Well, I'm quite flattered to read the above, and I think I'm going to accept. Perhaps I'm not the most active editing-wise these days (you think some of these articles are crap? You should see bits of the code powering them!), but I have missed the utility of certain of the tools. Editing pages in the MediaWiki namespace is useful, although not necessarily dire, if I can grab a local sysop, but it wouldn't be unpleasant not to have to bother one. People keep mistaking me for an admin, and while I have to forward their queries to another trusted user, it would be nice if I could actually help them. We've all come across a page that needs deleting, or a user needing blocking, even in passing. Frankly, I'd find adminship useful, but I wouldn't necessarily be the most active admin on En. Whether or not that leads you to place positive or negative comments below, go ahead...I'll soak it all up. And thanks to Lar for the nomination, and thanks to anyone who supports or opposes. I look forward to reading your comments. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First one's free... ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. He can handle admin tools. — TheKMantalk 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I find this user very helpful. Computerjoe's talk 16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --Ligulem 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, has shown great growth and maturity - this editor's character arc would make for a novel. BD2412 T 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support – he was one before, and the world didn't end then – Gurch 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --ForestH2 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, of the strongest nature. --lightdarkness (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I'm amazed Rob isn't already (still) an admin. —Pengo 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Of course. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Well, at least we know he's not pining... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support, even though he hates me. --Rory096 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to correct you there, Rory. Rob Church hates everybody. /me ducks and runs --Andy123 talk 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Um, you sure you want to do this Rob? May $Deity bless your soul. Kim Bruning 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (3* edit conflict)[reply]
  14. Support. I do think that the DCV pile-on was a terrible thing, but I also think no one understands that better than Rob. Chick Bowen 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're kidding -- right? See my comments throughout, and watch for his responses to my questions. deeceevoice 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Yes, the world did not end there... and moreover we should not "worry about the world ending today. It’s already tomorrow in China". I find his association with wikipedia is remarkable, and he deserves to be re-sysoped. The past should not deter us. --Bhadani 16:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 3rd edit conflict support. Alphax τεχ 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Afonso Silva 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Editconflict Support per Rory096 WerdnaTc@bCmLt 16:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support It takes great character, as the nominator said, for one to step down from the position of administrator when one does something wrong. joturner 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Retracting vote... will vote neutral or oppose later upon further review. joturner 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that he didn't completely come clean -- and waited less than 10 days before asking to be re-adminned. What kind of message does it send to continue to renominate him -- when other users are subject to harsh sanctions for periods of a year and more for doing far less? I keep reading admins are held to a higher standard. Clearly, this is not the case. deeceevoice 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Seen Rob around, and is a solid contributor. I've no promblems with supporting him. The Halo (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. He can be trusted not to abuse the tools. --TantalumTelluride 17:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, really? See my comments here. deeceevoice 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read all your comments on this page, and I have reviewed the evidence that you've provided. I must admit that Rob has room for improvement, but I think he is genuinely sorry for the mistakes he's made in the past. Furthermore, I believe he is an asset to the project and that he would be more productive with sysop rights. --TantalumTelluride 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, if only to let him edit the MediaWiki pages himself. (Though I guess he could always commit a code patch to let him do that...) What's the point in denying the admin bit from a dev, anyway? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A non-sysop developer? Also a great editor. Raichu 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A solid contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No point keeping him from the tools. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Robchurch has shown himself to be a very capable admin in the past, and, perhaps more importantly, a very honest one too. Not everybody would have responded the way he did following the sordid business with Deeceevoice. Rje 18:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He still didn't completely come clean about his fabrication of evidence before the ArbCom. And he hasn't been a "civilian" long enough. Other editors are sanctioned for much longer periods for far less -- and this guy was asking to be readminned only ten days after having lied before the ArbCom. Confirming him would send a pretty sorry message to the community about how seriously admins are expected to take their responsibilities, and about how they can behave in the most outrageous fashion with relative impunity. deeceevoice 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that Rob has done a lot of good work and made one very serious mistake. He has made what, to me at least, appeared to be a very heartfelt apology, he has been in the doghouse long enough. What message does it give to the community if we show we cannot let bygones be bygones; at some point we have to move on. We have to accept that we are all human and therefore make mistakes, I doubt Rob will repeat what he did to you, and I have never questioned his ability to use the tools in the way that they are meant to be used: therefore I have supported his candidacy. Rje 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a "problem." The real problem is the tremendous disparity in the way lumpen are dealt with when they screw up and when administrators do likewise. It would be hard for me to come up with a remotely equivalent kind of offense on the part of an everyday editor, but it's very easy to point to countless instances where far less serious infractions have been committed by editors, and they've been dealt with extremely harshly by comparison. Where is the disciplinary process for Church? Putting someone on probation for a year or more, or blocking them for, say, a month for incivility or some other infraction -- but then reconsidering Church's adminship 10 days after he libels another user before the ArbCom (and once or twice after that) is appalling. If, indeed, administrators are held to a higher standard, then he should be banned from adminship for at least a year. And that's not even dealing with him as sternly as others have been dealt with for less egregious conduct. It's not about whether he would do it again. (And, again, he still hasn't totally confessed the extent of his lie.) It's about whether he should be punished in a manner even remotely commensurate with the way others on the site are punished for misconduct. This sort of thing is precisely why disciplinary proceedings on this site are seen as a sham and why administrative authority and bodies like the ArbCom are held by some in such contempt. There's one set of rules for everyday editors, or those who are controversial, and another set of rules for people in authority or who are well liked. In matters such as this, Wikipedia shouldn't function like a popularity contest. If one abuses one's authority in a scandalous fashion in the manner of Rob Church, then they should be appropriately penalized. And this hasn't even begun to happen in Rob Church's case. And the willingness on the part of so many to just shrug and look the other way is all the more reason why such penalities should be codified -- and upheld. This page is a perfect example of the abject hypocrisy and illegitimacy of the project's "governance" mechanisms -- and I use that term loosely. It merely engenders contempt. deeceevoice 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Kusma (討論) 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Jaranda wat's sup 18:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support We've had our differences, but this is the best thing for the community. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - what was it I said before, "all-around good guy"? Yeah, that. Also, learns from his mistakes, and makes great contributions behind the scenes as a developer. If the sysop bit will help him do that, I think he should have it. FreplySpang 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support made a good admin before and will make a good admin again. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support RicDod 19:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per Pegasus. --Tone 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support again. --Alan Au 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support What do they mean incivil - Rob's always f***ing civil. --Doc ask? 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Naconkantari 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Mackensen (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. — FireFox (U T C) 21:06, 20 May '06
  41. Support. He seems like an excellent contributor. Dakpowers | Talk 21:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --Sean Black 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support- I know this user will not be misusing admin tools. Reyk YO! 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Dell Tech Support You need to reboot. Sasquatch t|c 21:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That reminds me, I actually have to call Dell... --Rory096 22:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Gosh, the second person I've wanted to support this week, what is going on here? We need less qualified candidates so I can ignore this place again -- sannse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. That's scorching! Mike H. That's hot 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 'Support, The kinda guy you thought was an admin already. Vulcanstar6 22:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Extreme stabbage Support: untiringly helpful, even while he's engaged "stabbing" the system back into shape. Never mind civil: bugs don't deserve civil. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. We need more rouge good admins, who use common sense but are willing to own up to their mistakes. --JoanneB 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. DarthVader 23:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, same as the last couple times I supported him, blah, blah, good guy, trusted, could use the tools, had the good sense to know when the screwed up and should get the mop back now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Why, of course. feydey 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. looks good to me. Semperf 00:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Edit conflict support. Excellent contributor. Though if we don't re-admin you, will you write more code instead? :) And of course, please work on the civility, if something you want to say seems like it might cause offense, it probably will. - Taxman Talk 00:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Of course. Shimgray | talk | 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. OMG he's not one? This user does too many important things not to have Admin capabilities. Bastique▼parler voir 00:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Rob has learned the lessons he needed to learn when he was desysopped; he has also been doing very significant work on the MediaWiki code. Thryduulf 01:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support --M@thwiz2020 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, of course. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 01:32 UTC
    Moved to oppose. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 20:47 UTC
  59. I agree with the nominator's opening statement, and my interactions with Rob have all been positive. Redux 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Seems to have a good sense of self-judgement. RandyWang (raves/rants) 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Unquestioned support. Quite a help to the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Everything I've seen from this editor has been positive, and his hard work is evident in everything he touches. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Pepsidrinka 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Rama's Arrow 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. I agree with Lar, and while there have been incidents in his past, it's to his benefit that he apologized. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Joe I 04:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support I don't really see why he needs sysop powers, and he has been a bit uncivil in the past, but still, he's so cuddly! :P Master of PuppetsYour will is mine. 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing support per Crzrussian and evidence brought up by others. Sorry. Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support all is forgiven, I think - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing support per recent failure to be civil. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, five months is long enough, and Robchurch's contributions in that five months have been positive. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support as I did on his last RfA.-gadfium 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support He desysopped himself, therefore he shouldnt have to go through this again 100% support. Mike (T C)   06:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Kotepho 08:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Could use the tools and I don't see him abusing them now.[reply]
  71. Support Will (albeit infrequently) use the tools well. --Alf melmac 11:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. He has my full confidence. enochlau (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Garion96 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. He has shown that he is accountable to the community by stepping down when he made a mistake. Haukur 12:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. support William M. Connolley 11:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Syooirt, great user. --Terence Ong 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support He can handle it. — Brendenhull 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Rob Church hates WP:100 supports support. :P :P This user is clearly an asset to the encyclopedia. His contributions far outweigh the glitches that his system might have ;). The user shows good judgment all around, and though he might be cold and brusque at times, he has always meant well for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia would definately be a better place with administrators like him. Amen. --Andy123 talk 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong support. Incredible asset. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support on WHEEELS!!! Everything checks out. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 18:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. jaco♫plane 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Martin 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. What, are you kidding? I didn't know he was up for it. We tried and tried to get him to accept it before. Heck yes, I support. Geogre 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, History is checkered, sure, but also full of great contributions. Rob knows scrutiny on his admin actions will be close and constant, and I don't think he fancies another big incident. Deizio talk 21:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Kukini 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC) After further review, I have to withdraw this support. Civility seems to be questionable, at least in recent history. Kukini 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support An A+ Wikipedia user. Mr. Turcottetalk 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, dedicated, trustworthy and previous unsavoury events show welcome awareness of his own past failings. --Nick Boalch\talk 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Double edit-conflicted support. While I'm fully aware of the circumstances surrounding this RfA and Rob's interaction with the community, I'm willing to give him the chance. Let's not forget that everyone will keep their eyes on him, and many will raise the matter should any reason to question his judgement or actions as admin ever arises. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - whilst I agree Rob may have the odd edit summary, I don't think he's one to abuse the tools in any manner that has to do with adminship. He's not going to screw with the buttons, why not let him have them -- Tawker 00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support without question --rogerd 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - I don't think that withholding adminship status should be used as a form of punishment. The purpose of withholding adminship should be to protect the users of wikipedia from rogue behaviour, and only that. I don't think that Robchurch is any more likely to engage in rogue behaviour than any other successful candidate. - Richardcavell 01:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Danny 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong support for Rob. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support amazing guy too. -Mysekurity [m!] 03:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support. Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support It would be nice if he could maintain a bit more civility, but I have a really hard time imagining him abusing the tools, which is (IMO) the most important thing to consider in an RfA. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Crazy I'm 100 Support Get's his tools back. -Mask   06:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Sensible person, and a strong record of service to the encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Ral315 (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. NoSeptember talk 10:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Kuzaar 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, you keep telling those idiots, Rob. Proto||type 13:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. A great candidate.--Jusjih 13:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per nom. --Mhking 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Incivility is obviously not a good thing, but as the nominator says, Wikipedia will probably be better off if Rob is an admin. Schutz 14:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. support Justforasecond 15:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, as a great editor and developer.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Suppport --Jay(Reply) 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support --Elephantus 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support- no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. Those who oppose re-adminning would do well to remember that the only reason he lost his sysop bit in the first place was that he voluntarily gave it up. Friday (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And this gives us an opportunity to reevaluate whether he should have been made an administrator in the first place. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 22:23 UTC
  112. Support. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support--ragesoss 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support --Splarka (rant) 05:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Strong Support - He's a great developer, a great contributor, has great reason to merit the mop, and, on a more humorous note, he is a veritable Troll di tutti troi. Butchered Italian intentional. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. My long overdue resupport  ALKIVAR™  06:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - Dedicated developer, no reason why he shouldn't be given the tools back. --Scott 09:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. ~ PseudoSudo 10:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - Always friendly on IRC, and good user. See no reason for him not to become a sysop again. -- Tangotango 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I've seen some of his admin work in situations some time back, and I think it was very good (even if he may lose his temper from time to time, as some people have apparently observed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Clear support per Andy123 and Fut.Perf., to name two. Joe 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support In my (albeit limited) dealings with him, he was always polite and courteous. His contributions are well-known, and if he feels that the mop-and-flamethrower will help him continue, then I have no problem with that. Good Luck! -- Avi 19:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Another Support. Below concerns about civility seem overstated. Opabinia regalis 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your opinion, but WP:CIVIL should be a non-negotiable policy for a party interested in becoming an administrator. Silensor 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Forthrightness is not incivility. Personally, I'd like to see more admins who don't suffer fools gladly. Opabinia regalis 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. I'm confused by people citing a totally unsubstantiated oppose (MLA's). Robchurch is helpful, dedicated, and intelligent. Rob may not always be too tolerant with fools but I've found him far less abrasive than Tim Starling who no one complaints about having the sysop bit on Enwiki. We're not electing Rob to be captain of the Wikipedia welcome wagon here... We don't expect all admins to have deep technical understanding although it's important that there are admins with it... so we shouldn't expect all admins to be great people people. What matters is trust. Rob already has it. This RFA should be merely perfunctory and I'm disappointed in the people who are opposing. --Gmaxwell 22:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I am disappointed with your disappointment. Silensor 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should take it that people "citing" MLA's oppose are saying that they agree with the opinion expressed, not that they are basing their own judgement solely on his statement. This RfA is not about the position of the people contributing to it, but about the candidate. If there is concern about the basis of opinions, then that should also be addressed to the support votes, none of which provide any substantiation and some of which provide no reason for supporting either. However, I think the emerging tendency to cast aspersions on the credibility of those participating is not a practice to be commended or perpetuated, nor is the characterisation of those whom Robchurch has been intolerant with as "fools" (in one case for writing "wikimedia" instead of "MediaWiki"[15]). I totally agree "what matters is trust" and though I have no problem trusting Robchurch's intelligence, excellent work and genuine motivation, I do not at the moment trust his ability to interact with other editors, particularly in stress situations. I hope that he will address this serious shortcoming, and then I would be very pleased to support. Tyrenius 04:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. I have refrained from voting thus far because I didn't want to get involved in any arguments with anyone. However, some of the opposes here seem a bit frivolous. Is Rob Church incivil? That's for you to decide; I go for no, but I'm lenient. Does that have anything to do with his being admin? If Rob had said that he was going to 'welcome newcomers, solve disputes, answer questions, be a friend to everyone, mediate, and talk to everyone', then yes, it'd be a problem. However, all Rob has stated he'd use his sysop powers for is implementing things and editing protected pages (MediaWiki) so he doesn't have to make others do it for him, and then the odd block and delete. It's my opinion that no matter how incivil you may think he is, that has nothing to do with editing protected, site-wide pages. Furthermore, I don't think he'd be going around flaunting the admin thing, and any incivility he had would be his own, not that of the admins, nor Wikipedia. Also also, I find his behavior merely in line with the developer/hacker/whatever brain-mode, with different views on how one interacts with people. Adminship shouldn't be reserved for people persons. We'd miss out on a lot of great contributors that way, and Rob Church is an excellent contributor who would benefit Wikipedia with his sysopping. --Keitei (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. I don't pretend Rob has had an unblemished Wikipedia career; but I would remark that nor have any of us here on Wikipedia. Show me a Wikipedian who considers himself without fault, and I shall show you an irreflective self-deceiver - Rob has admitted fault on a number of occasions, and apologised. Deeceevoice was quite wrong to assert that Rob Church asked for adminship ten days after his desysopping, as I nominated him for adminship on my own recognisance, not on Rob's request. I felt then, as I feel now, that Rob is an exceptional asset to Wikipedia, and that he would simply be more useful as an administrator to the project. I call on all of those Wikipedians with an interest in our project's success to ignore the cat-calls spoken by those who gravely misunderstand the purpose of this project, and to consider this candidate upon his own merits. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopedia. Do you honestly believe that every single oppose comment is without merit or made by someone who misunderstands what the goal of this project is? Silensor 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody's perfect, and today for example I was kind of rushed in reverting some changes and upset some people. However, based on some of the diffs below (Dewet's vote), Rob's rudeness is not an isolated incident, but more like a trend. Rude people are bad enough to have around as editors, not to mention as admins. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What have been trivialised as "cat-calls" are serious, substantiated and legitimate concerns. Five months ago RobChurch wrote this: "What I did that I am appalled with is this; I lost my head and let myself type faster than I was thinking."[16] Current evidence indicates this character trait is still active. This is a worrying consideration, as headstrong action can easily lead to considerable damage.[17] I can see no indication in the oppose votes that any of these editors have not understood that the goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. I do, however, see evidence that they also realise the only way to achieve this is through temperate interaction with other editors. Tyrenius 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I regret you misunderstand me. By no means do I dismiss all oppose votes as cat-calls - I admit that Rob has made his mistakes - and was, rather, referring obliquely to Deeceevoice, without wishing to be too explicit; alas, clearly, it is necessary for me to be explicit here. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. His responses have satisfied any lingering concerns. --Dragon695 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support per support by all of the right people and oppose by all of the right people. --Cyde↔Weys 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. Lar's nomination sold me. Rob's done a lot of good things here and used the tools well before the oft-referred-to incident. -- Samir धर्म 09:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support his comments do it for me. An experienced user who wants the tools cos it makes editing on Wikipedia a bit easier and allows him to contribute more. We can learn from our mistakes. --Robdurbar 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Have read more into 'the incident' and decided to oppose.[reply]
  130. Now, as ever. --Merovingian {T C @} 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - a great programmer! :) --Filip (§) 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support per Nicholas Turnbull and because I truly believe an admin is more valuable the more learning experiences s/he has gone through and the more conflicts s/he has successfully weathered. And because some of (some of) the Opposes are so petty. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  133. Support Enough time has passed since the Deeceevoice incident and Robchurch has again proven himself to be a good editor.--Alabamaboy 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Strong Support Great editor and Great Developer abakharev 05:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. the wub "?!" 16:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Has the skills, has the credibility. - Amgine 16:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support I thought I voted, but guess not. Anyways, Robchurch is definitely worthy of the mop. I've seen him around and his contributions are always solid. In addition to his reponses below, I'm convinced Rob's ready for adminship. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support, absolutely. James F. (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. I saw the RfA the first day it was up and didn't vote. I've talked to admins and users in #wikipedia about it, trying to decide if I should get involved or not. Some like the guy, some can't stand him: They call him abrasive and uncivil. The problem is, they also call him an impressive editor. They call him technically excellent. I've yet to see an example of something more than the result of a technically minded person having a bad day and snapping at someone. I do that myself, and I'd like to think I'm painfully friendly on here. Civility is an important consideration for the job, granted, but not all admins are cookie-cutter and made to do the same job. I spoke with him on IRC just a few short minutes ago and have decided that the question at the top has an answer: Will Wikipedia be better or worse if Rob Church is made an administrator once again? His contributions in the past have already bettered Wikipedia, and with the tools he needs firmly in hand, he will better Wikipedia once again. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. If someone wants adminship, they should get it. It's no big deal. Also, Deeceecee should calm down.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support, you havn't ever lost faith. --Xyrael T 13:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. ShortJason 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support I think this renom came a little too early but if it doesn't pass, that may make the next one harder. Rob's contributions as an editor and a dev are enough that I trust his judgement that it's useful for him to have admin bits, and that he understands the need stay cool in things like edit summaries in the future. I've looked over the deeceevoice stuff and can't make any sense of it (and the most serious allegations appear undocumented), so I'm not persuaded by it. Phr (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, fails the civility test. Ted 20:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a test now? I didn't even take it, let alone pass...--Sean Black 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the test belongs to Ted, although I'm not sure why. People place way too much emphasis on personalities for admin capabilities over necessity. Rob is certainly mature enough to not create dramatic problems. Bastique▼parler voir 00:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This is, indeed, a prime criteria for the job (but not the only one). He did not show much maturity in his response to mediakiki vs wikimedia. That you don't consider civility to be important certainly underscores my vote against your admin. Ted 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm quite frankly amazed that hardly anybody seems to be concerned by Rob's blatant incivility, and that many people are indeed making a joke of it. His answer to my question seems to write it off as merely "a character flaw". Well YES!, I would say it is a pretty major character flaw for an admin to be attacking people for typing "mediawiki" rather than "wikimedia". What is he going to do when somebody is vandalising?! If he finds users so irritating then perhaps being an admin is not such a good idea. There is no reason that he cannot avoid acting in this manner, and I am surprised that the community is not insisting that he changes his behaviour before making him an admin. There are plenty of editors who invest as much, if not significantly more, effort in Wikipedia, and such behaviour would normally move those editors nearer to a "Request for Arbitration" rather than a "Request for Adminship". I don't see why the fact that Rob's contributions are on the development side should mean he is held to lower basic standards of behaviour (regardless of whether the tools would help his contributions). NickelAndDime 01:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What I "wrote off as a character flaw" was my tendency, as humans do, to snap from time to time. Usually, of course, this is done with a handful of darts and a haphazard throwing motion. We all have bad days. Rob Church (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rob showed good judgment in desysopping himself voluntarily, but I still feel this user is too prone to incivility and rashness. His blocking of slimvirgin here: [18] was done without any discussion with the user before hand. Also, the edit summary cited below by Nickel is frankly aggressive --Knucmo2 23:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Robchurch has never blocked SlimVirgin. Your diff is of Rob asking SlimVirgin to block someone else. Chick Bowen 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I worded it wrongly. --Knucmo2 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. STRENUOUS OPPOSE Yes, I accepted Rob Church's apology -- though he never actually confessed to completely fabricating a vicious e-mail during an ArbCom proceeding which I never sent.[[19],[20] The issue here is time [and integrity, given Church's only partial retraction of his admittedly false charges against me]. That ugly incident took place less than six months ago. When one considers that people can be placed on probation for an entire year for far less, that someone can behave in so tawdry a fashion as Church did and still repeatedly be recommended for adminship -- and that he would have the gall to even allow his name to put forward -- all within five months of disgracing himself -- is pretty hard to take. The man had the gall to ask his adminship be approved less than 10 days after deliberately and calculatingly fabricating/falsifying evidence before the ArbCom, giving the excuse that at the time he believed his actions were for the good of the project. That, to me, is extremely alarming. The man shouldn't even be considered for adminship for at least a year. The hypocrisy in this is just amazing -- a complete double standard. deeceevoice 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked him a few questions below with regard to this nasty incident, with links to his fabricated "evidence" and subsequent retraction and apology below above. I'm awaiting a response. deeceevoice 06:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The following exchange was removed from the Q&A segment:
    But thanks for the comment. :p Though inappropriately placed, it was useful. I've revisited my questions and revised them. deeceevoice 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I will give you a link instead: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html and suggest to Robchurch that he does not attempt to reply to such questions. -- sannse (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certain RobChurch is intelligent enough to understand that he may answer in whatever way he chooses -- or not at all. The fact remains he still has some explaining to do, and you've already registered your support for his nomination elsewhere. The questions stand/remain, and I'm certain many are waiting to see how he responds. I should add for the record that I accepted Church's sincere apology, noting that it took a great deal of character to at least partially come clean; he certainly didn't have to. It's a safe bet that people would have believed his version of events over mine. That does not, however, address the issue of whether or not true contrition and fairness would beg a full and accurate account of what transpired (or, more accurately, did not transpire) between us and a suitable period of time when Church would be voluntarily ineligible for adminship. The fact that there is no formal requirement that a similarly disgraced admin be ineligible for adminship for a specified period of time (certainly, given other sanctions regularly levied as a result of far less egregious conduct by users not entrusted with admin powers -- and admins theoretically are held to a higher standard -- a year seems more than fair) is, IMO, scandalous and a perfect example of how Wikipedia is appallingly dysfunctional. Also for the record, I don't bother following Church's affairs; however, I was alerted to this nomination by another editor -- who, doubtless, shares with me some of the same questions and concerns.deeceevoice 12:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. On the one hand is the undoubted technical ability, understanding of the project, and doing the right thing by stepping down voluntarily. On the other hand, Robchurch is the most aggressive genuine admin candidate I've seen here. I can't take the voluntary desysopping into consideration as I wouldn't have supported him in the first place. Other users aren't cut the slack that Rob seems to get in my view. Possibly it's because he's such a good contributor to the project, but adminship leans much more heavily on civility than editing/technical quality in my view. MLA 07:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per MLA. SushiGeek 08:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per MLA. The edit summary below is good evidence of what I've seen from Robchurch on a regular basis. — GT 09:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretful oppose per User:MLA. Please consider stress reduction and getting a mentor.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to neutral in light of user's contributions. :) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose You are a nice person and an asset to the community in the various jobs that you do now. Your current inability to handle stress does not make you a good candidate for administrator now [21] I’m concerned this promotion will jeopardize the many positive talents that you bring to the community. FloNight talk 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Very strong oppose Admins are expected to uphold standards. This edit summary was left by Robchurch 3 days ago: "It's called MediaWiki, not fucking Wikimedia. I question how you can repeatedly confuse a piece of software with a bloody organisation." I don't think this is the standard that should be set. I fully recognise Robchurch's other valuable work for Wikipedia. Tyrenius 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose: Admins must operate under stress and are often called to sort out conflicts. Looking at the discussion and the replies, it appears that RobChurch still has some distance to travel. However, past actions encourage me to re-evaluate this opinion afresh if this matter arises again. Stephen B Streater 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Weak oppose: OK I'm softening here. I'd prefer it to have someone more even tempered, but I've come across some posts and I'm moving towards taking the risk. Forgive but don't forget. Stephen B Streater 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose due to actions regarding Deeceevoice and other uncivil behavior. As a side note (not influencing my decision), it's kind of odd that 20% (60% of the total of his main page edits) of his edits are on user talk pages. — Yom 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Changed to Oppose per MLA and Tyrenius. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 20:47 UTC
  12. Oppose as per Tyrenius. Tintin (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, SqueakBox 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Honorable as stepping down was, the offense was exceptionally immoral and wrong. And the edit summary pointed out by User:Tyrenius shows you still can you use some improvement. Perhaps I'll support later; September perhaps. joturner 03:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose on concerns of civility, which is quite important among admins. Perhaps in a month or two with a cleaner record? Kukini 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Per Tyrenius. That edit summary was just too recent. GizzaChat © 07:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose as per Tyrenius, Kukini and other users above. Likely would make a good admin, due to technical and project understandings. But WP:CIVIL is non optional, it is a necessary for all users (more so for administrators).--blue520 08:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per MLA and Tyrenius. Zaxem 09:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: too many intemperate outbursts. Jonathunder 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose; civility is absolutely necessary of admins. Everyone is ignorant of some things, and it harms the project to lash out at those who are ignorant of different things than you. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose: cursing others in edit summaries, as he has done, including very recently, is just not OK. Thumbelina 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose changing from support. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. A valuable user... but I'm not sure that I'd want you to be an admin again. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per MLA and Deskana. Royboycrashfan   21:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per recent civility issues. Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, civility doens't suddenly become optional just because one is a developer. Past behaviour on the IRC channel is also absolutely not consistent with the kind of high standards Wikipedia should look for in an administrator. Warrens 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not #wikipedia. 86.133.210.63 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed.
  27. Oppose Per above civility concerns. DGX 00:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak oppose as per User:Spangineer and other evidence. Good faith admin actions and good faith participation in the Wikipedia community are just as important as good faith edits and good work ethic to me. — Donama 01:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. By God, I wish I could support, because I have immense respect for Rob and his contributions here. Even so, seeing the kind of anger reflected in the edit summary above, I can't help wondering what kind of vitriol would be dished out for vandalism—and though I concede that it's entirely possible that Rob meant it in a humourous fashion, the same would still apply were this true.
    Short version: I firmly believe that their words, as well as their actions, are what give administrators the moral authority to deal with vandals. <random>(But given the swearing I've directed at myself when dealing with ParserFunctions, what does that do to my moral authority, I wonder?)</random> Ingoolemo talk 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Technical yes, but severely lacking in the civility department, sorry. Silensor 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. As per all of above. Civility is big deal indeed. Anwar 07:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per above.  Grue  07:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, regretfully. Clearly you are liked and your contributions are respectable. I admire your willingness to admit when your actions have been inappropriate and to try to make amends. However, administrators need to follow the rules, all of the time, and I don't think you've demonstrated that you are ready to do that given your comments in the edit summary noted above. I think it is too soon for the community to be considering this. Accurizer 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per the rude edit summary mentioned above. Such an angy outburst because of a simple mistake is not acceptable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose; it may only be one edit summary, but it's an extreme one, and it's recent. It can't be outweighed by good editing, because good editing doesn't require being an admin. --Phronima 16:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per Tyrenius and above. Perhaps I'd support in the future. VegaDark 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong oppose unfortunately, but cannot in good conscience support with such glaring incivility even recently. dewet|✉ 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even in his recent interactions with other users ([22] [23] [24]), he's been ranging from gruff to plain vitriolic. This is unacceptable for someone who will interact with less-experienced users. dewet|✉ 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be confusing vitrol and bluntness.--Sean Black 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. I'm afraid I don't trust Rob Church to stay civil enough. It's not just that quoted edit summary, it's a general impression from many conversations involving him. I agree with MLA's comment "Other users aren't cut the slack that Rob seems to get in my view. Possibly it's because he's such a good contributor to the project...". Great work as a developer, but I think there are others more suited for the admin mop. Petros471 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose per MLA. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose per civility issues. Robert 22:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per Tyrenius. G.He 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose, recent activity level much too low. Rob had a decent 1,648 edits in November 2005, but less than that (approximately 1,400 edits total) in the six months since then, only 80 of which were to articles. — May. 24, '06 [00:17] <freak|talk>
  43. Weak oppose per many of the comments above. Will reconsider after more time, and better temper control. BlankVerse 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose civility Mexcellent 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose, sorry, but the dcv thing is too much for me to support. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose this time - while it would be "nice" for Rob to be able to edit the MediaWiki pages himself, he needs to have an actual sense of what he did. The time thus far is not sufficient, in my opinion. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Opppose We all make mistakes; but we should all be punished too. Its not Rob's fault that he was nominnated again but he should have turned it down. After a sufficient period without nominations and votes he should reapply for adminship. --Robdurbar 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite correct to say "It's not Rob's fault" because that leaves the impression that I nominated him without checking with him first, which, as anyone who knows me can attest, is just not my style. (and in general is a bad practice, I think) Rob was aware, and approved, of my creating this nomination. Hope that helps clear things up a bit. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no offence intended!--Robdurbar 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]
  48. Oppose (deleting votes is a no-no) Recent interactions with this user don't exactly motivate me to support at this time. - Nathan (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose per nathan. ILovePlankton ( L) 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose per Tyrenius, edit summary and most of the concerns raised above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose I really wish I could support, because I know all the good he does as a developer, but the civility concerns raised are simply too much. Civility is the first necessary quality in an admin. Xoloz 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Oppose per MLA and the nominator. Adminship is not a reward for good technical skills, and having more admins who have civility problems is definitely not good for Wikipedia. Also, editing other users' talkpage messages and using an abusive edit summary in the process is absolutely unacceptable. Cynical 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose reluctantly due to temperment and civility concerns. Yamaguchi先生 01:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose due to tcivility concerns. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 'Oppose reluctantly due to civility concerns. Brevity due to 84 kb long page. --Firsfron 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose civility is important to me. Dmn € Դմն 12:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Week oppose The civiliy problems bother me, but otherwise a good user. I would sugust withdrawing this RFA and retrying in 3-6 months. ---J.S (t|c) 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose, too many civility and credibility issues for my taste. Angr (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Very, very, very weak oppose Everything tells me to support you, however, like these disturb me too much. I am very sorry. Yanksox 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Rob's done some sterling work for wikipedia, but adminship requires a higher standard of civility. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Civility, in edit summaries and otherwise, is a policy that I expect all editors who have been around long enough to run for administrator to follow. The diff that Yanksox and others have provided is recent enough that I express great reservations with Rob's becoming an admin at this time. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Does not appear to meet WP:1FA, but has made significant contributions in other aspects. - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Today's the 20th, 1FA says it only applies on the 21st and later ;) --Rory096 17:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, he seems to meet "Exceptional service to the welfare of Wikipedians (e.g. Esperanza)." --Rory096
  2. Impressive contributions tempered by scarily uncivil edit summary below = Neutral. Rockpocket (talk) 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Best of luck; I can't support and won't oppose. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, more or less per Rockpocket, though I'm leaning very slightly toward support. Obviously, Rob is a very capable and knowledgeable user, and I don't think that admin tools would be abused. However, I do believe that the civility concerns are legitimate, and, taken in the context of being an admin, might give some less thick-skinned users a bad impression. — TKD::Talk 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, leaning towards support. Pretty much exactly what TKD said. --kingboyk 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. neutral as per above. Would love to vote support, but some of the comments raised by the oppose contingent are a bit too clear-cut for me to wholeheartedly add a support vote. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support per Rory096.Voice-of-AllTalk 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed from support.Voice-of-AllTalk 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Eh... I'm not too sure, so Neutral it is. If he succeeds, I recommend watching him closely for 2 weeks to a month. (Hopefully, that was ok to say.) --Shultz IV 07:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. Valuable to Wikipedia either as an editor or admin. Not quite ready to support, but he does seem to need the tools. GChriss 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Valuable to Wikipedia as an editor and more :) Dlohcierekim 13:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Comment I am concerned by this edit summary and have raised a question below. NickelAndDime 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first (and only) edit – Gurch 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While someone is going to point out that this was this user's singular contribution, their account being created just before, I thought I'd answer it anyway, since it's a perfectly justified question. Rob Church (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A comment about the nominating statement, which I've only just now read. (I'm not certain where this goes): The statement in nominating Church is incredibly disingenuous/misleading and begs clarification. Church "voluntarily deadminned himself as a way to make amends and to apologise for actions he felt were inappropriate, and after some time, he asked for the community's support again." For actions "he felt were inappropriate? That wasn't some magnanimous judgment call on his part. The man admittedly lied against a user (me), fabricated accusations and submitted them in evidence in an ArbCom proceeding. And "after some time"? He waited less than ten, whole days and never completely came clean about the full extent of his calculated misrepresentations. deeceevoice 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<...discussion continued on Talk page>

Hmm, I typically find that Rob Churches "angry" comments are more of the "letting off steam" variety rather than that there's actual anger or malice behind them. So I'm slightly less worried about incivility, looking at his comments in context. Sure he uses rude wording from time to time. But there's no attitude of biting people behind it. If such an attitude were there I'd oppose in a trice, but it's not, and thank goodness for that. :-) Kim Bruning 09:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other news. I think people should be forgiven for things that happened 3+ months ago, else we would need to recommend that all people failing Requests for Admininship should quit and return under a different nick. (The editcountitis not-so-cabal ;-) support at around 3 months and 1500 edits, after all) Kim Bruning 09:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the margin for approval was much higher at the start with almost everyone supporting the promotion (82:9 prior to my vote which is over 90% in favour). But recently, its been much more even (17:20 against). I'm not sure why this is, but could it be that people who deal with RC the most heard about the poll first, and voted first, and support him? Relative strangers like me, with a more superficial knowledge of the candidate are more critical, on the basis of a handful of possibly unrepresentative quotes. Or could it be that when people look more deeply, they are more likely to be opposed. Stephen B Streater 08:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose votes are far more contagious than support, so they aggregate after a delay. If someone digs out a snappy edit summary, then opposers begin to pile-on (of course everybody is entitled to their opinion, AGF, etc.). RfA candidates are generally scrutinized heavily. Opposing seems to be the default human reaction (that's why selling stuff is so difficult). Also admins seem to be taken as half-gods on this wiki. Nevertheless, there are half-gods without the sysop bit. A good thing would be to split off the blocking feature from adminship (admin-light). Not every admin wants/needs to be a blocker. And this is the most controversial feature of sysophood. (Permission to move this post to the talk page is hereby granted) --Ligulem 09:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personaly I'm not so worried by the edit summary as by his answer "I try to avoid "just losing it", but like any other human, of course I'm prone to from time to time". He is not offering to change. Quite honest I think, but am I happy with admins losing it? I have a more detached view of WP and haven't "lost it." But I know how frustrating people can be - people often get frustrated with me ;-) But overall, the older abuse of power is the important thing to me. Perhaps RC can avoid controversy in future, as it would be bad for WP if every decision was challenged with an ad hominem attack "We know what you're like". (Permission to move my posts here to the talk page is hereby granted). Stephen B Streater 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Username Robchurch
Total edits 5926
Distinct pages edited 3168
Average edits/page 1.871
First edit 18:43, July 1, 2005
 
(main) 1672
Talk 491
User 551
User talk 1176
Image 39
Image talk 5
MediaWiki 1
MediaWiki talk 7
Template 57
Template talk 23
Category 7
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 1703
Wikipedia talk 192
 G.He 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's last 5000 edits (I doubt there will be any issues here).Voice-of-AllTalk 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Robchurch (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 246 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 20, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 16hr (UTC) -- 17, August, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 54.39% Minor edits: 80.18%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 97.03% Minor article edits: 97.02%
Average edits per day (current): 20.29
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 1.88% (94)
Unique pages edited: 2386 | Average edits per page: 2.1 | Edits on top: 13.6%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 28.14%
Minor edits (non-reverts): 34.76%
Marked reverts: 10.5%
Unmarked edits: 26.6%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 25.5% (1275) | Article talk: 9.18% (459)
User: 8.3% (415) | User talk: 20.04% (1002)
Wikipedia: 30.66% (1533) | Wikipedia talk: 3.68% (184)
Image: 0.78% (39)
Template: 1% (50)
Category: 0.14% (7)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0.02% (1)
Other talk pages: 0.7% (35)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As noted above, I wouldn't be the most active En. admin, but I could see myself deleting the odd page (within the usual consensus and policies), blocking the odd idiot (again, respecting the usual expectations surrounding that), editing the odd bit of interface text to reflect changes to the software. And I think most administrators will agree that the tools are just useful to be able to call up. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Do I get to list code here, too? In the past few RfAs, I used to list things like Federal Firearms License, which I recovered from a nasty, copyright-infringing stub, Project Honey Pot, Nedrick Young, another emergency recovery job, etc. I think User:Robchurch/Software speaks for itself as to my other levels of involvement. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, yes, and the reverse, of course. It's impossible not to ruffle a few feathers, inadvertently or otherwise, in a project of this vast scale. Since the last kerfuffle, of course, I've had to start interacting with users from various other projects, in other languages. Reading bug reports and helping people in IRC channels can really test your temper. Overall, I think I'm known for being a bit blunt and usually slightly tactless...up to you whether that's a good thing.
There will be those of you whose memories go back as far as the Deeceevoice incident, for which every comment I made in my apology still stands. And there are those of you whose memories go back as far as the RfAr filed against Ed Poor by myself and some others, which was resolved amicably for all. Rob Church (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NickelAndDime 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could you please explain this edit summary?
A: Hm. Difficult. I think it's a mixture of pedantry and irritation. When you're interacting with people, trying to be helpful, often taking flak from all directions, you can end up pushed fairly far towards burnout, and I try to completely avoid that. I think we can none of us state we don't lapse. Perhaps no edit summary would have been better than a somewhat vitriolic one, but then, in my defence, I try to avoid "just losing it", but like any other human, of course I'm prone to from time to time. As a developer, I think I'd state that users are simultaneously your best inspiration and your greatest irritation. Evaluate this character flaw, if you will, in your own way. Rob Church (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from deeceevoice 03:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why did you only partially recant your lie [bogus] ArbCom charge[s] against me?
2. How can could you have the gall to allow your name repeatedly to be entered into consideration for adminship [less than ten days after commiting such an egregious offense, and then repeatedly thereafter] mere weeks after such scandalous behavior? How can you countenance such a self-serving double standard?
3. How can you justify do you regard the double standard of someone being placed on [lengthy] probation [in some cases, for as long as a full year] for committing a far less serious offense [say, incivility or edit warring] than you did when you [admittedly] lied about a "venomous" e-mail which I never sent and entered your fabrication as evidence against me in an ArbCom proceeding? Would you be in favor of the institution of a mandatory period of adminship ineligibility of, say, at least one year for such [and similarly serious mis]conduct?
4.And, finally, do you not think editors who conduct themselves in such a shameful manner should be stripped of, and barred from, adminship for at least as long (12 months) as someone who is deemed guilty of a far less serious infraction -- say, incivility or edit warring -- is placed on probation or watch? We're told that admins are held to a higher standard; however, such is clearly not the case. deeceevoice 03:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to remain civil, deeceevoice. There's nothing to indicate Church fibbed, or even had any motive to fib, about your screeching email. Justforasecond 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What was on this page was all lies and fabrication, insofar as what I claimed she'd said...." -- Robchurch. deeceevoice 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At worst it was a misunderstanding. But maybe he completely understood: "The email I sent her might have been polite; her response might have been less than desirable. But of course, what I'd failed to consider was her take on things - email is not at all a suitable mechanism for interpersonal communications, in fact, nothing electronic is - and so the potential for the misunderstanding was there from the moment I clicked Send in the first place." Justforasecond 15:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Dragon695 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(for clarification CSD is Candidates for Speedy Deletion, TfD is Templates for Deletion, and T1 is the first criterion for speedy deletion of templates)
1. What is your take on WP:CSD T1?
2. Given their controversial nature and in an effort to nurture a more positive atomosphere, should userboxes which might be violating policy be placed in WP:TfD even if they might qualify for WP:CSD T1?
These questions violate WP:WOTTA. Would you care to bring them up to conformance? <innocent look> Kim Bruning 09:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes one must choose between WP:WOTTA and WP:GAL ;-). NoSeptember talk 09:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a tough choice, indeed. I finally went with WOTTA, as that seemed to be the shinier of the two at the time. Kim Bruning 10:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get involved in the user self-identification template deletion issues. Rob Church (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note you were careful not to use the word "userbox" :) – Gurch 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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.

Bookofjude

Final (141/1/0) ended 00:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bookofjude (talk · contribs) – It is my honour to nominate Jude. Although he registered an account in 2004, he became active early this year. However, despite his relatively short time at Wikipedia, Jude has demonstrated that he has the willingness, knowledge, and temperament to be an administrator. He has over 4886 well-distributed edits, with over 2171 in mainspace. He reverts vandalism, creates, cleans up, expands, and adds references to articles, uploads pictures, and transwikis. He is also knowledgeable technically, having created {{cite paper}} and depreciated and migrated {{citepaper}}, {{citepaper publisher}}, {{citepaper version}}, and {{citepaper publisher version}}. Project-wise, Jude can be found on AfD, TfD, Category:Wikipedia references cleanup, and has recently begun assisting with the massive backlog of possible copyright violations. In my experience, Jude deals well with conflicts and stressful situations (he successfully mediated a dispute pertaining to Angelology and Zoroastrianism), and is always willing to help, both on IRC and on Wikipedia. Given the admin tools, Jude would, in my opinion, become an even greater asset to the community. Shanel § 00:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Jude (talk,email) 00:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong Support - Jude has been so helpful to me on the WP:CP backlog in the past 2 weeks. He is very knowledgeable in many areas of Wikipedia, and can be trusted with the Sysopmop. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OMGZORZ SUPER SUPPER ÜBER HAPPY YATTA HEY JUDE DON'T MAKE IT BAD I LOVE N00BZ SUPPORT OF FANTABULOUS PORTMANTEAUXISMS YOU R0X MY S0X PIECE OF CAKE CLICHÉ WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE ISN'T ALREADY ALL CAPS SUPPORT Sasquatch t|c 00:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Naconkantari 00:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Extreme Jude Support, as nom.--Shanel § 00:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sleepwalking SUPPORT. And bah and hubmbug - I said I wanted to be the first support vote on this one. I'm really pleased to be able to vote for Jude at last -- sannse (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Short active tenure on my mind, but everything looks great; the nominator's description was also very convincing. joturner 00:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I still remember you from the meta cleanup project :). Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 00:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support (hyper) Helpful, extremely prolific, has my trust. - Amgine 00:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support ForestH2
  10. --Sean Black 00:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Hell yes sorry for my language but he's a must be shoo-in for adminship Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support - Sango123 (e) 00:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide...Support I couldn't resist. Very helpful, civil, and funny since I've known him. And plus, the Beatles rock too, so this is a win-win. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 00:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, I already quoted that song in my support :-P copycat. Sasquatch t|c 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 02:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. STRONG STRONG STRONG STONG SUPPORT - I was going to nominate but Shanel insisted on being the nominator. We might as well strike out the oppose section as Bookofjude is a natural admin -- Tawker 01:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lies, you just asked too late :P--Shanel § 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support (or rather, sopeutral). Pepsidrinka 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Ok. --GeorgeMoney T·C 01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support I pestered Jude about going for admin only a couple weeks ago. Prolific editor, tireless vandal-fighter, and snappy dresser! Also, incredibly over-helpful on IRC to both old users and annoying newbies like myself! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Ixfd64 01:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as per Sasquatch Search4Lancer 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. NSLE (T+C) at 01:42 UTC (2006-05-20)
  22. Darn it, I was hoping to make the first 10 on this one, missed it! More like this candidate, please!™ Support... about time this user got mopheaded ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Happy Support. --Slgrandson 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support This is one RfA that I feel is worth voting on, seeing as I tend to vote only in times of true belief. His work on IRC and Wikipedia is amazing. --Ali K 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, definitely. A friendly, trustworthy, and tireless contributor and has definite use for the mop. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Obvious Support. DarthVader 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Nifty user. — TheKMantalk 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. For their foul devotion to getting things right, disgustingly nice attitude, horrendously amiable demeanour and unacceptable level of contributions, I sentence this user to the worst possible treatment Wikipedia can inflict...sysophood, the ultimate hell-hole. Rob Church (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen. Kim Bruning 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Shanel, I officially hate you for not letting me conominate :P WerdnaTc@bCmLt 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support Highly useful contributor. Very helpful on IRC too. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey just found ou that we both have exactly the same edit count (4992). Haha I just got ahead with this post :P. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Editcountisis :P --Andy123 talk 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 04:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now changed to strong support. --Terence Ong 15:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Ultra-strong support Have seen this user both on WP and IRC and have very good impressions. {{RfA-cliche1}}! Kimchi.sg 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. RfA-clichéd support I've seen this user around Wikipedia and seems to be well-suited for admin role. Understands policy well. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. The old "I thought the user was already" trick. RadioKirk talk to me 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support Jude has always gone out of his way to help me. I am especially thankful for his technical help where I am quickly overwhelmed and he has been willing to tackle problems even when he doesn't intially know the solution. Besides all that I certain he will make a great admin.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Together we shall destroy the copyvio backlog! Mwa-ha! --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, the talk for Angel (Talk:Angel#Zoroastrianism_influencing_Judeo-Christian_religions) is a model for civility and grace. We need more of such people as adminstrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TedE (talk • contribs)
  38. Support... Wait... he isn't an admin? -- Tangotango 05:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Song clichès aside, what a fantastic editor, I've been waiting for this rfA. -- Banez 06:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support great as an IRC op, have full confidence as a wikipedia op. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I can't find any reason to oppose, and my every interaction with this user has demonstrated him/her to be knowladgeable, friendly, and practical. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I can't find any reason to oppose.--MONGO 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, experienced user. --Tone 07:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Alphax τεχ 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. A no brainer, this one. Rockpocket (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, Jude is kind of an obligatory admin, and I was surprised to hear a few weeks ago that he wasn't already! --Xyrael T 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support per Sasquatch. What a kind, considerate, civil and overall, lovely editor. Just think, now we're going to corrupt him by handing him the mop. Go us! --Celestianpower háblame 09:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. Obvious. Ian13/talk 09:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I don't normally join in with RFA pile-on's (which-ever way the pile on is going), but in this case my jaw dropped so low on seeing this here I just couldn't resist. Petros471 09:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Good editor, will make a good admin Brian | (Talk) 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. --Bhadani 10:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support for the same reasons already expressed. He has shown himself to be trustworthy and reliable. Rje 11:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. --Ligulem 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Vanilla support. Misza13 T C 12:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --W.marsh 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I beat firefox support -- Benon 13:27, 20 may '06
  58. I-beat-Benon, support, =] — FireFox (U T C) 13:28, 20 May '06
  59. 100% Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_Crusher of Hopes and Dreams 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support strongly. An excellent, and technologically sophisticated, editor. Giving him sysop-tools will benefit the project. Bucketsofg✐ 14:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support naturally! Computerjoe's talk 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Wow. 61 support votes in 16 hours? He must be doing something right. Support as well. The interest in working on uncommon, but needed, tasks is a benefit to the project. --Elkman - (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Hey Jude! It's time to take a sad wiki, and make it better. I don't agree with making people admins much anymore, but you asked for it, so now you're gonna get it! :-P Kim Bruning 16:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, of course.™ --Rory096 17:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Monobook support Yay! ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Plain ol' Support. FreplySpang 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes --Doc ask? 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Just based on what I see. :) Dakpowers | Talk 21:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support – was going to make a lame Hey Jude gag, but Kim and Sasquatch beat me to it. So, per Kim I guess – Gurch 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :-P Kim Bruning 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :-P :-P Sasquatch t|c 21:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to, but Sasquatch made me change it. :( Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. AWB Cabal Support: friendly and helpful. Has proven his trustworthiness with AWB, should have no problem with the mop. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. No problems here... support! Lankiveil 22:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Of course. Shimgray | talk | 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Super strong amazing undonditional support. Bastique▼parler voir 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. I don't know Jude well enough to be more emphatic, but I have no qualms about a plain support vote. Thryduulf 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support without hesitation -- That Guy, From That Show! 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Absolutely, you'll make a great one. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Rama's Arrow 03:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Joe I 04:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Puzzled Support He wasn't? *Walks away shakily* --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support with pleasure - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. This guy's so good, I'd have to TRY to find something in his edit history or edit trends that would tick me off. SushiGeek 08:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, though don't let the stress get to you too much! --JoanneB 09:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Afonso Silva 10:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - Yes. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Extreme Sartorial Gnomic Support oh yes. --Alf melmac 11:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strongly strong support, looking through his edits everything I've seen has been positive! // The True Sora 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, gread editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--☆TBC☆ 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Super strong support, Jude knows his job well, and he is one of the most friendliest users I have seen. He'll do well. --Andy123 talk 16:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. I'm a little late. All the arguments to justify supporting Jude are already in. So I'll go with the cliché: "per all the above". Redux 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support --Cspurrier 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Was trying to wait till 100, but got impatient. Now I'll just be lost in a sea of supports. Sigh. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Cleared for Adminship Jude knows everything, senior staff on the #vandalism-en-wp channel, why shouldn't he be an admin? --Pilot|guy 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support, a true asset and a committed member of the community. Go for it Jude! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support --Nick Boalch\talk 23:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Damn, I woulda been the first to support. Danny 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 00:51 UTC
  103. Support, wait weren't you already one? Give the mop!--Kungfu Adam (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Conditional support, provided he improves his taste in music. He will make a good admin, but some things are inexcusable. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Mostly Rainy 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. No problems here. Valentinian (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Ral315 (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support--Jusjih 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support, yup. Proto||type 13:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Really, how could anybody object? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support ~MDD4696 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Suppport --Jay(Reply) 19:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. I dare you to give me a reason to oppose. Royboycrashfan 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support DGX 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Fish. Snoutwood (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support He seems to be on RC patrol everytime I look.Crazynas 09:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Should make a great admin --Scott 09:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. ~ PseudoSudo 09:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strong support. Very good wikicoder, helped me sandbox a 3RR prototype. Will (E@) T 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Robert 22:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support per above. G.He 23:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support If you want to get to know Jude, just come on the Wikipedia IRC channel. He is willing to help you with anything and it just. plain. nice. One night I got rowdy and he had to kick me, but I wasn't bitter at all! That's the power of Jude =)
    It was JUST LAST NIGHT that I found out that he WASN'T an admin! He acts like and personifies the purest of admin qualities and he is well deserving of this nomination and adminship. --mboverload@ 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support per "I thought they already were!" cliche. Plus a helluva monobook that I use a fork of. Teke 02:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Can we please give Jude 4 more support votes and push me down one more on WP:100? Jude deserves that spot a lot more than I do. JoshuaZ 02:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Bookofjude is awesome! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support --Cyde↔Weys 06:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support --Cat out 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Weak support, good candidate, but he's known to say some rather disturbing things on IRC. — May. 24, '06 [10:34] <freak|talk>
  131. sure support -- Drini 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Merovingian {T C @} 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - a great person indeed! :) --Filip (§) 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - Gee, I kinda thought he was an admin already! But anyways, it's nice to have another Christian admin around here. (From the look of his name, I assume he's Christian.) He's also a great guy to talk to on IRC. --Shultz IV 06:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Shane smash obvious RfA! Grrrr! --InShaneee 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support A terribly solid Wikipedian. GChriss 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support a brilliant example of how calm and patient response averts confrontation. Tyrenius 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support, agree wholeheartedly with nom. --bainer (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support, quality editor. PJM 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support per Tyrenius, to pick one. Joe 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. There CANNOT be a unanimous RfA. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes it can: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Drini -- Drini 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this really a valid vote? You seem to just be making a POINT. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's happened many times before. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 00:51 UTC
    Huh? I appreciate this individual's right to vote, but I don't see where it says that RfAs cannot be unanimous... also, this is very troll-like behaviour, as all you're doing is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point (I know, WP:POINT). Master of Puppets That's hot. 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Awww please? It'd be fun to have it unanimous! Kim Bruning 00:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Trolling vote removed by Tawker. Master of Puppets That's hot. 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There CAN be a unanimous RfA, if everyone voting supports the candidate and no-one decides to make a useless WP:POINT by voting against. However, I don't think the vote should be struck. You would hope this kind of vote wouldn't be considered by the closing 'crat, and therefore striking it purely has a cosmetic effect on the scoreboard. Deizio talk 01:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to strike it purely for cosmetic purposes. ;-) DGX 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, Avilia's a little late anyway... Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BD2412... NSLE (T+C) at 01:12 UTC (2006-05-23)
    Oppose. Too obscure. Solensean 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC) He made the song better. Solensean 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony is that your oppose vote seems quite obscure! Could you please elaborate and/or provide any diffs for your comment? Thanks. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps he feels that the candidate needs to take a sad song and made it better. --W.marsh 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remark: This user has less than 250 edits on this wiki. Claims to be an admin on the French wikipedia on his user page. I propose to ignore this user. --Ligulem 16:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User by that username is a sysop on fr.wiki although this vote makes no sense whatsoever, there has been pratically nil activity from this user in days, this RfA oppose just came out of the blue -- Tawker 17:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh I thought the vote was obviously a joke... --W.marsh 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh, of couse it is a joke cf. Jude the Obscure--Doc ask? 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. User does not have experience in handling disputes and is making an effort in avoiding them (per his words). I believe any admin should be willing in dealing with disputes. Admin privilages exist in dealing with disputes and disruptions assuming diplomacy (mediation etc) fails. --Cat out 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC) --Cat out 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:You don't need to be an admin to deal with disputes. Certainly there are people who use admin privileges in this capacity, but others may see it as a technical position, which, I think, is Jude does. I prefer not to get involved in disputes because I usually am not knowledgeable about the topic or backgound of the dispute, but I don't think it makes me a bad admin. I had never had any dispute experience prior to my 2nd RfA either, and I certainly tried to avoid them (I still do).--Shanel § 20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I didnt look at it that way... I still feel more admins should be looking into disputes (in light of wikipedia policies of course). --Cat out 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The beauty of this candidate isn't the fact that Jude hasn't had conflicts, it's the manner in which he's dealt with the conflicts to defuse them before they've become arguments and otherwise have had to be dealt with. Check above where this Talk:Angel#Zoroastrianism influencing Judeo-Christian religions occurs. I doubt I could've handled the situation with as much grace, though I'd like to be able to. It seems silly to me to oppose a candidate on the grounds that he's had the ability to avoid confrontations instead of letting them ferment into negativity. Diplomacy only fails when you stop trying. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments 

Username Bookofjude
Total edits 5092
Distinct pages edited 3004
Average edits/page 1.695
First edit 04:49, August 23, 2004
 
(main) 2278
Talk 141
User 975
User talk 788
Image 34
Template 120
Template talk 28
Category 211
Wikipedia 504
Wikipedia talk 13
 G.He 23:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 01:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Bookofjude (over the 4986 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 605 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 20, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 23, August, 2004
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 96.53% Minor edits: 99.52%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 93.75% Minor article edits: 99.4%
Average edits per day (current): 8.24
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 2.03% (101)
Unique pages edited: 2836 | Average edits per page: 1.76 | Edits on top: 16.11%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 40.85%
Minor edits (non-reverts): 30.37%
Marked reverts: 27.04%
Unmarked edits: 1.74%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 44.75% (2231) | Article talk: 2.71% (135)
User: 19.15% (955) | User talk: 15.5% (773)
Wikipedia: 9.81% (489) | Wikipedia talk: 0.24% (12)
Image: 0.64% (32)
Template: 2.41% (120)
Category: 4.23% (211)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.56% (28)

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

1.What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I like to involve myself in a little bit of everything. I try to patrol recent changes on at least a regular basis, and I flick through my watchlist looking for possible vandalism every time I click on it. I've recently been helping User:Lightdarkness with the copyright violation backlog, which is, thankfully, slowly starting to shrink back down into something that's manageable. I also try to regularly participate in Articles for deletion, and, although not as regularly, its various incarnations (Templates for deletion, etc), and also transwiki'ing to Wikisource articles that fit Wikisource's inclusion criteria.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am, for the most part, pleased with all of my contributions, though I tend towards more minor edits than major, sweeping changes. User:Seqsea and I have been trying to keep Category:Wikipedia references cleanup to a managable level, and it is currently at sixteen articles, as compared to the sixty or so articles when we started. I'm also proud of my work to the Angelology section of Angel, relating to a dispute about whether or not information in it should be included in the lead paragraph. I also do a bit of work with templates, and I was quite proud of {{cite paper}}, which Shanel already mentioned. More recently I created an article for Michael Moorcock's book, The City in the Autumn Stars, which I'm quite pleased with.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I try to avoid all types of conflict, as I find that it detracts from the object of writing an encyclopedia, so, to that extent, the only conflicts or disputes that I've become involved in have been relatively minor. As I mentioned in the previous question, I was involved as a third party in a dispute on Angel, regarding whether or not a few sentences about Zoroastrianism's influence on Angelology should be included in the lead paragraph. I suggested on the talk page that a section be created in the article where the topic could be treated neutrally, and had a hand in the development of that section. Asides from that, I think the majority of misunderstandings I was involved in were resolved quickly and left everybody happy.


The above 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.

Tone

Final (46/2/3) ended 21:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone (talk · contribs) – I first came around Wikipedia at the beginning of 2005, when I discovered Slovenian version. I liked the idea from the beginning. I later got promoted to admin there. Once in December, I decided to put a part of my time in the English version as well. At the beginning, I was checking articles about my country, updating, adding and correcting things, I also started the Portal:Slovenia. Later, my area of interests became wider so I started participating in XfD discussions, stub-sorting and image tagging. And so I came to a point where I realized that I could help the community more if I were equipped with some extra tools. For those who are interested in my editcount, it must be somewhere around 3000 now, not sure whether I should add deleted edits or not. If I get promoted, my admin actions would focus on monitoring the new pages and XfD discussions. Tone 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self-nom, I accept. --Tone 21:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Although it seems like many of your edits aren't really major, your history seems to indicate that you're trustworthy and you appear to have a reason to become an admin. joturner 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I have bumped into this user in several contexts and have always been impressed with his/her seriousness and balance. I assume this bodes well for a conscientious adminship. Bucketsofg✐ 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Taking a quick look through your edits, it seems like you are doing a good job. I wouldn't mind you being a wiki-en admin. --Alphachimp talk 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Ideally woudl have a few more significant article edits on en. but a user with a willingness to do lots of janitorial work and a level head will make a good admin. The Land 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support ForestH2
  6. Support - even if there are no Portal Talk edits... okay, no really. This user drops mostly into the same tracks as User:Dewet - experience on the si server helps much; but it's a different animal. Keep a level head (I think said level head has been kept so far) and you'll be fine. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 22:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Edit count does not reflect work on Slovenia Wikipedia. More than ample time on project. Would have preferred more experience in area for which he said he needs admin powers, but judgment seems sound. Affable, receptive to constructive criticism. :) Dlohcierekim 22:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Experienced. RadioKirk talk to me 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. agreeing with all above comments. Kukini 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support If (RiskOfAbuse=LOW && AdvantageToWikipedia=HIGH) {Tawker.Support = True;} -- Tawker 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Great user. Very experienced and will make a good admin. DarthVader 23:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per above. Great user and will make great admin.—G.He 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Tawker. Kusma (討論) 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 04:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support editcountitis aside, contribs look good. Our CSD removal squad needs more people. Kimchi.sg 04:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I know the user from :sl and no problems there. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I also know the user from :sl and I like his work. --IgorTrieste 08:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - edit count below my usual reuirements, but taken into account his work on Slovenian wikipedia it is acceptable. It is almost a dream to have somebody familiar with x-Yugoslavia but neutral enough to be acceptable by everybody abakharev 09:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Unlike my "imaginary", as my mom calls it, walrus, this is a nice user to users he hasn't even met.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --84.52.191.19 14:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anons are not allowed to vote in RfAs, striking out vote. Kimchi.sg 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_Crusher of Hopes and Dreams 14:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support A wise person. Rama's Arrow 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support.Bharatveer 04:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. [Insert random RfA cliche] Has hung around too long not to be an admin. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 07:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Good contributor. Afonso Silva 17:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Sarge Baldy 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, experienced and trustworthy. No reasons to deny him the mop. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support--Jusjih 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Suppprt --Jay(Reply) 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Buchanan-Hermit. Royboycrashfan   21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support DGX 00:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, and good luck. haz (user talk) 08:03, 23 May 2006
  36. Support, based on the experience with Tone@slwiki, he'll make a good admin. Non-problematic for all, IMHO. --romanm (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. SupportJoshuaZ 02:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Merovingian {T C @} 00:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support polite, friendly, and also does physics! Regarding Tone apparently only having 21 notable edits, please see his userpage. Also, he has written a long physics article, and although he only got five edits for it, I can tell you from personal experience that I would weight these a lot more because you have to be dead precise with every word that you use for its technical meaning otherwise the article will not make sense. As a personal example, the physics article on Statistical mechanics called Vertex model which I created got me two edits, but it would have taken some 8 hours for technical correctness on a text editor, typesetting equations, also the pictures and captions. In that time, I could have done 500 small edits, as I have done at other periods in my presence here on wikipedia.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Watch your tone! :p Lets hope it's a good one. ;) --Shultz IV 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehe, it's ok. --Tone 12:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. support Not every admin must be a vandal fighter. Some can be AFD closers (which is also a needed function). --Bachrach44 12:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: I know Tone from the WP:WPSG, and he's a prime candidate for adminship==>better wikipedia. support all the way. good stuff Tone. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44.   Support Loads of new articles, lots of languages, lots of all round involvement, and 2750 is more than enough edits. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support for the same reasons as above. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weekl Support seems like a good user, but sort'a low on experiance. Since theres no solid reason to Oppose, my default is support in this case. ---J.S (t|c) 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, shotgun approach to looking at articles. For example, consider [25]. Stated too many entries in bibliography (actually the second mention). Had a couple of responses, but didn't follow up. From a quick look at his namespace edits, they are mostly adding stub or cat or things of that type. I see a lot of User:Talk as welcomes. These are all great things to do, but just why does he need the admin tools? Ted 06:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd like a bit more than: 'Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 17.73%' and 'Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 0.78% (21)' --Doc ask? 12:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention, according to my log, I created around 150 new articles, I just didn't mark them as new so that would be the reason the tool does not recognize them as such. I agree that I did more janitorial work than adding new articles, though. --Tone 19:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral, seems like a good guy but the history of primarily minor edits doesn't represent great experience. --Nick Boalch\talk 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, not much to indicate familiarity with administrator activities. And, whilst I don't have anything against the pastime of stub-sorting (even though it's a task best suited to a mildly sapient bot), I would apply a higher edit count threshhold for an aspiring administrator with significant contributions to that area. A couple more months might be good. — May. 24, '06 [10:29] <freak|talk>
  3. Neutral, a little short of experience, particularly at AFD. I tend to have higher standards for self-noms as well. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username Tone
Total edits 2750
Distinct pages edited 2046
Average edits/page 1.344
First edit 05:46, May 13, 2005
 
(main) 1501
Talk 107
User 81
User talk 438
Image 38
Template 28
Template talk 9
Category 40
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 409
Wikipedia talk 54
Portal 44
 G.He 23:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Tone (over the 2708 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 341 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 19, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 13, May, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 62.48% Minor edits: 83.29%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 29.55% Minor article edits: 80.84%
Average edits per day (current): 7.94
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 0.78% (21)
Unique pages edited: 1918 | Average edits per page: 1.41 | Edits on top: 25.7%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 17.73%
Minor edits (non-reverts): 68.54%
Marked reverts: 2.25%
Unmarked edits: 11.48%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 55.47% (1502) | Article talk: 3.88% (105)
User: 2.77% (75) | User talk: 15.99% (433)
Wikipedia: 14.07% (381) | Wikipedia talk: 1.88% (51)
Image: 1.44% (39)
Template: 1.03% (28)
Category: 1.48% (40)
Portal: 1.62% (44)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.37% (10)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As stated above, I would mostly be active on XfD and deleting newly created nonsences, if they qualify for a speedy deletion. I have many experiences with vandal fighting but from Slovenian WP, where it is easier to monitor new changes. Nevertheless, I revert changes when I spot a vandal and the rollback button would be useful. Since I sometimes tag unsourced images, I could delete them after a week's time if no info is added. I have experiences with protecting pages and blocking users but this is again on Slovenian WP. To summarize, it would be XfD mostly.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have been involved in different janitorial actions and I think it this kind of work is important in order to keep Wikipedia readable and easy to navigate. I started Slovenia Portal but it doesn't seem to attract many audience. Might be improved. As a hobby, I am active at the Stargate project where I try to bring one of articles to the FA status. Dealing with fiction, my aim is not to have too many articles on not-so-important fictious things so I consider myself a mergist and so far my actions have been successful. Considering articles that I have written, some are still in a stubby shape but the others have developed really nicely with some team effort. I think the longest article I started is Russia at the 2006 Winter Olympics but it was Sue Anne who did the major part. By the way, I am really pleased she got promoted to an admin after my nomination.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I got blocked by a bot last week while renaming TV episode articles to a same format. Although I got unblocked immediately afterwards, I will now always think twice before implementing Be bold principle. The proposal for renaming is still opened at the TV project. I don't think I have been involved in any other serious conflicts, I have been warned sometimes for making mistakes but this really is all. I guess I don't edit controversial articles too often.
The above 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.


kcordina

Final (46/0/1) ended 12:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

kcordina (talk · contribs) – I nominate myself for adminship following 6 months of significant (in my opinion) work on wikipedia. In that time I've been involved in many aspects of wikipedia - adding content to articles, improving the quality of articles, merging many hundreds of articles from the merge backlog, copyediting, contributing to AFD, helping out at the mediation cabal, and plenty of vandal fighting. I now feel that I have a good grasp of wikipedia policies and the way things work, and that I am now sufficiently competent here to make a valuable contribution using the additional tools available to admins. Kcordina Talk 12:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self nomination accepted. Kcordina Talk 12:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First to Support. Looks fine to me. --Tone 12:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beat-the-nom-support (grin). RadioKirk talk to me 12:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Wellrounded, sufficient edits and time. Doing good things. :) Dlohcierekim 13:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. It looks like you've been doing plenty of mopping already, and you don't even have the mop yet. It's time to fix that. --Elkman - (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support--Jusjih 13:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. A trustworthy editor who has shown more than a little skill on the patrols. Rje 14:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support you + mop = better Wikipedia -- Tawker 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Excellent work at the mediation cabal. Due for the mop. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, ticks all the boxes for me. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, an asset to the project, perfectly qualified for the mop. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 14:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, experienced with Wikipedia processes. - Tangotango 15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support DGX 16:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hockey fight pile-on support. Looks qualified enough for me. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 16:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I take it back, he's the very model of a modern wikipedian. Bucketsofg✐ 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. {{Rfa cliche 1}} OH WAIT IT WAS DELETED :( Anyway, support. --Rory096 19:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support your last 500 contribs really span a lot of activities - merges, AfD, AIAV, rvv(+warnings!), even transwiki. :-O Definitely one suitable for the mop. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Your self-nom statement is an understatement of the work you have done. DarthVader 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good job.--Osbus 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Robust, Hardworking editor abakharev 23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. —Khoikhoi 00:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support very good.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, no worries. Deizio talk 01:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, too liked Nah, just kidding.. Support. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No alarm bells after a review of this editor's work. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote[reply]
  27. Support please - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, prime candidate. Wholehearted support. Gateman1997 06:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support no evidence that this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, despite a bit of misgivings based on what Grouchy McGrouch said below :) Proto||type 14:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, per Cyde. (Lack of interest in spending time in the internal structure of Wikipedia is a good thing.) —CuiviénenT|C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 20:01 UTC
  32. Support User could use the tools. We need more admins paying attention to copyright issues and this candidate has the necessary knowledge and attitude to do that work. JoshuaZ 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I'm totally impressed with what I've seen of this user. --Alphachimp talk 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I was impressed by this editor when I came across his very first edit at Enduro. --BillC 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 04:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, civil in his dealings with other editors. Has a calling for what he wants to do with the encyclopedia, and understands that not all editors can do those things. Ted 20:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Joe I 04:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Looks good to me. Kukini 14:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, has helped Wikipedia in many ways and could do even better things to help with admin tools. Royboycrashfan   21:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. support no reason to oppose. --Bachrach44 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak support, minor concerns not worth opposing for. — May. 24, '06 [10:21] <freak|talk>
  43. Merovingian {T C @} 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. It's your birthday... so here's the mop!-President GangstaEB-01:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support A favorable disposition. --Shultz IV 07:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Mehhh, lack of project talk edits shows little interest in policy. --Cyde↔Weys 06:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments 

Username	Kcordina
Total edits	5092
Distinct pages edited	3601
Average edits/page	1.414
First edit	11:24, December 6, 2005
	
(main)	3440
Talk	277
User	113
User talk	675
Image	5
Template	14
Template talk	3
Category	83
Category talk	2
Wikipedia	463
Wikipedia talk	15
Portal	2
 G.He 00:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Kcordina (over the 4935 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 134 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 18, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 15hr (UTC) -- 6, December, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 88.5% Minor edits: 99.75%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 95.51% Minor article edits: 99.92%
Average edits per day (current): 36.82
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 3.91% (193)
Unique pages edited: 3347 | Average edits per page: 1.47 | Edits on top: 13.72%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 25.98%
Minor edits (non reverts): 47.96%
Marked reverts: 21.2%
Unmarked edits: 4.86%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 67.5% (3331) | Article talk: 5.49% (271)
User: 2.27% (112) | User talk: 13.17% (650)
Wikipedia: 9.08% (448) | Wikipedia talk: 0.3% (15)
Image: 0.1% (5)
Template: 0.28% (14)
Category: 1.68% (83)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.1% (5)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would like to help out getting on top of the backlog of copyvio problems, with which admin tools would be very useful. I do a lot of recent changes patrolling and the improved rollback would make that easier. I feel it is particularly important that requests on the intervention against vandalism page are dealt with quickly and I would like to take a share of that work. I am also happy to be involved as required to help people out in any area I feel competent in.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The majority of my work on wikipedia has been of the mop-and-bucket type. For example see my contributions for the large number of merges I've performed. I have contributed a lot to articles relating to Patent, particularly to Patent, Patent prosecution and patent application, taking them from heavily overlapping poorly strucutred articles to, hopefully, a good consistent set of articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I was a party in a conflict that arose when I was trying to help out resolve some problems with an article (see User_talk:kcordina#Pashtun tribes and the pages linked therefrom). This was resolved following discussion and explanation to the parties. This highlighted to me how important it is to explicitly explain every aspect of work on articles as it is all too easy for edits to be misconstrued. I have also contributed to the mediation cabal, and examples of cases I have worked on are Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox, Calvary Chapel, Alex Jones and Ayumi Hamasaki. I fully intend to continue work in cabal as I think it is an excellent route to resolving conflict.

Question from JoshuaZ

1 You mention in your answer to question 1 above using your admin tools to help out with copyvio issues. What have you done that gives your prior experience with copy right issues on Wikipedia?

I first came across the copyvio issue when I found the Arda Peak article listed as needing copyediting. Upon looking at that page and investigating further it turned out that there was a potential copyvio issue with this and many hundreds of other articles related to it, all of which were created by User:Apcbg (see User_talk:Apcbg#Copyright). Two things struck me about what was happening - firstly, there was a potentially huge (in terms of number of articles) copyvio issue, which if not resolved could lead to the loss of lots of potentially good articles. So, I set about tackling this in two ways - firstly, I got agreement from other editors that we felt the permission to use was genuine (the ticket number from wikipedia had not yet arrived so we needed to be clear in our own minds), then began editing the articles to indicate the copyright permission (see this diff), and to re-write the articles to remove the copyvio. It also became apparent that User:Apcbg was being treated pretty harshly due to the lack of formatting of the articles (see the stream of comments asking him to change on his talk page and application of tags to articles, but almost zero help in teaching the user how the articles should be improved, or any effort doing so. So, I stepped in and offered to help out. A few months later we had a set of articles free of copyvio and in a good wiki format to be built on.

Anyway, that was a bit of long waffle, but hopefully it shows the way I like to work. In future on the copyvio issue I'd like to be more pro-active in resolving issues and ultimately removing copyvio work. Being active in this manner is difficult without the tools to finalise the issue if the material does need to be removed.

Hopefully the fact that I'm an intellectual property attorney in real life will help me arrive at good decisions. ;-) Kcordina Talk 08:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above 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.

Dewet

Final (57/21/7) ended 17:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dewet (talk · contribs) – I hereby have the pleasure to nominate Dewet for adminship. Dewet has been a registered user on the English Wikipedia since September 2004 and has more than 2500 edits to his name. He is also a contributor to and an admin on the Afrikaans Wikipedia.

Dewet is a well-respected and valued contributor on South African topics. He also does loads of anti-vandal work (using popups) and is a cool head in any debate. Dewet would definitely be an asset to the Wikipedia mop brigade and is definitely a person trusted with the sysop tools.

Regards, Elf-friend 13:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you, I accept. dewet|✉ 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, as nom. Elf-friend 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, looks like a good asset. Gadig 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: You've stayed here long enough, and (regardless of edits per namespace) you must be ready for the mop. --Slgrandson 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good user, should use the mop wisely. --Tone 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Edit-conflicted support. In this case, time makes up for edit count; this user knows the drill. I also like the answer to Q1—there's honesty for you. Mop time! RadioKirk talk to me 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, without a doubt. Zaian 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and having seen the oppose votes below, I still support. I have watched many of the same pages as Dewet, and I have never seen signs of Dewet "biting the newbies" or reverting something that didn't need to be reverted. Zaian 00:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Has been around a long while doing sensible things. - BanyanTree 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support.™ --Rory096 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Appears to have a good history of use on Wikipedia. --Wisden17 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Bucketsofg✐ 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support An experienced user. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    #Jaranda wat's sup 20:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, a good user. Has a good history on Wikipedia.Jordy 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Look good. Nephron  T|C 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. This is exactly the kind of user I am happiest to support. Experience over edit count. --Danaman5 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. ForestH2
  18. Support. Looks fine, and a lot of people who express good opinions on an RfA have supported. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Good user. DarthVader 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per above. Martinp 23:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per above. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 01:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support although the points brought up in the oppose section are worth noting. joturner 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support Weak only because of the points below; stereotypes aren't for Wikipedia. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Moved to oppose due to reconsideration. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 04:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Terence Ong 05:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, considered, sensible, mature editor who will use the mop well, i feel. Rockpocket (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Take heed of the opposing voters comments, and you'll be a great admin. Kevin 08:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Canderous | Talk 09:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Edit count is low, but he works on more than one wikipedia. Is addressing WP:BITE concerns. Does welcome newcomers. :) Dlohcierekim 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Well ok. I've seen this name before, and didn't hear anything negative about him/her. --Shultz IV 13:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good user. ForestH2 Duplicate vote. — GT 07:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per RadioKirk and Jordy, and inasmuch as adminship is--say it with me--no big deal. Joe 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per other users. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support -- per joe --T-rex 01:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak Support -- support per above, weak per below; the en server is a different animal, but experience on the Africaans one will help. Take heed of the WP:BITE concerns, and you'll be fine. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 06:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support It's quite natural to revert suspicious unexplained anonymous edits, preferably with an edit summary requesting a source for the suspicious information. Haukur 08:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seems like a good user Dr.Poison 11:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support While the user seems to occasionally lose his cool in discussions, Dewet seems to be capable of refraining from translating this into edits. We need more South African admins. -Kieran 11:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support He has sufficient experience, and is a good editor. No objections here. — Impi 13:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Dewet is a good user and have come across his edits many times on South African wikis. We need more of him. --Jcw69 15:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A good contributor with a level head. Wizzy…☎ 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I was pretty neutral, but his answers to the questions below are among several examples I saw of his impressive experience. Steveo2 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Dewet has proven to be an editor of note: I have often come accross his edits on South African issues, which he has contributed significantly to. I am sure he will do a good job. -- Chris Lester talk 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: per above. He's a great editor, and seems to have every South Africa-related article on his watchlist. ;-) My (admittedly minor) interactions with him have been entirely positive. - htonl 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Huge support Awesome edits. General   Eisenhower 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Dewet has made great to South African topics, and, in my interactions with him, he has never bitten any newbies. I do not think he will abuse his powers. -- Banez 06:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Checked admin action on Afrikaans wikipedia: seems good, I can't it check tho. Checked user_talk page and archives and their history logs: good. Checked 100 contributions: 2006-04-26t15:10:32z/2006-05-01t07:54:02z: article major: 13, article minor: 14, rv/rm of old vd: 40, article talk: 10, user talk: 5, user talk warnings: 12, wikipedia: 5, wikipedia talk: 1: good, except for the accidental deletions at that lasted for 21 minutes and was fixed by another editor, and at Afrikaner that messed up the article; should be a strong reminder to check all admin actions afterwards. Checked 6 contributions: 2005-09-08t05:56:02z/2005-09-25t19:54:34z: article major: 3, article minor: 3: good. 1st logged edit: good. I have see no problem with using WP:V for anon edits, tho a link to WP:V in edit summary would be better. While I disagree with the categorization as minor for some of his edits, looks like a good candidate for admin. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t11:44z
    More accidental deletions of text at bottom of articles, this time on this page at 2006-05-20t17:22:27z. I'll change my vote to oppose if you don't fix your software, or check after every edit to make sure it hasn't happened and then fix it yourself if it has. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-20t22:07z
    Thanks for the feedback, Jeandré. The page truncation issue is new, and I honestly have no idea why its happening. I use Firefox exclusively, but edit boxes are served up with truncated text — even shift-refreshing has no effect. Coming back later will mostly cause it to be served in completion. Because the popups I use utilise javascript to automatically click "save page", it is sometimes unavoidable, and then trying to repair it by hand still results in truncated text, effectively leaving me unable to fix it. I will try using Konqueror for a while to see if it is consistent over browsers. But rest assured that I try to always go back to the page history and diff it, just to be sure, although I am just human and do forget sometimes. dewet|✉ 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support this user. Lankiveil 23:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Although you should check the anon's contrib after you revert it... Fetofs Hello! 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Cautious support William M. Connolley 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support For the reasons stated above. Mr. Turcottetalk 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support He does really good job in Wikipedia. Daniel5127, 23:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Mostly Rainy 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Stuart Steedman 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) - A respected authority in most articles of South African flavour.[reply]
  54. Support. The comments under the oppose heading are good, but overall I see Dewet as a careful and knowledgable editor who understands the comments, will take them to heart, and will properly use the tools. -- DS1953 talk 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Valuable editor, will make a great admin. I once asked Dewet for help, believing he was an admin. He promtly helped fix the problem without a fuss, despite that we had disagreed over some edits. --Ezeu 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment vis-a-vis the WP:BITE concerns. I have come across Dewet occasionally, and I do not see any need for worry. When the article Nelson Mandela was close to create a divide between the few but vocal African editors, Dewet, with one edit, calmed the situation. Dewet has, as far as I know, the qualities of a good admin.--Ezeu 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Back to Support' Jaranda wat's sup 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Looks good, he positively responded to constructive criticism and sought to correct himself.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose, per the below text taken from his userpage, which suggests that he inherently assumes ill faith of anonymous users. —CuiviénenT|C, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 22:42 UTC
I've removed the text because it was causing formatting problems, but it can be read on his userpage still (concerning anonymous editors). —CuiviénenT|C|M, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 23:24 UTC
His attitude is a bit harsher than many, but does not seem egregious. If he genuinely checks the edit before (and no reason to suppose he does not), whether or not he has access to the rollback button should not make a huge difference. Martinp 23:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so much concerned about access to rollback as the anti-new-user attitude that underlies the statement. By his description, I would expect him to review the edit, but an edit being "suspicious" does not seem like a criterion for automatic reverting. It's holding anonymous users to higher standards than normal users, something we need to avoid. —CuiviénenT|C|M, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 23:47 UTC
Moved to Neutral. —CuiviénenT|C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 01:18 UTC
Thanks for you comments, as well as those below. Firstly, I didn't realise that it would evoke such a heated response; It is a statement of fact, not of opinion, since this is exactly what vandal control is about. Yes, I do check every edit — I do not just revert from my watchlist. In fact, a lot of very useful contributions to South African articles were made by persons wishing to remain anonymous, and I have respect for that. However, as I also stated in my answers below, I deal with vandalism daily, and 99% of those are simple and plain &mash; my statement of reverting is a statement of "erring on the side of caution", since I've come across articles were very subtle vandalism went undiscovered only until very late. Lastly, any change that is motivated in any way (edit summary, talk page, etc.) will not be subject to this reaction — this is exactly what other contributors need to assess the validity of any addition: motivation and/or debate. Thanks, dewet|✉ 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per Cuivienen - this person does not need the rollback button to make this behavior even easier. --Cyde Weys 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, we cannot have an administrator biased against anon contributions, even if "the change seems unmerited or suspicious in any way" (which is subjective until you confirm it by viewing the diff), and "said contributor didn't even bother to include an edit summary" (many anons perform typo or spelling corrections without). Kimchi.sg 03:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per above concern about attitude towards anons. Furthermore, note that having the comment on the user page where anons who see it will likely be offended/turned off and admins are some of the people who will come into the most contact with new users. JoshuaZ 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments as well; in addition to my response above, I'd like to state that that is the exact reason I put it on my user page. I've been asked on my talk page before by the very anons who've I've reverted why I did it; this is an attempt to explain myself pre-emptively. If you feel it comes over in a negative way, I'd be more than happy to refactor the whole section. Thanks, dewet|✉ 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose Per JoshuaZ; if new users get the impression that anonymous editors are shot on sight, that doesn't really help Wikipedia. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 04:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments as well. In addition to what I've said to JoshuaZ, I will state categorically that anons are in no way shot on sight by myself; I invite you to confirm this in my contributions, but my idea throughout is to evoke discussion. Also, the rollback tool is not suitable for this. Thanks, dewet|✉ 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That may not be your intention, but that definitely is not what it sounds like. I think it would be a good idea to remove it as it does come over in a negative way. joturner 05:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for the response; I've refactored the text somewhat to hopefully appear less negative and more constructive. dewet|✉ 05:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks better, in my opinion. joturner 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for changing it at least; it probably wasn't your intention, but you could come off hostile to people who visit a page saying "We don't like anons!" Also, your edits are spaced well; I just have one last bone to pick in the fact that you say yourself "I don't in any way see me as a full-time RC or AfD patroller." Well, I'm not saying that only AfD and RC patrollers need SysOp rights, but there are tools that provide a rollback button without you being an admin. So a little more insight into why you need the priviledges would be helpful. And finally, there is the issue of project edits; I'm not one to oppose on base of edits, but you may want to consider involving yourself more at aforementioned AfD, MfD, MiscfD, etc. Anyway, hope all goes well! Master of Puppets That's hot. 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose More experince would be better - low project contributions and looks like a lot of his edits are reverts. --Doc ask? 09:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose due to lack of Wikipedia space edits, suggests that policy knowledge may not be up to admin standards. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Per WP:BITE concerns. DGX 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was invited here to furthur comment on this RFA, I will assume good faith and do so. I feel this editor has a ton of potential as an admin, but his semi-agressive tone with new editors is a little problem. Wikipedia namespace edit count is fairly low. I would suggest taking time to get more involved with the process of Wikipedia namespace like AFD/CFD/TFD etc. Try to find the time to make actual article contributions rather than reverts of vandalism. Great article editing can always change the way editors see your POV toward a situation. Please, if this nomination doesn't pass, try again in 2-3 months and I will surely vote support. DGX 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per WP:BITE concerns -- Tawker 16:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose after reading this archive in its entirety. What sealed it were the words "purposely obtuse" (in this diff) directed at a longtime editor who has done a great deal of good work to clarify page naming guidelines. Jonathunder 21:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for commenting. Of course, its completely your prerogative to use that incident against me, since I did bring it up in my answers below. However, the three things that stand out for me is: (1) The debate was extremely passionate, since it was a South African topic and most regular contributors jumped in; (2) It happened well over a year ago, and I'm certain I learned a lot from that to temper my behaviour in the mean time — I cannot recall any other incident since where things have flared up that badly; (3) I am not harbouring any resentment towards PBS — in fact, I consider him a valuable resource, and he has even pointed me to new articles that I can research — and I do believe the same is true on his side. I've asked him to comment here as well. Thanks, dewet|✉ 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "One swallow does not make a summer". There is a steep learning curve on Wikipedia talk pages, and many of us, with no less passion approach advocacy on talk pages differently with time. Dewet and I may hold a different POV on some issues but as the link above shows, we are able to use that to help create better Wikipedia articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Jonathunder above. Sounds rather stubborn, and I'm concerned he might apply admin tools too aggressively or get involved in a wheel war. --Elkman - (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you as well. In addition to my response to Johnathunder above, I'd like to bring up the fact that I've never been even warned for violating the 3RR or for incivility; as I've tried to highlight in my third answer below, I try to find middle ground or acceptable compromise — not steamrollering. Even my nom has said that of me. I urge you to judge me by my actions, which speak for themselves! Thanks, dewet|✉ 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit flabbergasted at Dewet being characterised as stubborn, aggressive or likely to get involved in a wheel war. That is not my experience of him at all, please look at his contributions. Regards, Elf-friend 11:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. As of now, I am concerned about his understanding of the wiki-concept in totality. --Bhadani 11:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy of his message from my talk page - to avoid the discussion getting fragmented: Hi; truly thanks for taking time to vote on my RfA. However, your comment makes no sense to me, and I'd really appreciate it if you could expand a bit on it. As you may have seen, I've tried to address others' concerns on the page, and I'd be happy to address yours too if you give me a bit more to work with. Thanks, dewet. --Bhadani 11:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose if all you want to do is revert, then you don't need admin tools. Popups is perfectly adequate for that. Cynical 12:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per above; I just have a bad feeling about this user. Ral315 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose for admin privileges not needed per answer to Q1. Keep up the good work as an editor! GChriss 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose There are concerns here expressed regarding editor's attitude toward anons and his inexperience in wiki-space. I believe firmly that rectifying the latter will mollify the former, and so I endorse the view that more time is needed in this case. Xoloz 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, as I'm convinced there are real WP:BITE issues. I might be convinced otherwise if there were extenuating circumstances, but I looked through edit history to figure out how Dewet's attitude toward newbies is reflect in his edits and found this edit. In my view, edits made with popups with no summary reflect likely edits made with rollback, and this edit seems to be treating as vandalism an effort by an anon to improve the content of the article. Admins have to bend over backward to be nice, even when it takes extra time, and there's too little of that on Wikipedia as it is. -- SCZenz 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. On that specific edit, I can only claim mea culpa; as a side-effect, though, what it did do, was to get the editor following me (who seems much more knowledgeable in that field) to fix it with a suitable description. In my defense, I have started proactively to prevent these kinds of mistakes: Firstly, I have started trimming down my watchlist to items which I actually know something about (prehistory not being counted under that category, and being removed), and secondly, I have simply started to let edits slide when I know I cannot make a determination about its worth — as an example, I'd rather ask a knowledgeable editor to review additions. Thanks, dewet|✉ 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who edits in physics, I would like to emphasize that (in my field at least) the people who know the most (i.e. faculty at universities) are very unlikely to have accounts, so anonymous edits may sometimes be quite accurate. In any case, I commend your willingness to listen to suggestions; if this RfA doesn't achieve consensus and you're re-nominated (after a few months of taking suggestions into account and gaining experience), I would be quite likely to reconsider my position. -- SCZenz 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice. I must admit that I tend to stay away from specialised fields of knowledge where I cannot constructively contribute (random page copyedits excepted), so for the most part I can validate contributions. But I'll definitely be more careful. dewet|✉ 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per issues raised above. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 04:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Note Duplicate vote. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 10:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, really sorry about that... wierdly enough, I did a ctrl+f search for my signature and came up empty on this RFA, so I voted. Guess I'll have to pay more attention in the future. >_< And really sorry to Dewet, who must think I hate him by now; I don't, really. Master of Puppets Your will is mine. 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I'm just not convinced he's right for the position. Royboycrashfan   21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose New users are the life blood of the project, the original text on his userpage was a little over the top and the change came only under some pressure from this RFA. It would have been nice to see the adjustment occur before it drew so much attention. Also, I'm not crazy about this remark, I don't think editors opposing here would agree that they are just following the crowd. And in general I'm also not crazy about all the questioning of votes he and others have done on various opposers talk pages. Rx StrangeLove 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree, and I've never not agreed with that sentiment. If I've broken some unwritten rule where I cannot question or ask for feedback on my RfA, then I apologise. I've acted in good faith throughout, and expected it from everyone who contributes here. My comment to SCZenz was at a time when I felt quite despondent, since it seems like everyone just takes one standpoint based on what somebody else said (cf. Joturner's axiom 26). I've tried to ask everyone who voted oppose to give me some direction — I don't claim to be perfect — but very few actually came back and answered me. I am flexible: for that exact reason I have changed my user page — not because I am under pressure, but because I can appreciate the different viewpoints brought here that it could be hurtful to some people. The reason it changed only now is because it has only become an issue now — never before have I experience such a backlash against something that (at least to me) seems simple. And finally, I still maintain that WP:BITE is a non-issue; besides what was on my user page, nobody provided any diffs or somesuch to show me what I can change. In fact, I've provided evidence to support the opposite. dewet|✉ 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per the above concerns.--cj | talk 05:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose and advise candidate to diversify his contributions by both namespace and topic. — May. 24, '06 [10:17] <freak|talk>

Neutral

  1. Per WP:BITE concerns. Will support future RfAs when there is an improvement in attitude towards newbies. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking time to post feedback; however, I would (again) like to state that I have no anti-anon bias. I have welcomed numerous anons personally ([26] as a good example, also [27], [28], [29], [30]; all of these in the past ~2 months), whom I'd like to believe did become members of our community. I have also reworked the section in question — do you still feel that it is too aggressive, or can you suggest other improvements? Thanks again, dewet|✉ 12:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a quick reply. I'll look into this again in a while. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. More edits at project pages will be better, but I do not oppose.--Jusjih 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, doesn't really have that many edits for 2 years and bias against anons while hard to avoid isn't a great trait. However I think user could do a good job with adminship. Gateman1997 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I've had a change of heart on my oppose vote. I still don't think I can support, but the concern seems a bit petty to me now. —CuiviénenT|C, Friday, 19 May 2006 @ 01:18 UTC
  5. Neutral, a few concerns here, by no means a bad candidate but would prefer to see the oppose points addressed before a strong RfA #2 in a couple of months. Deizio talk 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Seems sensible, but the WP:BITE stuff coming from people who usually are of sound judgement, and the fact all he wants to do is revert, make me vote "Go Team Switzerland" on this one. Proto||type 14:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - if it weren't for the concerns about your attitude towards the newbies (remember, everyone was a newbie once, even you), I wouldn't have a problem supporting you. Alphax τεχ 05:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - While I would always like to help out a fellow South African, I am a little concerned. I tend to vote very conservatively when it comes to awarding adminship, so this has nothing to do with the new user controversy. I am more concerned by what Dewet would do with his admin powers if he had them. His post on the topic seemed to indicate that he would not actively participate in some of the activities admins are sometimes expected to partake in. So I suppose I would like clarification before I can vote anything but neutral. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username	Dewet
Total edits	2800
Distinct pages edited	1324
Average edits/page	2.115
First edit	16:50, September 10, 2004
	
(main)	1854
Talk	248
User	111
User talk	421
Image	13
MediaWiki talk	1
Template	16
Template talk	1
Category	5
Wikipedia	115
Wikipedia talk	13
Portal	2
 G.He 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Dewet (over the 2713 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 585 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 17, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 10, September, 2004
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 84.12% Minor edits: 80.04%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 90.2% Minor article edits: 90.32%
Average edits per day (current): 4.64
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 6.78% (184)
Unique pages edited: 1204 | Average edits per page: 2.25 | Edits on top: 12.61%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 20.72%
Minor edits (non reverts): 46.41%
Marked reverts: 28.64%
Unmarked edits: 4.24%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 67.31% (1826) | Article talk: 9.03% (245)
User: 3.91% (106) | User talk: 14.12% (383)
Wikipedia: 3.69% (100) | Wikipedia talk: 0.48% (13)
Image: 0.55% (15)
Template: 0.59% (16)
Category: 0.18% (5)
Portal: 0.07% (2)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.07% (2)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I don't in any way see me as a full-time RC or AfD patroller; I try to focus on content, layout and the encyclopædia. That said, however, I often long for the ability to do a quick rollback (since popups/firefox seem to be inconsistent in their stability sometimes) on articles in my watchlist — I seem to be interested in such eclectic articles that draw vandals like a magnet. Also, I have struggled to get some page moves done over existing redirects (since I like to organise disambig pages sometimes). In summary: its for the 5% of times when it'd be incredibly useful to have admin abilities, not for the 95% of normal work that I do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I like to translate articles to and from Afrikaans (see my contributions and my user page for examples), copyediting promising and non-MoS-conformant articles ([31] [32] [33] as a few examples), researching and expanding stubs or starting new articles (for example, Afrikaans Language Monument, Huguenot Monument, Acacia erioloba, George Weideman, 2006 Table Mountain fire) — including any photography and images related to the subject — about various things that may hold my interest at the moment.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Certainly. For instance, on Battle of Spion Kop, there was a protracted and heated argument as to whether it should be moved to what would today be the correct name of the article ("Battle of Spioenkop"), in much the same debate as happened on the renaming of Kolkata. The discussion can be seen at Talk:Battle of Spion Kop/Archive 1, and I feel that I acted level-headed and professionally with the editors there. I try to find a middle ground ([34] after discussion) and therefore tend toward being inclusionistic and representativistic(!). I've interacted with editors on the left and right ends of the South African historic and political spectrum in trying to find middle and NPOV grounds. I've questioned other editors when I feel that they've erred (Talk:Before Christ), but always kept it friendly, if not at least civil.
The above 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.

CorbinSimpson

Final (13/30/4) ended 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CorbinSimpson (talk · contribs) – I nominate CorbinSimpson. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With the community's permission, I accept this nomination. Corbin Simpson 05:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Though number of edits isn't the highest, contributions are weighty and quality. The editor also respects other's opinions, as shown by his willingness to kill his old, psychedelic signature to make way for a simpler one due to concerns raised by other editors; question answers are well written; and again, number of edits doesn't matter that much, as it is the contributions themselves and their quality that makes a difference. Mopper Speak! 05:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, good edits from a good reliable editor that seems trustworthy with the powers of adminship. Seems to make sense to me. Gateman1997 06:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Experienced and trustworthy enough in my opinion. DarthVader 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. John Freeman has two speeds: Walk very fast, and backflip. In other words, that's a LUE support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talk • contribs)
  6.   Support Great wikipedian. I know him in real life and he is all ways on/working on wikipedia. Give him the mop and see how he does. In my opinion he would do great. --Actown e 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Adminship is no big deal. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You sure about that one? If you were to give a new user sysop powers, would you trust him to use them correctly? To even know what rollback was? What if a bad admin comes along: is it a big deal if he reverted good edits for no reason? Is it a big deal if he gives Wikipedia a bad name because he knowingly makes articles worse? Without scrutinizing canidates properly, everyone would be an admin, and that can't happen. So tell me, is adminship "no big deal"? A joke? Or is it a position of responsibility? --NomaderTalk 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support He really deserves it with all his edits. Eisenhower (at war or at peace) (Project) (UTC) 19:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support ForestH2
  10. Support per nom, my boy MOP, and, of course, Siva. Joe 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - quality over quantity. This user's edits are quality. Lankiveil 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Agree with users above. Sarge Baldy 19:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose The only thing I have a problem with right now is the relatively low editcount (about 1400). However, the contributions are really good. If you ever get nominated again down the road, I'm likely to support your RfA. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Full oppose after further review, per Jocturner below. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 07:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose I'll try my best to avoid the glaring lack of edits; I won't oppose you on those grounds (although I'm so tempted to). However, you admit in your answers that [you're] not really a big writer. I see many of your edits in the past month are to similar articles - on Japanese characters. I'd prefer to see more involvement in articles. I'm especially curious about this edit summary and this edit summary (unnecessary cursing) as well as this edit summary (I have no idea what it's supposed to mean). I also think you need to calm down here. You say in your answers that I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I will never use blocking, rollbacks, insults, threats, rough language, or incivilities when talking to anybody, be it IP, user, administrator, or bureaucrat. I'm not getting that impression. If I ever do, I will have violated the ideal of decency and etiquette which holds this place together. Exactly. I'd like to be available to users to perform conflict resolution expediently and calmly, Again, I'm not getting that impression. This seems to indicate that you have the tendency to lose your cool at times. We are all human, and that is understandable, but admins need to be able to count to ten before saying something they'll later regret. On top of that, this could be construed as vote stacking and you say that you'll participate in blocking and unblocking, but I don't see much current involvement in reverting vandalism and, especially, providing warnings to vandals. joturner 06:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In defense of CorbinSimpson, I will copy what he posted to my talk page:
    I'll respond to you here. If you want my reply to appear on my RfA, you can move it there — I don't much mind either way. However, I'd like to tell the truth.
    I do curse occasionally in edit summaries. Edit summaries, to me at least, are self-reflective and notative; as such, I do say things in them that I do not say on talk pages. Nonetheless, I still don't violate attack policy with them. I do admit that I'm not surprised that you might not be acquainted with Alice's Restaurant. I can't excuse my rude and possibly uncivil comments on the AfD that you linked to...after all, "Excuses are the nails that you use to build your house of failure," or so the saying goes.
    I won't deny that I don't revert much vandalism. I'm always beaten to reversion on Special:Recentchanges, and only occasionally am I the first one to notice vandalism on my Watchlist. However, I do patrol Special:Newpages often, and mark or tag articles as they are created. I usually don't warn editors because I've found that if I actually focus on assuming good faith, I notice that many articles are not created maliciously. They're created by ignorant newcomers who deserve a {{welcome}}, not a {{warn}}.
    Actown is a friend and student who works with me fixing computers. He's the one that insisted I join Esperanza. My comment on his talk page was an expression of incredulity, as we had been discussing adminship earlier in the day. I am well aware of the policies on voting and vote stacking, and I am also aware that Actown may well vote against me if he votes at all.
    Thanks for your comments — they make me a better editor! CorbinSimpson 06:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I am familiar w/ Alice's Restaurant, but I don't see how it signifies in the edit summary. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per the low main space involvement and also per Joturner abakharev 07:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above. --Rory096 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Rory096. --Computerjoe's talk 09:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per joturner and also very low experience, please try again in three months and get some experience on AFD first. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose, does not warn vandals after reverting their changes. To quote TigerShark, the {{test1}} warning is more important than the rollback button. Kimchi.sg 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. The user is on the way to adminship, but not there yet. CorbinSimpson, if there are occasional civility issues now, wait until you have to deal with an editor who thinks you (are abusing your powers/are out to get me/have no life outside Wikipedia/etc.). RadioKirk talk to me 12:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Needs much more experience.--Jusjih 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per joturner -- Tawker 14:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Joturner. Also, this diff suggesting "a high level of corruption" suggests a lack of belief in consensus. --Elkman - (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose.Not enough experience.Bharatveer 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per joturner--Deville (Talk) 18:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Kimchi.sg, and due to fairly low edit count, and the general nature of the edits. --Wisden17 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per above. Not enough contributions/experience.—G.He 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose as per joturner + inexperience. Nephron  T|C 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - the diffs that joturner have identified leads me to believe that promotion would be unsafe. - Richardcavell 00:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose the diff from Elkman demonstrates that this user doesn't understand what they are asking for. Jkelly 02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per low edit count and This Edit leads me to believe user is not ready for adminship.  :) Dlohcierekim 03:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per joturner. --Terence Ong 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per above. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Low edit count. DGX 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Not enough experience. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose: foul language in edit summaries make for a poor editing environment and do not well-qualify one for adminship, in my view. Jonathunder 22:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I think a little more experience is required. --Bhadani 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Per joturner and because of the low main space edits. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong oppose for poor judgment, "J'accuse" posturing, and unsupported conspiracy theories in the recent affair of User:Thewolfstar, all of it well illustrated by this post on ANI. It's rather long, but for anybody interested in more light on some of the candidate's views which don't come out in the Standard Questions, I strongly recommend a read-through. The diff posted by Elkman above is if possible even more illuminating. Bishonen | talk 16:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  28. Oppose per Bishonen and others. SushiGeek 19:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose: I understand folks getting frustrated, but the answer is more careful and open minded discussion, not more furtive glances and rallying of the troops. I'm concerned that disagreeing with blocks might turn into overturning blocks and additional factionalism. Geogre 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Low edit count and somewhat unconvincing answers. Royboycrashfan   21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong oppose. Serious concern this user would abuse the tools due to past errors in judgement and association with users involved in the "anti-censorship" undercurrent. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. The user has good intentions but could use some more practice before getting the mop. Still, I won't oppose so I prefer a neutral vote. --Tone 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, per Tone. Deizio talk 00:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, seems close to admin material, but frivilous use of strong language is worrisome. Would like to see a little more sensitivity. Still, not enough to oppose. If such comments are taken onboard and another request be forthcoming, i'll support then. Rockpocket (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Not admin material, but nearly there. Has good intentions.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username	CorbinSimpson
Total edits	1477
Distinct pages edited	845
Average edits/page	1.748
First edit	22:25, December 15, 2005
	
(main)	748
Talk	102
User	113
User talk	221
Image	49
Template	8
Category	3
Category talk	2
Wikipedia	222
Wikipedia talk	9
 G.He 00:07, 24 May 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I suppose it's unavoidable to assume that a good amount of time will be spent blocking and unblocking. I'd like to be available to users to perform conflict resolution expediently and calmly, and I also want to get more involved with the deletion process. I'd like to think that I have a neutral view of policy and that my interpretation of it is consistent with consensus, and that I could be a great help on clearing backlogs, specifically those which do not require new content. In essence, administrative powers are useful only for a small bit of daily life here, and they are restricted heavily by policy. As recepient of those powers, I would be obligated to carry out the duties placed upon me by the community.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Hmm. That's a good question. I'm not really a big writer. I've done stubs for the 1911 project, added a few infoboxes for a few different projects, tagged images, and cleared the backlog for kana articles. I'm very active fixing grammar, and have cleaned up a few articles here and there. I've also evaluated a few Good Article nominations. To be honest, I'm sort of surprised that I have as many edits as I do now — I tend to focus on making quality edits, rather than making dozens of small minor edits which do next to nothing for the encyclopedia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have never been in any personal conflicts, or at least no problems which I consider uniquely mine. However, I have seen personal attacks, legal threats, all kinds of civility violations, and misuse of paralanguage. I've seen people banned right before my eyes. I've learned that the correct way to deal with any conflict is by discussion. Most editors are willing to calm down and talk about any edits or problems. My personal guideline is to watch paralanguage closely and assume good faith as much as possible. After all, people tend to type just as they speak, and I think we've all said stuff we don't mean.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I will never use blocking, rollbacks, insults, threats, rough language, or incivilities when talking to anybody, be it IP, user, administrator, or bureaucrat. If I ever do, I will have violated the ideal of decency and etiquette which holds this place together.
Oh, and I tend not to get very much Wikistress. I've been helping other people with problems for a long time, and dealing with stress acquired here is much easier than stress accumulated offline.
The above 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.

Joturner

Final (123/45/4) ended 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner (talk · contribs) – I first came to Wikipedia in June 2005, but began to only occasionally engage in the project not long after some active participation in July. However, since mid-December, I have put in five active months into Wikipedia, amassing over 6,200 edits. I participate in many aspects of the project, putting a significant amount of work into both articles and project pages; I participate in both RC patrolling and article for deletion discussion. Last month, I put a significant amount of work into raising an article to featured status and this month I am an avid editor of the Main Page Errors page, making sure the threshold to the English Wikipedia is looking its best. I communicate a great deal with other editors via the user talk pages and the article talk pages, allowing me to improve my people and communication skills. I always remain civil even in the heat of the battle; I have earned two barnstars for my continued civility and my talk page is a testament to the positive interaction I have had with other editors.

I accepted a nomination back in March, but it didn't pass with 69% of voters (not including neutral voters) supporting my nomination. Since then, I have kept the suggestions and comments of the oppose and neutral voters in mind, and continued to contribute to Wikipedia, expanding my editing scope and remaining active for a few more months. More recently, I filed an editor review for myself and contacted many of the oppose voters from my first RfA for feedback. I am always willing to accept criticism and improve accordingly; that resiliency is essential for an admin candidate. And so now, based on the comments in my editor review, general comments from the community, and my range of beneficial contributions to the project, I believe I, as well as the English Wikipedia Project as a whole, would benefit if I were to be given adminship. joturner 03:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Absolutely. joturner 03:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Vote count, end time, support, opposition, technicalities, campaigning, notification, responding, religion, editcountitis, length of tenure, time since last nomination, neutrality, bias, civility, incivility, eagerness, humility, trust, and distrust aside, I know consensus when I see it. This is certainly not consensus and therefore there is no need to continue this debacle. joturner 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I co-nominate. Computerjoe's talk 09:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please treat this as my co-nomination too. Better late than never! --Bhadani 15:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We've decided to extend this nomination to solidify the community consensus. Please review all the relevant information before giving your views and provide expanded reasoning so consensus can be determined. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support again. Still see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 04:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support And my earlier comments apply, look at his contribution history. Jo clearly has been able to edit very effectively in a NPOV way. JoshuaZ 04:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support jaco♫plane 04:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I beat the Nominator support Shh, humor me. Anyway; excellent user, no problems at all. Mopper Speak! 04:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Edit conflict Support No problems here. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per all above,  :) Dlohcierekim 04:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Just remember that your userpage is your "face", and as such it must be neutral. Otherwise, I see no evidence that you'll abuse admin tools.--MONGO 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to oppose--MONGO 20:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Wishing you the best. michael talk 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I was just checking over failed RfAs and looking for admin candidates, and I was mindful of Joturner; I'm still surprised that he bombed out last time. - Richardcavell 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Your userpage is even better now. :) Johnleemk | Talk 04:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - per above. Kukini 04:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support. Excellent user. Will make a fine admin. --TantalumTelluride♪ 05:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Roooowwwwwr, I'm a lion!!! Mop? Definitely. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 05:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Joturner and I have often contributed to the same AfD and RfA discussions. I have sometimes come to the same conclusion as Jo, and at least as often we've come down on different sides of the debate. But his reasoning has always been excellent and made me think again about my position. I have every reason to believe he'll be a fine admin. Gwernol 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support he'll do well with the tools. I've always been more than pleased with his contributions -- Samir धर्म 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per above abakharev 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, good editor. --Terence Ong 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support Knowledgeable, civil, experienced, and confident--Joturner would make an excellent administrator. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support, we need more admins and this is a perfect candidate. --Rory096 08:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Great user. DarthVader 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Co-nom! --Computerjoe's talk 09:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Palmiro | Talk 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - last RfA showed you can take criticism calmly, which is exactly the type of attitude we need in an admin. You can be trusted with the mop, I'm sure. Kimchi.sg 12:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - I haven't had much interaction with this user, but I've seen them crop up here & there & have liked what I've seen. A review of contributions hasn't changed that impression. Civil and focused on a better encyclopedia, I think that this candidate will make a thoughtful admin. BTW, I am impressed with the user page. It's personal space - I see no need to 'tone it down'. The fact that the content of the user page does not creep into the edits I've seen shows me that this editor has a good grasp of NPOV. Colonel Tom 12:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Joturner is an editor who has shown that he knows our policies and can be trusted. I was also impressed by the manner in which he responded to his failed nom. The userpage stuff doesn't bother me, if it serves to remind editors that there is a living, breathing person behind the username that's probably a good thing. Rje 12:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: good editor. Jonathunder 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Rfa cliché #1 RadioKirk talk to me 12:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Solid user with good contributions on all fields. --Tone 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support--Jusjih 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --ForestH2
  31. Support. Joturner has done a superb job with Current events and finding errors on the main page, and from what I've seen his edits are well-reasoned, and NPOV. Below, Joturner notes conflicts with User:Striver; he's not at all alone in that respect. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. This time - a sure support. He has displayed maturity during his talks. --Bhadani 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Quite thoughtful and clearly trustworthy. I recommend anyone concerned about NPOV problems read the second citation provided by Prodego. Xoloz 17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak Oppose Last time I voted neutral, so this time I wanted to be very sure about my vote. I looked through some recent edits, and here is what I found: First, what I didn't like, with the reason why: could be more civil, civility, not assuming good faith (although this (and later comments) refutes Doc glasgow's claim), no apology for a possible mistake. And now what I did like, again with the reason: helpful. Prodego talk 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC) I change my vote to support. (here is the link mentioned above [35]). Prodego talk 17:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--seems quite serious about doing what's best for the encyclopedia and growing as an editor.--Eva db 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. While understanding Doc glasgow's objections, I'm going to support this nomination. As an agnostic, I'm impressed by the nominee's religious devotion, particularly by the articulate and personal manner in which he expresses it. Beyond that, he appears to be a good editor. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, I've been wracking my brain about where I've seen this user before, but I'm sure it was positive. After looking over this RfA and the user's contributions, I have no reason to believe that he will abuse the admin tools. This user shows general familiarity with Wikipedia processes and procedures, and has a history of good edits to a variety of different topics. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I stated on this editor's previous RfA that I'd support with the passage of a little more time (and more experience). Seems likely to be a good admin.--Alabamaboy 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support for many reasons, including involvement, helpfulness, just being good for the project in general, but the most hopeful thing I see is this second link of Prodego's. That was a textbook example of what a Wikipedia editor should do in that situation. -- Deville (Talk) 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support And I must say you've got the coolest looking userpage. Ever. Bastique▼parlervoir 20:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support ForestH2 already voted
  45. Strong support - I was impressed by this editor's attitude on various issues. —Khoikhoi 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, I couldn't care less about someone's userpage or personal beliefs, and Prodego's link removes any POV concerns I might have had. BryanG 00:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support. Pepsidrinka 01:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support The user seems neutral and rational. --ManiF 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Kusma (討論) 02:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Per above and my last support two months ago. GizzaChat © 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support as nominator for his first request. Deserves it. NSLE (T+C) at 05:23 UTC (2006-05-18)
  52. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support but with a nod to Taxman's editcountitis concerns below. Joturner is a great contributor and will make a fantastic admin. His userpage is/was fine (or certainly no worse than those of many other editors/admins) and I encourage him to bring back the timeline. — GT 07:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 08:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support --Canderous | Talk 09:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --Andy123 talk 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. "Adminship is no big deal". - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per DS1953 (#1) and Mackensen (#37). —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Liberatore(T) 15:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, I'm satisfied that Joturner is an NPOV editor (even editing against his own POV when necessary), understands and follows policy, is respectful and reasonable to others; I'm also impressed by his dedication, bringing articles up to Featured status, and he is quite articulate, especially for 17. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, a lot to consider here but I'm happy to support. Jo, you know a lot of people will be watching your mopping very closely. If you continue to develop as an editor you'll do fine. Deizio talk 02:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be okay with people watching me closely. The scrutiny would only help me "develop as an editor," as you said. joturner 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support His contributions to the articles far outweigh any minor concerns I night have. Joelito (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strongly Support I am also in. --Aminz 02:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strongly support. Love your userpage as it now stands. I hope you'll put the talent you showed in making it to use more in creating content and less in mucking about with admin powers. Grace Note 06:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, I've followed Joturner's editing style for awhile now and I've found it to be very fair and reasoned. In my experience he has demonstrated a very real capacity for being neutral in his editing on the religious topics that both he and I frequent. Good luck Joturner! Netscott 08:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, a qualified and considerate editor.Bless sins 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak Support, I'm a little concerned about whether he is able to compromise sufficiently (or, at all) in volatile situations. I believe he is learning, though. Ted 08:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Easy one. Dedicated to task at hand. - Irishpunktom\talk 09:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, pleasant, and level-headed. His religious beliefs have never seemed to impinge negatively upon his contributions to Wikipedia, and there's no real reason why they would in the future. Proto||type 10:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Great user, will be a great asset to the admin community.. He has very good technical knowledge of the wikipedia as well.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 11:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per Mackensen. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC) No longer supporting. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weak Support I dont know much about him, but the few times we meet was in opposite sides of disputes. Although we did'nt come to any concensus, i perceived him as reasonable. --Striver 11:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. What!? I didn't already...Support. WerdnaTc@bCmLt 12:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - No doubt Joturner and I will disagree from time to time, but I'm sure he'll be fair in his admin actions or recuse himself if he can't be. Tom Harrison Talk 13:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --Jibran1 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support He's willing to listen to the community and I think he will be a trustworthy admin. I hope I'm not wrong, but I'm willing to assume good faith on this one. --kingboyk 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - believe this user will rise to the task. bd2412 T 15:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support -- Deserved. Szvest 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  81. Support - For the second time. Afonso Silva 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Great editor; good person; will make a fine editor. Bucketsofg✐ 00:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Seems to be a great user in all regards. The user page is not an issue for me. Canderson7 (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. - I can see an editor, who despite having his own POV is able to edit neutrally - OTOH his POV is even needed to balance the adminteam as a whole. Agathoclea 11:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. There are very few Muslims administrators around and wikipedia is POOR when it comes to Muslim related articles. Many articles have many mistakes and few also just a propoganda against Islam. For example see Dhimmi article. I hope you will help in making such article more neutral. --- Faisal 11:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you expect joturner's adminship to contribute to the improvement of Islam-related articles? By joturner's blocking disagreeing users and protecting Islam-related articles in the version favoring your POV? Pecher Talk 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I never said I would do that; see the answer to User:Timothy Usher's first question. I can't tell whether Pecher is implying I said that at one point or whether he just thinks Faisal believes that (for now, I'll stick with the latter). joturner 17:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter, of course. I'm afraid Faisal sees adminship in general and your adminship in particular in a completely wrong light: to improve the quality of articles, one need not be an admin, not even an editor with a username, by the way. Therefore, I feel it necessary for you to make it very clear for Faisal that he will not be able to "take advantage" of your being an admin if your nomination passes. Pecher Talk 17:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, Pecher, is doesn't hurt to assume good faith once in a while. --Telex 17:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Telex, assuming that it needs Muslim administrators to improve articles on Islam as Faisal does is wrong and not a good thing, and I don't appreciate the gap that widens here, it leads the wrong way. That said, developments seemingly can't be hindered anymore. So the response to the Muslim Guild might be a non Muslim Guild to ensure NPOV, if not by consensus, than by debatte. --tickle me 14:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish if you could understand the meaning of neutral I had written above. Without understanding its meaning one cannot make Dhimmi a neutral article. Pecher when did I said that J. will block you from imposing your POV in Dhimmi? It is your imagination and nothing else. --- Faisal 12:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - I see no compelling reason not to. Strong religious views should not be a bar to adminship. --Telex 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - while some of the overt religiousness on your userpage frightens me, I see no evidence that you let your faith lead you to POV, and I see no reason why you should not have the tools. Lankiveil 23:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. support Shanes 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --M@thwiz2020 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support version 2.0. Great user, will be a fine administrator. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. All experiences with this user have been positive. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Joe I 04:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Hopefully WP:100 support... Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. --Ian Pitchford 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Intelligent and nice personality. Unhesitant to communicate differences with other editors, and wherever reasonable, lead him to compromise. Just as most of us seek the meaning of life and harbour the answer on something else, he is currently found it in Islam. Surely it is only one step of his long journey, so let him grow. For me, his prior version of user page was nothing more than reflection of sincerity. - madyasiwi 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - good and neutral editor. Very close to 100. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - looks like I make an even 100. Respect for Wikipedia seems another "strong personal view" of this editor, which should allay some people's concerns. Hopefully Axiom 26 is now in doubt! David Oberst 21:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - I initially supported last time then got scared off. In hindsight, as I knew from the beginning how he was dealing with Striver, trying to keep NPOV, my reaction to switch was ill-informed,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  101. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support will be a good admin --rogerd 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support only seen good things from this user.--Alhutch 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support per Gwernol. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. I was originally concerned about this user's ability to maintain NPOV in religious matters (mostly because of how his user page looked before the last admin request [36]). However, after looking at some of his edits, I am now convinced that he is fully able to edit NPOV. -- Heptor talk 14:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I have observed Joturner to be balanced and civil. I think he shows respect and fairness. Tyrenius 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, good nomination. Royboycrashfan   21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. youngamerican (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. I added this RfA to my watchlist in order to keep a close track of J's comments and reactions to oppose votes, as well as his general edits regarding this discussion. Since I don't like to switch sides, I wanted more info before actually voting, and I feel I'm ready. Jo, I'm still concerned about the way in which you will actualy act as an admin, since the sole idea of wheel warring (or other equally dangerous episodes) over religious issues terrify me; but so far I have only seen you take the matter wisely and with good judgement. I'm willing to trust you. Please, honor our trust. Best of luck to you, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - I look forward to more valuable contributions from Joturner. --Ben Houston 04:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support, been watching this one for days before realizing that I forgot to add my own vote in. I admire Jordan both in the context of Wikipedia and what he's revealed about his personal life via his user page (although I would advise shortening it some). Will make a fine admin. Tijuana BrassE@ 06:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, (Changed from neutral) seems like a really open-minded and knowledgeable editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Perfect nominate for the job --K a s h Talk | email 09:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support After reading through the objections, it seems that even in the worst light, Joturner comes off as a very reasonable person. As for his userpage, it seems a little excessive (though not much) but it's mostly his actions that count in my book. I don't subscribe to the view that we need more Muslim admins though (maybe more Muslim editors, but admins are supposed to serve the community not impose their views). Who I think we need as admins (and I believe largely have) are reasonable people like Joturner. Good Luck. Captainj 12:50, 23 May 2006
  116. Support; no signs of edit warring or incivility, and lots of experience here. I'm thoroughly intrigued at those who want less information about a candidate's beliefs—we all have biases; better to admit them than pretend they don't exist. Being a strong muslim carries no less bias than being a strong agnostic. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "who want less information": As for me, it's not the display of information, but the content. Judging so, I take Joturner as a Salafi, and I don't like the way WP is going in that respect. --tickle me 23:52, 23 May 2006
    Tickle me, please stop saying I'm a Salafi. I already stated that I'm not one and your reasoning behind continuing to believe I am (not eating kosher food) is both a) unfounded (I have never said that I don't eat kosher food) and b) factually incorrect (not eating kosher food has nothing to do with being a Salafi). In addition, I am largely uninvolved with the conversation you refer to in your second link as it was Aminz who mentioned this RfA to others (of whom five opposed). joturner 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "not eating kosher food": yes, I'm inferring that. "Although I have heard of the many rulings regarding the consumption of food slaughtered by other People of the Book, my ultimate objective is still to eat the traditional halal meat" leaves no other sensible interpretation. "not eating kosher food has nothing to do with being a Salafi": It's not a Salafi axiom indeed, it just follows of the doctrine and is thus indicative. --tickle me 05:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - --Zereshk 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - per above. -- Deepblue06 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support per 25 (Colonel) above, POV doesn't "bleed through" to other areas. The only contrary evidence I could find was this, and it's a fairly mild. As to reasonable concerns about his userpage, I would strongly support if joturner would create a personal subpage of his userpage for nonwikipedia stuff. Excellent userpage, btw. He strikes me as exceptionally level-headed even in heated debates about Islam-related topics. --Chaser (T) 03:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing Bureaucrat; the following votes were added after the official RfA ended.
  120. Support per MPerel. — TheKMantalk 14:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, this vote, and all others after it, came after the 4:07 (UTC) end time. joturner 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Weak support, controversy isn't enough of a reason to deny adminship to an otherwise good user. Just be careful out there. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support, I don't think someones RFA should be opposed based on their choice of being "agressively religious on their user page." Most of the opposition votes seem to be deeply rooted in paranoia of having someone "different" as an admin. I reject it. Also, I don't understand people who state that the candidates improvement in recent months since the previous RFA is just part of a campgaign. That makes no sense! IF he did not incorporate changes in his behavior to answer the criticism from the previous RFA, he would be damned. And apparently, he is damned for doing so too. Wonderful logic we have going here. --Blacksun 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Late Support; User page certainly now seems balanced (and quite beautiful), and user has been impressively fair and level headed with regards this RFA, although a wider edit spectrum would be nice. smurrayinchester(Talk) 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose whilst quietly admiting your presuppositions may be helpful (so others can let you know if your bias slips in to edits) using a userpage to promote religious views and give personal testimonies leaves me suspecting this user may struggle to leave his worldview at the wiki-door. Tone down the userpage, and I may change this vote. --Doc ask? 10:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Change to neutral, since he's gone some way to meeting my concerns (thanks)- I'd like to see him go a little futher though. Userpages are not myspace - too much personal stuff does not instill confidence in NPOV. --Doc ask? 09:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I am sorry to have to do this. Having reviewed the votes at Joturner's first RfA and his userpage, I am struck by the stridency that he displays. I think being a thoroughly religious person is a terrific thing - I am one myself - and though it's fine to declare one's religion on the userpage, Joturner is being very aggressive about it, and it makes me quite uncomfortable. Joturner, I generally wish you luck in your RfA, and I suspect you need and deserve the tools, but I could not support. If you pass, I hope you are triply careful when dealing with the articles on which you hold strong partisan beliefs. (Finally, I trust nobody will make this into some stupid jew-votes-against-muslim thing. That would be a damn shame.) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tony Sidaway 20:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC) The proselytism on that user's userpage gives me serious doubts about this editor's commitment to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I also take note of Zeq's finding that this user has spammed talk pages in an active campaign for this adminship. That is absolutely unacceptable and I echo Zeq's note of concern addressed to the closing bureaucrat.[reply]
    NO VOTE/ABSTAINOppose after reviewing this, I decided I best vote my opinion and not try to vote support this time just to be nice since I voted oppose on Joturners last Rfa. I examined the userpage again and realize that it is simply not in keeping with WP:NPOV....I was also struck by comments about some admins on the userpage, namely Axiom 13:"A Wikipedia admin can get away with many actions that would cause him to fail Wikipedia:Requests for re-adminship. There's nothing like our favorite rogue admins; but it would take a unprecedented incident for any of them to be de-sysopped."--MONGO 20:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll respond to this one only because I have a feeling you misunderstood what I meant about the rogue admins. I was trying to say that that is an unfortunate thing. I will not, and don't intend to, become a rogue admin. I have always advocated accountability for admins. Note that on that proposal page I state:
    • About admins being held more accountable for their actions: It's terrible when admins become more lax once they pass their request for adminship. Under the current system, it's almost impossible to get an admin desysopped, even temporarily.
    • About ArbCom being less hesitant to desysop admins: Agree, they should be less hesitant (but not too liberal).
    • So, essentially, what I was saying is that, at the current time, admins are able to get away with actions that many would oppose them on another nomination for. However, again under the current system, it isn't likely major action would taken against these undesirable actions. As an admin, I would stick to my duties. joturner 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like you...and with that said, I respect that you have found a spiritual path that works for you. This isn't personal so you know, I have close friend who is from the Sudan and is a Sunni. I just think a major toning down of the religiousness of your userpage is in order and by doing so, you'll make your affiliation a mystery and in better keeping with our attempts to present a neutral face. My vote to oppose isn't easy, my friend, so I will simply abstain now. NO VOTE.--MONGO 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per all above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. This editor has issues. Period. Anwar 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't say that; its quite disrespectful. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that...Anwar's comment is completely incivil.--MONGO 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:ATTACK. Also I think you should be more specific when you say "issues." GizzaChat © 04:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest Anwar's vote be disregarded until he provides real reasons. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If Anwar's vote is disregarded, then the vote is rigged. He had has the same rights as anyone else. If he doesn't,then the whole voting process is a farce. By the way, I know nothing of the person, on whom the vote is being taken. This issue does not involve him. The comment is simply directed towards the voting process itself. Thak you. Wallie 18:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm reminded of HolyRomanEmperor's RfA. Don't disregard votes just because you disagree with the reasons. Nothing will get users more angry than that. - Richardcavell 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose -- per Prodego (despite that Prodego is supporting) --T-rex 00:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose. I opposed last time because I disagreed with the approach he had taken to some edits and because he had made a mess out of some AfD noms. The user page, which looked like this [37] at the time, was not a big factor for me. It seemed a bit over the top to me then, but within acceptable boundaries. However, this user has updated his user page and the new page, I believe, has crossed the line into a level of activism that has no place here. Statements like "Terrorism should be removed from vocabulary" or "A nation will meet its doomsday not long after it begins to forsake the right to privacy and the right to equal treatment. The United States is unfortunately starting to do that in the name of the War on Terror" are too ideological. An admin needs to be an impartial referee and I no longer believe this user can play that role. I previously felt that Joturner needed more time before becoming an admin. I still think that more time is required. -- JJay 10:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the second of the two statements you referred to, but left the first one alone. I believe the first one is okay because it is substantiated by the fact that the United Nations considers terrorism the equivalent of peacetime war crimes anyway. joturner 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. I'm glad you removed your statement that said the US was on the path to doomsday. However, I must admit that I have little confidence that you will not use your user page to continue to espouse strong political views in the future. As long as the comments were limited to religion I was not particularly bothered. Politics is far more divisive, though, and I do not think any users, admins or non-admins, should be posting personal political reflections on the user pages. You are also mistaken regarding the UN and terrorism. The definition of terrorism as the peacetime equivalent of a war crime was proposed by a consultant in a 1992 report to a UN agency. It is merely one of many, many definitions that have been suggested over the years. It was never adopted by the UN. In fact, the UN has singularly failed to agree on a working definition of terrorism and continues to debate the issue. Moreover, whatever the definition, it has never said that terrorism should be removed "from vocabulary". -- JJay 00:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Prodego. DGX 16:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I have come across this user's page on a few occassions and he looks like a great person. While I appreciate his hard work here and eagerness to do the right thing, his user page strikes me as more of a "blog" than a Wikipedia user page. I have concerns about "minting" an administrator who seems to be ignoring Wikipedia policies concerning the user page. Elizmr 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per all above. -- Karl Meier 09:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose concerned about POV issues.  Grue  10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose – Message To closing Bureaucrat: What have changed since Jotuner first RFA[38] ? That he campaigned hard, leaving any user who objected him a message saying how much he has changed[39] (this is duplicated 29 times see: [40]. In fact, he did not change. Interaction with him is hard. He was very pushy in trying to get his favorite article (mosque) to be featured article and refuse to accept any changes to the article that made it less POV. His "ownership" of that article alone is an example of why more power should not be trausted to him. Giving this editor adminship would just show the weaknesses of the current RFA system. What is wrong with someone being an editor for couple of years, for learning tolerance to otherviewpoints before asking for the 2nd time to become an admin ? I oppose for all the reason stated above. Zeq 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to this on this RfA's talk page. joturner 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the response joturner describes his situation as "lose:lose". Not true. The problem is his overeagerness to become an Admin. This is also seen by his wish to "close this RFA". The bottom line he shows over eagerness in this whole attempt to gain access to the tools. He simply could have waited another year. What is so wrong in letting time do his job, some things just take more time... Zeq 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, my earlier concerns are still relevant. Seeing that your a Salafi doesn't make it better. Moving contended text to a subpage doesn't help. Asking for a review of one's own user page, editing it to improve chances for a RfA and moving one's editing focus away from Islam as announced, contrary to stated interests, just to further one's RfA, strikes me as bewildering. I don't trust that zeal. --tickle me 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded to this on this RfA's talk page. joturner 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Tony Sidaway and tickle me. Pecher Talk 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose pending answers to the questions I've posed below..Timothy Usher 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I have no doubt he would make a good admin and have admired his ability to compromise in the past. However, I feel that as a neutral party charged with resolving disputes, such an overt adamacy about his religion would greatly hinder his credibility. —Aiden 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I can see J. really wants to be an admin and has taken many steps to achieve this. He has been quite receptive to all criticism and has written to everyone who opposes his Rfa using very respectful language in an attempt to address their points. All this makes me want to support him. When I look at his user page, I feel he is genuine, sympathetic and likeable, and this makes me want to support him too. However, I am concerned that once he becomes an admin, when he no longer has a goal he wants to achieve that requires broad community support, he may not be so fairminded and responsive. Over the last two weeks I have unfortunately seen admins act in a very unbalanced way, seemingly motivated by their own biases. I am not saying that J. would do this, however it is undeniable that he subscribes to a very strong ideology. I am concerned that J might use his position as an admin to push his ideology here. I would say that J. should continue to be a valued member of the community and produce and contribute to good articles as he has done thus far. I'm not sure how being an admin would really enhance his ability to do achieve this. Elizmr 04:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Reluctantly oppose. I know you're a good editor, but even after an unsuccessful RFA two months ago (this is too short a wait IMHO) which raised these very issues, your userpage makes me feel that you're still not ready to be trusted with the responsibility of being an administrator - because it's not clear to me whether you're going to treat Wikipedia as an NPOV encyclopedia which has rules, or a webhost where people are free to do what they want so long as they stay out of each other's way. Alphax τεχ 01:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. With some considerable regret, as I do think J is a nice guy who means well, but the concerns raised by the other oppose votes are serious. Elizmr said it best, my concern is that with such a strong POV and a history of involvement in contentious articles where that POV leaked through, what assurance do we have that won't recur after the adminship passes? Also some of the votes on other RfAs I find myself disagreeing with enough to wonder if he gets the whole adminship thing. Too much moral judging and editcountitis... Perhaps in some future RfA, after some more seasoning, I would support. Oppose ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per POV issues. I can't say for certain that I trust this user to handle adminship civilly and fairly. Ral315 (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Elizmr, Alphax and Lar. Zaxem 09:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Does not demonstrate the judgement and impartiality of an administrator--CltFn 12:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Oppose per Prodego. Raichu 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Excellent grasp of policy, very smart and clearly well-meaning. However, even though it is not immediately apparent, this user appears much too anxious and eager to wield the mop. Remember, the mop is not the tool of the brave Wikihero, but the implement of the humble janitor. Cool your ambitions a bit and remember that administrators serve the community. Good luck — you'll probably make it. - Corbin Be excellent 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Reluctant Oppose. I just can get past this editor's user page and the fact that, prior to the concerns voiced here, he considered the content a good idea. I like my admins as i like my one night stands - the less i know about the individual personally, the better it works for me (thats a joke, btw, should Mrs Rockpocket be voicing her opinion here). This, combined with the feeling that he really, really wants this adminship, leaves me uncomfortable. I'd like to see him let his edits alone vouch for him here. Sorry. Rockpocket (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Corbin, Elizmr and Lar.  RasputinAXP  c 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I have seen Zeq going overboard with cheap shuts, but this time around, I think some of his arguments makes some sense and haven't, at least adequatly, been addressed and which are enough for me to oppose. Fad (ix) 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, with regret. Joturner writes well, particularly so for a teenager, but the extensive new-convert da'wa on his userpage suggests that neutrality is going to be an issue.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose unfortunately. Seems like a quality contributor to the encyclopaedia. However, I share the many POV concerns raised above and this, coupled with an editor who works in controversial topic areas, is too much of a risk for me. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Oppose I am still VERY worried about this his user page. I am sorry, I have seen nothing to convince me to change my mind from the last vote. TruthCrusader 21:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per concerns raised above. G.He 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing Bureaucrat; the following votes were added after the official RfA ended.
  31. Oppose per above concerns, with specific reference to Alphax's statement.--cj | talk 05:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, this vote, and all others after it, came after the 4:07 (UTC) end time. joturner 05:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't try to wikilawyer, please. People may vote until the vote is closed. Pecher Talk 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS is the reason WHY I will continue to strongly oppose this person's attempt to become an admin. How DARE you, sir, try to stifle the voice of dissent because of a 'time' issue. TruthCrusader 10:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ALL the opposing votes after this should not be considered. Or start a new/fresh voting. Why wikiepdia had time associated with voting to begin with if voting has to be continue after the fix time limit? I want to post that protest on some Admin pages. --- Faisal 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is that this is not an election, its a method for the community to express their views. The closing 'crat is very capable of making his/her own judgement on what should and should not be taken into account. It is not in the nominee's interest to appear to influence the process yet the comment above suggests, to me, futher evidence of a continuing pattern of subtle wiki-spindoctoring around the RfA process. It may not be in direct conflict with policy, but the accumulative effect appears - to some editors at least - that joturner is doing everything within policy to ensure this request passes. This isn't helped by the fact that no "time has passed" notice was posted on the "support" vote list. There are now two late supports that stand unquestioned while it appears that joturner was waiting for the clock to pass the deadline so he could call time on dissent. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it simply doesn't look good. It is, in my opinion, unbecoming of a potential admin. Rockpocket (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to Rockpocket's comment may be futile, but the reason I didn't post a comment regarding support votes after the end time was because the first support vote after the end time came at a point when I was not able to edit Wikipedia. I didn't call for any votes to be discounted; I was only pointing out where the voting had stopped at the original closing time. I realize that people can vote after the closing time. The bureaucrats can do whatever they want with the RfA. joturner 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment in talk. Rockpocket (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she does have a point, regardless of if you consider this an election or not, each votes have an ending time, and people have to respect that. Fad (ix) 20:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Rockpocket, and so did the bureaucrats: they extended the voting by a day or two as the consensus is not clear cut.

    Joturner cared for his RfA as early as 17. May on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, and reminded them of closing time there and here. On the first RfA he thanked Mike18xx for his vote, given out of spite and derision, insulting Joturner as taliban and fundamentalist. He opposed strongly suggestions to discount that vote. Reiterating, I call that campaigning extremely hard, this has been expanded on here and on talk. I don't like it, and worse, Joturner denies this. He has shown to be an excellent user, true, but I don't have confidence in his adminship at all. --tickle me 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm denying it because it's not true. I'm not going to admit something I never did. In addition, I find it very ironic that you are accusing me of campaigning when it appears as though you are "campaigning hard" to make sure I never, neither today, three months from now, nor three years from now, become an administrator. joturner 20:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the behaviour you have exhibited during this RFA is beginning to convince me that, without a fundamental change of attitude, you should never become an administrator. --Nick Boalch\talk 22:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the votes must not be considered. Timothy believes Joturner is a liar, an untrustable person, and one who denies his motivations (based on some arguments of course). Why should Timothy trust that such a person would not misuse his power (Timothy please correct me if I am wrong anywhere up to here). Timothy cleverly made people not to trust Joturner. I believe the recent flood of opposing votes just after closing of the adminship page and in the very last hours is a result of Timothy's comments. Otherwise there shouldn't be any reason as to why people just opposed Joturner near and after closing of his RfA. --Aminz 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All votes are legitimate until a bureaucrat closes the nomination. People are smart enough to take Tickle me's comments into account or discount them entirely when making up their minds. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joturner. "it's not true" - I don't take this lightly: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. "campaigning hard": yes I am, and I don't deny it. --tickle me 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Per concerns raised on the talk page, changed from support. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per above. Myciconia 07:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  34. Oppose, has enough edits alright, would consider a support if they weren't predominantly in the same area. — May. 24, '06 [10:00] <freak|talk>
  35. Oppose, changed from neutral per various concerns, inappropriate canvassing. --Nick Boalch\talk 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Reluctant oppose, essentially per Rockpocket. I respect the high quality of Joturner's contributions as an editor, (that which I have seen), but I still maintain that an userpage, and especially an administrator's userpage, is not the place for extensive, potentially divisive content unrelated to Wikipedia. Sandstein 13:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose User appears to be rallying muslims together to support his adminship. This is irresponsible and behaviour that is not expected of an admin. JHJPDJKDKHI! 14:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ? There have been allegations of campaigning, but I don't see where religion fits into this... Master of Puppets That's hot. 14:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Sorry... I really like the guy (he's always pointing out errors on the main page articles, and we appreciate it!) and hate to see people even bringing his religion up as something to oppose him over, but it hasn't even been two months since his last nomination. I would like to see a bit more patience. I'd say just keep up the good work, and bide your time. Adminship isn't that big of a deal, and neither is not being made admin. You're a good editor, so continue on the right path, and I would gladly support you in the future. Sadly, oppose. (And I know this is past the post-date, so BCrats can take it or leave it. Thanks.) --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose as CrazyRussian. I don't know the candidate, but the discussion here is not convincing--Al-Qairawani 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak Oppose Actually a very good editor, but the embers from his last RfA is yet to cool down. It is barely 2 months since his last RfA. In a couple of more months, my vote could be a Strong Support. Moreover, he seems in a hurry to be an Admin. Timelessness 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose The user seems to be in a hurry to get the Adminship. It is just a short time since the first RfA. Stormz 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak Oppose As per above. Though in a few months time, if joturner does refile his nomination, I may most probably support him. Kandal the Vandal 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Very Weak Oppose The only concern is that he hasn't changed his user page, even though in his last RfA, that did emerge as a major area of concern. otherwise a very good and diligent user, who has mostly maintained a level headedness that is not easily see. Trooperz 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose I have followed this RfA from the beginning, and am concerned by the candidate's attitude in engaging users who cast oppose votes. While I think Joturner would make good use of admin tools, I look for a less combatitive demeanor. Aguerriero (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Joturner's desire to have this RfA closed so quickly when clearly discussion continues leads me to believe that he is too process-bound and too immediatist for me to comfortably support him, especially in conjunction with the concerns raised by other voters. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Per Doc's concerns I find this user's userpage very disturbing, but there appears to be little evidence that he has let his beliefs influence his editing. Hence I don't feel able to oppose, but I also don't want to support someone who does appear to see the project as a platform for religious proselytism. --Nick Boalch 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose above. --Nick Boalch\talk 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: I followed Joturner's last request for adminship quite closely, although I don't believe I made any actual recommendations on it. What worries me most is that a large number of substantial concerns were made about his user page, and he has not changed it at all to try and alleviate these concerns. Also, some of his responses to the oppose votes (particularly numbers 22, 26, and 28) concern me. --Hetar 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually did change my user page substantially since that point. And I contacted all of the oppose voters from last time requesting comments on my RfA. Not all of them responded, by some posted comments on my editor review and on my talk page. From that, and comments prior to that, I got the impression that for the most part, people were okay with the page. joturner 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Joturner has been kind of enough to point out the changes, and to make further changes (including removing the conversion story) which have greatly improved the user page. While at this point some of the comments mentioned above still concern me, he has been nothing but professional and courteous, and it would be unfair of me to continue to oppose. --Hetar 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This user seems quite impressive, level-headed and unafraid to try to do the Right Thing, which I feel is very important; as such, I can't oppose. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of an admin who dedicates so much of his userpage to personal, unrelated-to-Wikipedia philosophy. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to vote yay or nay and don't have enough information yet. I'm not so concerned about a user page that reveals one's POV, even in such detail. What's important, does this editor maintain NPOV in his edits? Can anyone show me some examples of edits where Joturner's POV perhaps affected NPOV editing? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC) change to support, see above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Userpage is more troubling than last time, not less as far as I'm concerned. "Identity: Islam". Somebody who considers their religion to be their personal identity is not the calm, neutral figure we want as an admin. I feel sad having to say this because deep down I think Joe is probably a fairminded and balanced editor, but his user page needs to reflect this. Publish your religious essays elsewhere would be my best advice. --kingboyk 11:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. --kingboyk 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (changed vote to Support). I am really not sure. I do see a problem with an admin having too strong religious feelings, but after reviewing his edits, I don't really see that it shows in his edits. I am completely open to changing my vote both ways, if either if I see more of either positive or negative contibutions. The "worst" thing I found so far was a quite lame edit war about position of a template [47]. -- Heptor talk 12:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I commented more thoroughly on Heptor's talk page, for the interest of other voters I will say that I don't believe that should be considered edit warring since I only made one reversion (back to the original) and requested others involved to discuss the matter on the talk page. joturner 13:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I never considered this to be a serious thing, I meant "lame" like in "doesn't have any serious meaning". Pardon me if I was unclear. I am still searching/waiting for any edits that show that Jotuner does detach himself from his personal beliefs when he edits, or the opposite. -- Heptor talk 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral (changed vote to Support). I don't know he seems like an okay guy, but I haven't seen enough to fully trust him with the admin tools.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Support Good editor, won't abuse tools. Could use more like him. I've become worried by a couple things that went on here, changed to neutral. Rx StrangeLove 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Joturner, a disconcerting item among an otherwise great candidacy is your extreme overemphasis on editcounts in votes in RfA going to the point of almost missing what we do here. Edit count completely misses the intangibles of a candidate and voting based on it essentially amounts to not looking into a candidate enough to see the more important things. Some of your comments are even to the effect of "I know I shouldn't focus on edit count..." then followed by a reason fully based on edit count. - Taxman Talk 13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a hardline number of edits in mind that determines whether someone should be an admin or not. Regardless, I realize that edit count is not really important, but it is an indicator of activity. I will often cite edit count in an oppose vote to indicate lack of involvement with certain areas, or all, of the project. Lack of involvement in certain important areas (such as the talk pages) or low activity (many months with few, low-quality edits) to me is something that is worth noting. But perhaps you disagree. joturner 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you have mentioned above is substantially better than past comments I've seen from you, but what you're still doing there is using edit count which is a poor proxy for involvement in certain area of the project which is a very poor proxy for whether an editor can be trusted with the tools. Editcount is at best an indicator of activity which you do note, but you go on to use it for too much more. RfA should be about determining if we can trust a user not to abuse the admin tools and nothing more. I must also admint to being disconcerted with your userpage. Disclosing biases is one thing, promoting a view is not what we are here for. - Taxman Talk 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to give anyone the impression that I don't want to listen to what the community has to say, and so I see that there are a significant number of editors who find/found my user page as proselytizing. Thus, I removed entirely the section that chronicled parts of my conversion. Other than that I, personally, don't see what else would fall under religious advocacy. The use of religious symbols and stating how many follow each religion really should not be a problem; it's not advocacy. In fact, I only say that I'm a Muslim two times (last section in the introduction and in the category tag). Nevertheless, I am open to hear what you all believe could still be construed as proselytizing. joturner 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing bureaucrat: In response to the allegations by Zeq and Tony Sidaway that I was "campaigning" prior to my RfA, I would like to once again reiterate that I was simply getting feedback on my user page; the statements left for the users in question didn't even mention this request for adminship (which, by the way, wasn't even created yet). If I were indeed campaigning to further this RfA, I would have instead contacted people who more likely would have supported me (i.e. the support voters from my last RfA). Of course, I didn't do that. And to further demonstrate how incorrect the claims of campaigning were, let me enumerate the votes of those I contacted:

Total Count (2/7/0)

In addition, on May 20 Zeq contacted Aiden, who subsequently changed his vote from neutral to oppose.

Clearly, as I garnered far more oppose votes than support votes due to these actions, if this were indeed an attempt to campaign, it would have been horribly misguided. Please take this evidence into account when you consider Zeq's and Tony Sideaway's comments and when you make your final decision on this RfA. joturner 04:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"simply getting feedback on my user page": asking for feedback on one's user page in an organised manner is bewildering to me in the first place, but certainly not illegal. However, an admin nominee asking for feedback is campaigning in my understanding. Not forbidden either, but I don't like it.
"the statements left for the users in question didn't even mention this request for adminship": indeed not, they mentioned the last RfA and announced that you edited your user page addressing voiced concerns. On your last RfA thank you note to all concerned you mentioned a possible second try, and made that clear on your RfA too: "If this RfA fails without any further process or action, you can be sure to see me back here in a couple months".
"Clearly, as I garnered far more oppose votes than support votes due to these actions, if this were indeed an attempt to campaign, it would have been horribly misguided": the result doesn't disprove a campaign's intentions.
You went out of your way to ensure success by editing your user page, deleting things that were not helpful, you even had admins delete the most unhelpful content for good. You posted RfA thank yous (all do that, unfortunately) and asked for review. You switched notably to non Islamic subjects as announced on your last RfA, though this is the center of you interests. The only exception was mosque, that you made a featured article, working very, very hard in record time. A very good article indeed, and yes, that is good for WP, but I concur with Timothy that it constitutes campaigning nevertheless. And no, I don't think you're honest about that at all, and that widens my mistrust voiced on the RfA talk. --tickle me 04:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that since the voting time finished there has been this influx of oppose votes? see [48] Agathoclea 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that many of opposes are weak. Don't we expect the rate of oppose votes to have an approximately constant rate over time? Let me suggest some theories: There can be two reasons behind this I believe: 1. Either something special has happened yesterday 2. or someone has called people to vote against Jouturner. (2) seems more reasonable since most of the opposes are weak and are made in a short period of time.
(1) has been a little bit efficient as well , the only possibility can be the recent discussions on the talk page. It is related to Question #6 of Timothy. --Aminz 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Username Joturner
Total edits 6538
Distinct pages edited 2448
Average edits/page 2.671
First edit 23:02, June 25, 2005
 
(main) 2763
Talk 1038
User 203
User talk 1149
Image 49
Image talk 4
Template 266
Template talk 41
Category 1
Wikipedia 938
Wikipedia talk 85
Portal 1
 G.He 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Joturner (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 119 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 17, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 20, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 99.71% Minor edits: 100%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 99.86% Minor article edits: 100%
Average edits per day (current): 42.09
Recognized notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites): 5.22% (261)
Unique pages edited: 1863 | Average edits per page: 2.68 | Edits on top: 10.38%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 43.18%
Minor edits (non reverts): 45.54%
Marked reverts: 11.12%
Unmarked edits: 0.16%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 39.44% (1972) | Article talk: 16% (800)
User: 3.26% (163) | User talk: 19.58% (979)
Wikipedia: 14.7% (735) | Wikipedia talk: 1.38% (69)
Image: 0.98% (49)
Template: 4.26% (213)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.4% (20)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I participate in a significant amount of RC patrolling, reverting vandalism and warning offenders. As such, I would greatly benefit from the rollback feature (yeah I know, everybody says that) and the ability to block repetitive vandals. I contribute extensively to the Current events pages and I often point out errors on the Main Page and so I believe it would benefitical if I could edit the Main Page myself instead of bothering other admins to fix minor spelling and italicization mistakes on the Main Page. Going along with the participation in RC patrolling, I would also use the ability to speedy delete useless pages and enable semi-protection in cases of repeated problematic vandalism and disputes over particular articles. I participate in articles for deletion discussion from time to time and also often encounter images overdue for deletion. However, without admin capabilities, I can do little to assist in the deletion of articles and images. And lastly, there have been times when I have not been able to perform obvious and necessary page moves due to obstacles only admins could overcome.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My favorite article would have to be Mosque. I put a significant amount of work into the article in December 2005, bringing it up to good article status. Subsequently, in April 2006, I put an even greater amount of work into the article, bringing it up to featured article status. Working with the mosque article helped me familiarize myself with the featured article process as well as see how I could handle the potentially brutal process. I knew it would be a challenge to get a consensus opinion on the quality, comprehensiveness, and neutrality of the article given Palm dogg's rule that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to write a good NPOV article on Islam. Indeed, it wasn't easy, and several hours of major improvements on my part were done between the article's nomination and promotion, but the obstacles along the way only made the attainment of featured article status more satisfying.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I believe that if a Wikipedian doesn't encounter a conflict at least some point after several active months, there is a problem. Thus, it should not be surprising that I have faced a few (albeit not especially major) conflicts throughout my tenure at Wikipedia. As I mentioned in my last RfA, I have been bothered by User:Striver's tendency to create articles that over-emphasize a Shi'a point-of-view. But since the time of my first nomination, I have not butted heads with him (perhaps because I haven't frequented Islam-related articles as much). Additionally, I would have to say some stress was produced by my last RfA because some oppose voters held my choice of religion against me. In particular, some voters labeled me a "sixteen-year-old fundamentalist" (although that comment was later struck out), a "radical", and a "religious zealot," leading many to believe I couldn't maintain a neutral point-of-view. Frustrating as it was to attempt to fend off these claims and accusations (to no avail), I managed to keep my cool and vow to request adminship again (here I am today!). I even received two barnstars for my civility throughout the RfA. More recently, as I mentioned in my introduction, I sought feedback and advice from those same oppose voters in an editor review. No matter how rough the conflict between two parties, there is always a chance to reach common ground.

Question from Ted 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Additional questions are completely optional.[reply]

1. On the talk page for Mosque, some editors stated you have taken ownership of the Article. You answered their concerns (Talk:Mosque#Ownership). Given that concern, how would you have changed your approach to editing Mosque, if you would change? How would you use your administrative tools in such a situation? Thanks for any response you might make. Ted 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Just as a bit of background, the concerns came primarily from the fact that I had done the vast majority of the work on bringing the article to featured status, taking care of all the objections personally. One thing I could have done to address the concern and perception that I was trying to own the article was been less quick to say I would take care of objections raised on the featured article candidacy page. However, I feel that there is a perception by those commenting on featured article candidacies, as well as article for deletion discussions that it is the job of the nominator and advocates of the article in question to address and fix the objections brought up. Of course, that is not actually true; anyone can contribute to improve the article. And so I was worried that if I hadn't stepped up to address each of the improvements myself, the objections may never have been addressed (isn't that the idea behind being bold?). Nevertheless, other editors did make changes to the mosque article during the FAC and I left them alone (unless I disagreed with the changes). All in all, in the future, I could be less enthusiastic about making improvements to featured articles and give others the opportunity to address FAC objections. I don't think administrative tools really could have helped in this situation. joturner 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Ted 08:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Timothy Usher 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC):[reply]

1. Wikipedia’s Islam-related articles are often subjects of strident contention. The talk pages too often become forums for highly personalized commentary, while the articles themselves are subject to edits approaching vandalism (in addition to outright vandalism), often from editors seemingly intent on misreprenting Islam, or casting it in a negative light. If confirmed, will you help protect the quality and fairness of these articles? Are you willing to discipline editors to these pages who are contributing negatively and/or violating WP policies, or to ask other admins to do so?
A: I will help protect the quality and fairness of the Islam-related articles, but to a degree no greater than that which I would apply to articles of other subjects. Nevertheless, I will be very cautious when taking administrative actions on Islam-related pages. I don't believe administrators should be involved in matters that they are personally affected by. And thus, I will primarily use admin tools only against users who participate in outright vandalism, such as this, to Islam-related articles and stay away from the somewhat debatable forms of vandalism. The talk pages do often become heated, but that is often not a cause for administrative action anyway, but instead just some informal (or in some cases, formal) form of mediation. There are hundreds of other administrators and if I feel the soundness of my judgment would be compromised by my choice of religion (or anything else), I'll simply post to the administrator's noticeboard and let someone else deal with the matter. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. As you say, excepting Mosque, you’ve not frequented Islam-related articles much in recent months. You’ve avoided involvement in some fairly high-profile disputes. Does this, like the impressive changes made to your userpage, reflect the desire to succeed in your RfA, or a long-term decision about your editorial direction on wikipedia?
A:Well, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want this RfA to succeed. However, the changes to my userpage were not part of an attempt to get this RfA to succeed, but rather an attempt to respond to criticism of it. I got several comments on the user page back in March about the page and then decided to reform it the following week, well before this RfA. Judging by my talk page, one would have gotten the impression that everyone had liked my user page as not a single person had made a negative statement about the page. And so, this month I sought a more open review of my user page that encouraged some of the less frequent visitors to my page to discuss it and suggest changes to it. If I only wanted my RfA to succeed, I would have simply blanked the user page and added a simple statement about editing Wikipedia. Instead, I left it largely intact, responding to criticism from the editor review and from the two RfAs. I expected to be granted the wide latitude that is normally granted to editors.
But back to your question. Yes, someone did suggest from my last RfA that I broaden my editing horizons. But more prevalent in my mind when I began the transition to other types of articles was how frustrating contributing to Islam-related articles can sometimes be. This is true for editing articles of any religion, but it seems to be especially true for editing articles related to Islam. There are just so many viewpoints that editors want to be addressed in Islam-related articles that it can be quite a war zone. I encountered that when working on the mosque article for featured status. Some editors cited neutral point-of-view concerns and I personally attempted to address that. After the featured article candidacy was complete and I felt a little burnt out by the admittedly excessive time I spent working on the article during my spring break, I decided to leave the task of completing the requested improvements to the article to the requestors, although I don't really believe their actions have been acted upon. So, essentially I believe this is a long-term editorial decision. Expanding my scope of editing has allowed me to interact with more editors and avoid some of the stressful going-ons of the Islam-related articles. It's not that I don't participate in them at all; I feel I still have some useful insight to give to the Islam-related articles. I still participate in discussions in matters about Islam, especially at request. However, I didn't want my entire time at Wikipedia to be about wrangling over viewpoints about Islam; I can deal with a healthy level of wrangling, mixed with participation in some slightly less contentious topics. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. You’ve self-nominated yourself for adminship, just as you self-nominated Mosque for featured-article status as part of your drive to obtain adminship. Were you a neutral observer, would this raise any questions in your mind?
A:I didn’t nominate mosque for featured article status as part of a drive to obtain adminship. I did mention my assistance in bringing the article up for featured status during the intro to this RfA, but that was not what I had in mind when I began to work on making it featured. Many other editors had participated in featured article candadicies and had successfully helped bring articles to featured status. I, at that time, hadn't really participated in bringing an article to featured status. Since I had been active in the Mosque article before, especially in December 2005, and given User:Anonymous editor's suggestion to bring the article to featured status, I decided to use mosque on my first venture into FAC territory. In addition, self-nominations for featured articles and for adminship aren't really all that uncommon. And so, if I were a neutral observer, given the information I provided above, I really don't think the self-nominations would raise any questions in my mind. They're not too uncommon and they're simply sincere efforts to help improve Wikipedia. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. You’ve recently engaged in decidedly negative interactions with Aminz related to questions of religion.[49] What thoughts can you share about the way you handled that?
A: I'm not sure how you interpreted the statement you linked to, but if you were to look at the full discussion, the reason I said there really was no reason to continue this discussion was not because I didn't want to talk to Aminz but because the page in question was removed. Regardless, I feel that I could have toned it down a bit, even though I don't believe it has permanently damaged our relationship as fellow Wikipedians (he did, after all, support my RfA). I personally feel no hard feelings for him because I have always held that my quibbles were about the project and not about him as a person; I have seen great work come from him and I honestly doubt that the sentiment I questioned on the project was neither intentional nor representative of his character. But yes, I could have handled the situation better by, perhaps, being more brief in my statement and being clearer that I was not saying that I thought he was divisive, but rather that I thought the page itself was divisive. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here is my(Aminz) view on the dispute: [50]. Regarding the above, I should say that when Joturner accused me of some charges and when I argued against it (+ I also accused him of misunderstanding of my text; in some cases deliberately); he just said: "There is no reason to continue this discussion", I felt humiliated. I felt he even doesn't consider me worthy enough to answer to my questions. And I felt there is a misunderstanding here that I can not clear up. That was my feeling at that time. But I have forgotten everything now. I supported Joturner's RfA due to the positive things I have seen from him and the possibility that I may have been wrong. Who knows? Maybe. --Aminz 10:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Your relative youth: do you believe it to be an asset or a hindrance to your ability to fairly judge disputes between editors? Are there cases where you might feel you’ve not the experience to confidently arrive at a fair judgement?
A: I don't believe my age should be a problem. I notice that there are many administrators who are both close to my age and younger. Note also that User:Ilyanep is fourteen years old and a bureaucrat; I would never hold his age against him. On Wikipedia, I feel experience can and should only be judged based on one's experience on Wikipedia, not in life. I see no reason why, for example, a fifteen-year-old who has been editing Wikipedia for two years and is familiar with policy should be deemed less "experienced" than someone closer to thirty or forty years old but new to Wikipedia because of the age difference. So I will say that it is neither an asset nor a hindrance; I believe age shouldn't really be factored and that one's experience on Wikipedia and one's quality of edits should be the primary factors considered. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Your nomination has been advertised, among other places at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild. At least five editors casting support votes since the time of this post are members of the Guild. Do you feel it possible that this process might have compromised the integrity of this vote? Would you be willing to discount support votes conceivably gained as the result of advertising?
A: I don't feel it is up to me to say. Certainly the comments on my RfA, although not specifically requesting that people vote for me, seem to be directed towards a certain crowd. It may or may not have compromised the process and it may or may not result in some support votes being stricken. However, I feel it is up to the closing bureaucrat to decide.
I apologize in advance if my answers were not sufficient or poorly written. I wrote these very early in the morning (4:00am-6:00am). Feel free to ask more questions if you so desire. joturner 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that the people Aminz informed have voted both support and oppose, so perhaps they'll cancel each other out or even be more detrimental than beneficial to my RfA. joturner 10:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The remainder of the answers / discussion surrounding this question are on this RfA's talk page

Additional Questions from Raichu:

1. There has been a lot of controversy in this RfA about content on your userpage. How would you respond?
A: I have taken into account many of the comments left by users regarding my user page and have removed content accordingly. But that is not because I just want to become an administrator (although I indeed do). Instead, it is because I wanted to adhere to the principle in the user page guideline that states that If the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so.
In its current state especially, I don’t see the user page as proselytizing or promoting my religion. I use religious symbols from various faiths on my user page not to declare one religion superior. Indeed, my user page was once more Islamo-centric, but I changed that after many in my first RfA mentioned that it appeared divisive. I never intended to be divisive, and I don’t intend to be divisive now. Religion is often seen as a dividing force in this world; one does not need to look far to find evidence of that. But when I assembled my current user page last month, I decided to have these symbols from all these faiths side-by-one on one page, each with an associated quote. That is not division. That is an effort to portray many religions together in harmony. And have a look at every quote on my user page. They’re all from figures and texts from different religions, but that all send the same message: equality.
Nevertheless, for the record, let me simply state that many respected editors, including bureaucrat Jwrosenzweig, have mentioned their religion on their user pages and yet still have been able to contribute the encyclopedia with neutrality. I feel that I fall into that category of editors and wish that, admin or not, the Wikipedia community as a whole will be able to see me not as a Muslim editor, but as an editor that is a Muslim. If I have ever misled anyone into believing I will put my religious beliefs before my responsibility as an editor to create an encyclopedia for all people, then I apologize. joturner 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Do you associate your religion with this encyclopedia? If so, how?
A: This question may have been answered at least in part within my answer to the first question (or perhaps I am misunderstanding). As an encyclopedia for all people, one religion or belief should not stand above all others. However, as we are all human beings, I don’t see anything wrong with someone mentioning their religion on their user page. As long is it doesn’t compromise the goal of created a encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I don't think that's a problem. If we couldn't be individuals, we wouldn't get to choose our usernames; I perhaps would be Editor238712. But in short: neither my religion nor anyone else's religion should be associated with the encyclopedia. One can mention in it on one's user page, but it should not creep into the encyclopedia to the point where it appears as though the religion and the encyclopedia are associated. joturner 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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.

Buchanan-Hermit

Final (66/15/2) ended 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Buchanan-Hermit (talk · contribs) – My turn to nominate someone I believe will be a strong admin. Buchanan-Hermit joined the project on 11 January 2006; now, four months later, he has amassed more than 8,000 edits. Despite a relatively narrow focus (he is the creator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver) that continues to expand, his efforts at vandal-fighting are huge, his interactions with fellow editors are frequent and civil, his knowledge and implementation of policy is strong, and he's already well into self-education of administrative duties. It is my pleasure to recommend the mop, bucket and keys. RadioKirk talk to me 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nom. RadioKirk talk to me 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Benon 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support for same reasons as nominator. Ciraric 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Usgnus 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Ding Ding Ding I believe we're looking at a promotion here! A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding 20:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is this user's fourth edit, the other three having also been on RfAs. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support An experienced, solid contributor. —Mets501talk 20:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support good user. --Tone 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Great UBC article and very active Vancouver project. Gadig 21:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support - fist he's from Vancouver, my good ole little city, he's been super friendly in various discussions and amazing photos. Almost no chance of abusing the tools and could use the mop a fair bit -- Tawker 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. Great user. DarthVader 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A very engaged editor, evn with only a few months here.--Bookandcoffee 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per above abakharev 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support ForestH2
  15. Strong Support all my interactions with this user have been strongly positive. Mopper Speak! 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very astonished support per nom.  :) Dlohcierekim 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to oppose per Mackensen & Doc :) Dlohcierekim 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck "per macand doc. :) Dlohcierekim 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I have seen his name a few times on WP:AIV, and every time it was a legitimate request for blocking. This alone tells me he is ready to be an admin. -- JamesTeterenko 23:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per nom. - Patman2648 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Despite no having the pleasure of meeting him prior to this nomination, a thorough review of his contribs deserves nothing short of an enthusiastic endorsement. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Although the nomination mentions a narrow focus in article space, a large fraction seems to be to non-Vancouver articles. Everything else is in order. JoshuaZ 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Great candidate TigerShark 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per the above and great answers to questions below. Badgerpatrol 00:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support fabulous contributions and interactions with the community, great answers to the questions, understands admin role well -- Samir धर्म 00:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, per nominator. I would like to know how we can have exponential growth of the website and too many admins at the same time. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support excellent attention to detialßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  26. Support Has great patience and time in reverting vandalism--Canuckman 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. More support for you.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Buckets of support (despite having no portal edits). -- Bucketsofg✐ 03:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Cursory exam of contributions shows a pattern of hard work in keeping the project together. In the words of the immortal Tone Loc, "Let's do it." - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. User appears ready to begin mopping. Kukini 04:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Terence Ong 06:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Fine admin material. -- Tangotango 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support and we do need more admins. --Rory096 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support contribs look good. Kimchi.sg 12:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --W.marsh 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--Jusjih 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Buchanan-Hermit is a prolific contributor who has managed to avoid any major controversy, limited range does not concern me in the slightest. The answers below display the necessary knowledge of policy, making this an easy decision. Rje 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Excellent contributor. Will make an excellent admin too. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Yes. --Bhadani 15:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. support per Ardenn :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Will be a good admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC). Note Duplicate vote. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support (January 11, 2006 - wow, I must be old); would make a good admin. --Jay(Reply) 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Seems to me that he will make a very good Admin.Jordy 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Good work on the Vancouver project, and seems to be a generally all-around positive user.Tony Fox 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, good work all around. JohnnyBGood   t c 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support good user, ready for adminship. gidonb 01:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, looks good. Kusma (討論) 01:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support per nom and Rory096. Joe 05:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, no serious problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. As a UPA judge, I'd like to say that your userpage is quite something as well! Great user. haz (user talk) 20:34, 18 May 2006
  54. Support yes yes yes; and being an admin is no big deal. Teke 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per nom and what I've seen of this editor's work. Fluit 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support seems good.  Grue  10:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support edits look fine to me.--MONGO 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support It was this editor's civility and calmness during this content dispute that impressed me. He was clearly able to keep a cool head and focus on the content issues being addressed. An excellent candidate. -- backburner001 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment After taking another look at the contributions listed below, I can't help but notice this: "Wikipedia 666." Is this a bad sign?  :) -- backburner001 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, no, I'm not Satan and I did not have sexual relations with Saddam Hussein... ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. I was afraid I'd have to change my vote. :P -- backburner001 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Suppport - civil, trustworthy ed and has some sense of humour. --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per above. Good user and will make great admin.—G.He 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Joe I 04:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support.Bharatveer 05:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. User:Prince 06 22:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support good admin candidate. --rogerd 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per above. Royboycrashfan   21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I just saw that his RfA was almost over and came to check that I had indeed voted, and alas! I had not. So here's my much belated support--he's a great, friendly user, and I'm sure that I can trust him with the mop. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose nothing against him, but there are too many admins, and I think each of these should have one opposition. I also don't think he's been here long enough, or has enough edits. Aren't you supposed to be here a year before becoming an admin? Ardenn 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tawker, with my absolute respect, and WP:POINT notwithstanding, isn't it up to the 'crat to determine the tally? RadioKirk talk to me 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to pile on but, Ardenn, please stop doing this to every RfA that you see in order to try to prove an unrelated WP:POINT -- Samir धर्म 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot find the standards page anymore. I prefer 4-6 months and about 4,000 edits. A year might be better, but ocnsensus says less. This candidate certainly does not need to wait a year. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing wrong with this vote. Ardenn simply thinks that there are enough admins already, and that (given the special weight given to unanimous RFAs when desysopping is later considered) no RFA should be unanimous. A user's RFA voting standards are the choice of that user. The closing bureaucrat is supposed to establish what people's opinions are, not make a subjective analysis on how 'good' or 'bad' those opinions are. Cynical 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. oppose 1) Edits are primarily Vandalism revert. 2) Poor judgment. Bastique▼parlervoir 21:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I've made some contributions through Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver (which I started and helped take off) and made over 100 photo contributions too. I've been doing a lot of vandalism reverts lately but it's not usually my area of speciality (as other editors have it under control most of the time already). --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 01:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. As Bastique notes, most of your edits seem to be vandalism reverts. This is useful, but administrators need to do more than that. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A little more rounded experience first would be better. --Doc ask? 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Doc. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. As per Ardenn. Anwar 22:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Bastique, Mackensen, and HOLY JEEBUS THAT SIGNATURE. --Cyde Weys 23:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per above. DGX 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Change to oppose per Mackensen & Doc :) Dlohcierekim 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Change reason to Needs more time. Almost there. :) Dlohcierekim 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's your reason, then technically you didn't need to strike out the "Doc" part... ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 08:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm- You are pretty well rounded. You’ve come a long way very quickly. I wanted to remove the implication that you were too much a vandal fighter and not enough of anything else. Time will also show if burnout is a consideration. That’s a lot of edits even without the vandal fighting. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people think I do a lot of vandal-whipping because I tend to do tasks in bunches -- so they see a bunch of reverts and think instantly, "This guy's a vandal-killer." That's not true, as I only do it when there's nothing else to do (which explains why I want to clear out the AIV during the wee hours of 1am-3am...). :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. If he can manage nearly 7000 vandal reversions in 4 months without the rollback button, he doesn't need it. Not enough experience in policy etc in general to convince me otherwise. Proto||type 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on a quick perusal of his last 2000 edits, may I suggest a recount is in order? Most of this user's time is spent working on, and communicating with others about, WikiProjects. RadioKirk talk to me 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT- Hmmm, I hand counted about 1970 (out of user's total edit summaries) containing the word “revert.” :) Dlohcierekim 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how 1970/5000 becomes most. Most means at least over 50 percent and often implies close to all. --Usgnus 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming he warned the vandal each time he reverted, that would bring total vandal fighting related edits to about 3800. I thought that was out of 8,000 not 5,000. ANYWAY, that's NOT "almost 7,000". It's a good ratio.
    I was actually trying to support RadioKirk's point that this user had done more than "fight vandals". I'm sorry that I did not make myself more clear. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I need to strike "per mac and doc". Just needs a little more time. Will make a great admin. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Doc. Too little experience yet for me to judge accurately user's administrative fitness. In particular, more wiki-space contributions are needed here. Xoloz 22:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Opppose more time needed. Sandy 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Not enough contributions to creating an encyclopedia. Reverting vandalism is important but does not on its own further the aim of Wikipedia. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 01:38 UTC
  14. Oppose reverting vandalism can be done with popups. Cynical 21:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: may I ask those opposing based on reverts to please thoroughly review the candidate's contributions (if it's not too much trouble...). I count approximately 225 reverts within his last 1,000 edits. RadioKirk talk to me 21:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that the candidate has not done enough reverts, or has done too many reverts, I am saying that, on the basis of the candidate's answers below, all he seems to want to do is revert vandals, which does not require admin tools. Cynical 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My read is, he wants to delve into backlogs and do reverts/as-needed blocks when no one else is available. RadioKirk talk to me 04:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose; I don't feel this user is ready for adminship. Ral315 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, dedicated, prolific user but has accepted an RfA nom after barely 4 months yet demands 4,500 edits as a minimum to support other RfAs. This seems like a weird case of editcountitis, and I need to be convinced this user sees the editor and not just the numbers. Deizio talk 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To tell you the truth, I don't look at numbers all that closely. That was a ballpark estimate (and I often overlook numbers altogether). --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Based on my standards, you need to be here for a year before you're ready for adminship. However, I didn't want to slap on another oppose vote because of it. Steveo2 10:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Buchanan-Hermit (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 72 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 17, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 6, March, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 85.57% Minor edits: 99.08%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 95.59% Minor article edits: 99.77%
Average edits per day (current): 69.74
Recognized notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites): 3.36% (168)
Unique pages edited: 2120 | Average edits per page: 2.36 | Edits on top: 19.3%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 30.9%
Minor edits (non reverts): 36.54%
Marked reverts: 26.58%
Unmarked edits: 5.98%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 51.4% (2570) | Article talk: 4.44% (222)
User: 12.64% (632) | User talk: 18.76% (938)
Wikipedia: 7.16% (358) | Wikipedia talk: 1.16% (58)
Image: 2.08% (104)
Template: 0.58% (29)
Category: 1.46% (73)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.32% (16)
Username	Buchanan-Hermit
Total edits	8700
Distinct pages edited	3847
Average edits/page	2.262
First edit	23:25, January 10, 2006
	
(main)	4152
Talk	710
User	1167
User talk	1579
Image	161
Image talk	2
Template	65
Template talk	15
Category	85
Category talk	12
Wikipedia	666
Wikipedia talk	86

—G.He 03:00, 22 May 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I noticed a huge backlog in the Commons images section. I'd love to help clean that section up. As well, I'm often online during 1am to 3am Pacific Time, when most people here in North America are asleep. At that time, WP:AIV usually gets MANY vandals (mostly from computer schools in Britain) but there are no admins to help out. I'd love to help out with the AIV backlog in the wee hours when I can, because there is a real lack administrator supervision there.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm particularly proud of University Endowment Lands. It originally started out as a four-sentence long article, even though the area is really significant. I did some research and found out that there was a long history attached to the area, which led it to its present state. However, I am most proud of being able to write this article without involving the University of British Columbia too much, and keeping the two entities separate yet linked in some way.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I remember having a little debate about category sorting a while ago. It was partially my fault (and I admit that) because I came up with a really stupid name for the category related to Vancouver, but some guys wanted to put all the Greater Vancouver articles in the same category, even though the metropolitan area is composed of independent municipalities (this differentiation is almost always recognized by locals). I had a hard time convincing them to consider having smaller categories for each municipality (and not simply insert them all into Vancouver's), but I think I managed to keep a relatively cool head because Wikipedia has taught me to laugh some things off. That is often the only way to get over things. I react the same way when someone vandalizes my userpage. Just calmly smile and give that user a warn. No sense in getting all worked up over something.
The above 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.

EWS23

Final (89/0/0) ended 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

EWS23 (talk · contribs) – I've been thinking that it's about time EWS23 appeared on this page. In the past I found myself checking the list of admins, even diving into the permissions log to really check that there hadn't been some mistake in my thinking; to see if he'd already become an admin without me noticing! After seeing this wasn't the case I set about a contributions review to just check if this should be fixed.

One of the things that really stood out at me when reviewing his contributions is how unfailingly civil he is. I reviewed all of his contributions this year, and the only thing that I had slightest reason to query was the use of 'newbie' in some edit summaries [51]. The moment I pointed this out a slightly less BITE version of the edit summary started appearing [52]. (You can see the full conversation around this in my talk archive.) This just one example of the way that EWS23 never seems to fail in meeting the statement on his talk page: "A few things I deeply believe in are edit summaries, test messages, civility, and not biting the newbies." Another example being edit summary usage- not just the percentage usage, but also their usefulness.

Edits have been flowing out of this account since 19 June 2005, with something over 3400 edits made since then. This should be enough to satisfy those-who-count. Solid contributions have been made to the mainspace [53] [54], article talk [55] [56] [57], Wikipedia namespace [58] [59] [60] [61] [62], template [63] [64] and image [65]. Contributions to the 'community space' do not overwhelm the edit count but are still significant. For example this award winning one, and being a member of the election staff for the latest Esperanza elections [66].

Well, now you've read my bit, it's your turn to have your say! Petros471 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored, and I gratefully accept. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominator support- it should be pretty obvious from the above, but it seems to be tradition for nominators to place their mark here as well. So here's mine :) Petros471 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, of course. Was wondering how much longer this nom was going to take to appear. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. All seems well. However, something seems wrong with your "vote here" link. I'm too busy to fix it though :P Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Commnent Oops! That was my fault, didn't notice it after moving the draft version here. Should now be fixed :) Petros471 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support despite the redirect! Computerjoe's talk 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I too have been consistently impressed by the quality of EWS23's edits and interaction with other users, will be a great admin. Rje 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good edit history and user can be trusted with extra tools in my opinion.--Dakota ~ 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support because of nom statement and despite minor edit count deficiency<grin>. Over-all excellent editor who has gone for quality over quantity, who uses edit summaries, and who understands the importance of welcoming and guiding/teaching rather than abusing/humiliating newcomers. I would prefer more RCPatrolling, but I feel that, were User:EWS23 to err, it would be on the side of caution rather than blocking someone who did not deserve it. <sigh> I see from the user page that the nom is deficient after all-- I see no mention of User:EWS23 ‘s Barnstar.<grin> :) Dlohcierekim 19:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Very thoughtful, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, without question. Very deserving of the mop. After all, I gave him this barnstar. --Elkman - (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Ding Ding Ding we're looking at an excellent candidate here! A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Above vote was the user's second edit. Rje 20:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Oh, yes. RadioKirk talk to me 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. support looks like theyll make a good admin Benon 20:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks good to me. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Petros471 has convinced me, and I have personally seen great contributions from EWS23. joturner 20:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - also one of the best nom "speeches" I've seen yet —Mets501talk 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support solid contributor. Keep up with the good work. --Tone 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support - I was pretty shocked he wasn't an admin already, he knows what he's doing -- Tawker 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Edit-conflicted Support definitely--Deville (Talk) 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, a familiar name, with nothing but good edits coming from it. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Obviously a great user. DarthVader 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support hard to know what to add to the above, so I'll simply say "yes". Gwernol 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Super Strong Oppose Support awesome editor; always civil, calm, and very experienced. Mopper Speak! 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support, no reservations. I have no reason to believe that he does not know how to handle admin tools, and every reason to believe he won't misuse them. Additionally, he has worked significantly in behind-the-scenes activities, as well as illustrating articles, a definite plus in my book. We need more civil admins like him. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support ForestH2
  26. Support, per nomination --Mhking 23:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Lots of experience with wikipedia and wikipedians. - Patman2648 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Richardcavell 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Level-headed, and doing mostly janiatorial work anyways. I suspect admin tools will make him more effective.--Stephan Schulz 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I was initially concerned that too many of his Wikipedia space edits might be Esperanza related but there are more than enough to other areas. The candidate seems to be well rounded and will make a productive admin. JoshuaZ 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per my judgements and per all above.—G.He 00:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support; a blessing to the encyclopedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, is a very hardworking and awesome to work with contributor! -- Natalya 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support from fellow Esperanza election volunteer.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support with no reservations, per above and beyond. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--blue520 03:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support looks good.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - I like what I see in his user contributions. 1. When reverting, he's assuming that it's a well intentioned test. We need folks that don't assume vandalism for everything. 2. Disambig link repair is thankless, repetetive work that makes the project better, and he's done it. Plus some other things, but American Idol is on and my wife wants me to fake interest in it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support -- DS1953 talk 04:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Pile-on Support. --TantalumTelluride♪ 05:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Logged in just to vote here, support without reservation. -- Banez 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Looks good to me -- Samir धर्म 06:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, great user. --Terence Ong 06:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support.™ --Rory096 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Should make a great admin --Scott 09:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per nom. I like his Wiki-beliefs! Kimchi.sg 12:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. A balanced, committed wikipedian; giving him the mop will help make the project better. Bucketsofg✐ 13:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support--Jusjih 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Yes. --Bhadani 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. zOMG! Support! Misza13 T C 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Give him the mop. :) --Actown e 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Thank you, please send more. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. -- ( drini ☎ ) 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, user has shown familiarity with Wikipedia processes and procedures, and is clearly interested in performing maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support --Jay(Reply) 19:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support Jaranda wat's sup 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, a very good editor. No doubt will be asset to Wikipedia.Jordy 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. I'm glad I checked the noms! You'll be a great admin. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    71.112.6.189 00:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous editors can't vote. joturner 02:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support? Yep! A very strong candidate who have succeeded in wowing me. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. You're not an admin already? --GeorgeMoney T·C 06:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. More like this candidate, please!TM Support ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Looks like a good admin-to-be. Tangotango 15:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support DGX 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Of course. Fetofs Hello! 23:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support no evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. esoppO. I backwards oppose! HA! Okay... yea.. he's a good guy :-) Sasquatch t|c 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. esoppO per above ;). WerdnaTc@bCmLt 03:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per all above. --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Joe I 04:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Nicest guy I've met through Wikipedia. Dakpowers | Talk 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, ticks all the boxes and then some. Rockpocket (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Roll on Eric. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. I've come across this user before, and he's always seemed to be level-headed and knowledgeable. I see no indication that he would abuse admin tools.--Shanel § 22:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support, this user is a good all-round Wikipedian who helps in many places, such as combatting vandalism/spam/personal attacks/etc., welcoming new users, RfA, copyediting, NPOVing, etc. This is exactly what I look for in an administrator and this user will definitely make an excellent one. --Evan Robidoux 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Dragons flight 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per nom. Valentinian (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, to pile it on!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Thanks for ALL your contributions.! --TeChGuY 19:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Speedy Strong Support per nom. Royboycrashfan   21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - What's more to be said? Sango123 (e) 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Isn't-one-already?-cliché support. — TKD::Talk 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose A guy who trolls in my opinion. I don't like being called a newbie and Admin nominations are really going down in standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.7.180 (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure if comments like this can be removed, so I'll let someone else do that- but as it is clearly vandalism from an IP I have struck it. Petros471 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How's a fair comment vandalism? Ok the civility was uncalled for, so I've removed it, but even the opening paragraphs are evidence for this guys blatant need to continually bite "newbies". Read up on WP:VAND and know about what you're talking about before you think you have any kind of morale high ground to remove valid, if some what aggressive comments.. //James//
No it was not vandalism, but that kind of language is totally uncalled for and it makes it hard for people to take any comments you make seriously (don't be surprised if people call you a troll or a vandal when you talk like one). Anonymous accounts may not "vote" on RfA, but they may make comments in the appropriate sections. Rje 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the IP is an AOL and IMHO was trolling, if it was an account it would be indef blocked by now, the above vote is for all intensive purposes null and void (or invalid to quote Linuxbeak) -- Tawker 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*cough*"all intents and purposes"*cough* (ducks under rotten tomato) ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments User contributions.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user EWS23 (over the 3620 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 302 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 17, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 19, June, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 93.3% Minor edits: 98.54%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 96.67% Minor article edits: 98.33%
Average edits per day (current): 11.98
Recognized notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites): 2.4% (87)
Unique pages edited: 1930 | Average edits per page: 1.88 | Edits on top: 15.08%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 44.92%
Minor edits (non reverts): 23.09%
Marked reverts: 27.71%
Unmarked edits: 4.28%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 43.98% (1592) | Article talk: 5.61% (203)
User: 4.86% (176) | User talk: 25.77% (933)
Wikipedia: 14.56% (527) | Wikipedia talk: 3.37% (122)
Image: 1.44% (52)
Template: 0.14% (5)
Category: 0.08% (3)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.19% (7)
Username	EWS23
Total edits	3714
Distinct pages edited	2034
Average edits/page	1.826
First edit	20:51, June 18, 2005
	
(main)	1622
Talk	205
User	178
User talk	971
Image	52
Template	6
Template talk	1
Category	3
Category talk	6
Wikipedia	544
Wikipedia talk	126

—G.He 02:57, 22 May 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
  • Vandalism: Combatting it, not committing it, of course. Obviously rollback will be a plus, as will the ability to block vandals. I'll also keep a close eye on WP:AIV in an attempt to make sure listings stay on there as little time as possible, and keep track of things at WP:RFI and anti-vandalism channels such as #vandalism-en-wp.
  • Deletion: Mostly through WP:PROD and CAT:CSD, helping make sure that backlogs don't build up there, but I could also imagine myself venturing into AfD territory as well.
  • Miscellaneous: Obviously there's a lot of other stuff that can be taken care of. Protecting and unprotecting pages, mostly through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, blocking inappropriate usernames, fulfilling various admin requests on IRC channels, and keeping track of things at WP:AN and WP:AN/I. Also, I certainly don't mind (and often enjoy) various other janitorial work, as hopefully my participation at Wikipedia:Duplicated sections and Wikipedia:Disambiguation link repair has shown. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I know this will sound corny or clichéd, but I'm really much more proud of the achievements of the Wikipedia project as a whole than I am with my own personal work. However, if you insist, probably getting pictures onto all of the Sumner-class destroyers (see {{Allen M. Sumner class destroyer}}), and my work on articles Block (meteorology) (will have pictures very soon!), Eleanor Estes, and Eric Carle (among others). I'm also happy with coordinating the effort and doing the major edits in making List of sex positions have inclusive language. In addition, I'm equally pleased with various other work such as welcoming/helping newcomers and disambiguation link repair. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Depending on how severely you define it, I think every single person who has edited Wikipedia has been in some sort of editing conflict. However, I've been fortunate enough to avoid any really serious ones. I've never been apart of any kind of edit war or anything of that sort. I think the key to all content disputes is keeping your cool and sticking to the subject. When conversations start to move away from the subject of the article and more towards opinion and personal beliefs, that's when incivility and personal attacks are most likely to rear their ugly heads. I've always been a logical, scientific-type person, and thankfully I'm able to separate factual content debates from strong emotions. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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


Shortcut

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

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

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with the extended confirmed right following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=54466317"