Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship - Wikipedia

Article Images

Postdlf

(25/0/0) Ends 21:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf has done good category work, has participated for some time in the VFD process, has done major updates to existing articles, and has written several notable articles, one of which has been frontpaged. He has contributed a lot to Wikipedia in responsible ways, with thousands of edits. --Improv 21:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Acegikmo1 23:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC). Postdlf guided and encouraged me through a re-write of Harvey v. Horan. His meticulous commitment to accuracy, extensive work on maintenance pages, in-depth research, and excellent writing make him a fine candidate for administrator.
squash 00:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) I don't know you (as at time of writting) but from looking at your 'Big fat' contributions you seem to be a worthy candidate for adminship... squash 00:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Over fourteen thousand edits!? Wow. I am sufficiently impressed. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:06, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
ffirehorse 02:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Time to toss out the timeworn cliche: Postdlf isn't an admin yet?!? Seriously, I support. - Lucky 6.9 02:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ambi 02:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 02:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not sure what it means to have an art student turned law student, but... --Michael Snow 03:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Definitely. SWAdair | Talk 04:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 07:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Conti|✉ 12:51, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Bandwagon; I'm shocked to learn he wasn't one already. --Golbez 18:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones ^(m) 21:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course! I am impressed.--Lst 27 00:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
{Ανάριον } 07:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
--Pgreenfinch 16:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Geogre 21:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
CryptoDerk 14:26, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
MerovingianѤTalk 15:33, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
–Andre (talk) 21:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Goobergunch 23:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 03:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 16:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
+sj + 02:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) innndubitably.
~~Support at 14202 edits.~~ User probably has 14202 edits by now, so changing vote to support. Κσυπ Cyp 18:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

This user has made 14201 edits since creating an account on 9 Nov 2003. Many of the edits are minor "mass edits", such as adding categories. Acegikmo1 23:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that great users such as the candidate don't self-nominate. By waiting for someone else to nominate, Wikipedia has had to do without an excellent admin for several months. — David Remahl 12:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Golbez

Vote here

(16/0/0) ends 19:40 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to self-nominate because I don't really know if I know anyone who would nominate me. I mostly fly under the radar here, though I do read VFD and the Pump. As admin, I can definitely see myself patrolling Speedy Delete and VFD, as well as doing all the .. adminny things people do. I'm also funny. :) I have over 3500 edits and my first edit was made in March 2004, as I slowly tried to figure this joint out, and I've been a regular since late April and March.

Support

Looks like good work from a reliable editor to me. —Stormie 09:11, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like a good one. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 10:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
MerovingianѤTalk 10:49, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Everyking 13:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey, this guy's all right. Way too few controversial or political posts, but good enough. - Nat Kraus e 16:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 17:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like a good grunt worker to me. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 18:01, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
Support. --Lst 27 18:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Great editor, great supporter, great help. Support! - Lucky 6.9 02:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've been noticing him around for a while, and I'm quite impressed. Support. Antandrus 14:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 04:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
–Andre (talk) 21:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 03:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support - great job on the Hurricane pages, for one thing. Goobergunch 23:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Support. ~ FriedMilk 14:14, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Youbetcha. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 17:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

3,520 edits since March 14, 2004. —Stormie 09:11, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Yes, several times before deciding to self-nominate. I wanted to be exactly sure what kind of powers and duties admins have.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Absolutely. I very much think this is an encyclopedia, and not, say, e2; but I am also not a rabid deletionist. I am also insanely obsessive with some portions of page maintenance. :)

3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.

A. I read VFD now, and I can definitely see myself spending much more time in Speedy. I'll try RC, but it tends to scroll by too fast. But hey, if others can, I can certainly try. I'll see what kind of mode I settle in to if I get picked.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. Huh... 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season and Hurricane Charley, I suppose. And all my U.S. Congress charts, particularly of the likes of U.S. Congressional Delegations from Alabama.

5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)

A. I have many of the high traffic articles watched (1400 articles on my watchlist at the moment) and revert vandalism the moment I see it. I've attempted (with occasional success) compromises in articles like the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and I've engaged in debate on the Pump.

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

A. I really can't think of any conflicts. I've had arguments with other users, and they were almost all eventually blocked for their offenses. :) Not against me, but it was their offenses that drew me to them. I'm trying to heed the advice of "Don't feed the trolls" better.

Chuq

Vote here

(13/1/0) ends 13:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Has been with us a while, has more edits than I do, and has shown himself to be a friendly and worthwhile contributor. Ambi 13:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ambi.. I accept the nomination! -- Chuq 14:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Ambi 14:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. --MerovingianѤTalk 16:11, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
More edits than Ambi? That's quite a feat. :) -- Grun t 🇪🇺 18:03, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
Of course! He's a great contributor. --Lst 27 18:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Most certainly. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Definitely!... His or her contributions to Australian-related topics are remarkable!... and someone in which I think would be a good sysop squash 00:02, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 02:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Given my boundless respect, admiration and affection for Our Ambivalently Hysterical One, if she says Chuq is admin material, that's good enough for me. Support. - Lucky 6.9 02:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I trust the judgement of other voters. {Ανάριον } 07:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
–Andre (talk) 21:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 03:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
—Stormie 03:54, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
CryptoDerk 04:05, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Did not appreciate the attempt at suppressing real info and making a joke of it --Pgreenfinch 17:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- For context - this is in regards to my delete vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Chuq 23:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Exactly, glad it rings a bell for you, but it was not just the vote and I was not the only one who took notice ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 12:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Have now :)

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Well I already do similar maintenance-type things now, so I expect I will transfer that to admin tasks in the future (I just won't have to ask an admin to do it for me)!

A. At the moment I do a bit of each of those, watching for vandals and have a go at RC patrol sometimes as well, so I guess these will increase when I can use the admin tools to make it a bit easier!

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. Probably Triple J mostly. Close runner-ups would include its related changes, as well as Hobart, Tasmania, List of Australian television channels, Local Government Areas of Tasmania (and its related changes).

I'm not an admin, but he's done especially good work on Triple J. (sorry for comments from the peanut gallery) - Ta bu shi da yu 01:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Articles, which although not an article in itself, is a good page for managing the thousands of Olympics related articles and templates. I've also helped with Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne a little.

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

A. I had a disagreement with Adam Carr about some political terminology. After a short (less than a week) WikiVacation, I decided to let him concentrate more on articles about Australian politics, as he clearly has more detailed knowledge about the topic, and I concentrated more on articles that are lacking detail, such as Australian music. From now on I expect the newly created Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board will be the focus of my work!

Thanks again to Ambi and others who have offered me their support! -- Chuq 00:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Benc

Vote here

(31/0/3) Ends 22:50, 27 September 2004

Benc, or Ben, has been with us for around three months and in that time has shown himself to be a friendly, reliable user with a good nature. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Neutrality. I accept the nomination. (For the curious: I have 4,000 edits or so.) • Benc • 23:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Neutrality^talk 22:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton 23:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An obvious one!--Bishonen 23:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For sure. —Stormie 23:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 00:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yep. David Remahl 00:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I kinda miss my old user name, but... what the heck. ;-) func (talk) 05:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Conti|✉ 16:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
3 months + 4000 edits + good nature = my support. ;) -- Grun t 🇪🇺 17:07, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
Geogre 18:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Pretty clear eyed and even tempered, very trustworthy.
Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Given Ben's intelligent contributions and wise perspective, I was sure he'd been here much longer than 3 months -- wholehearted support.
ffirehorse 22:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Support. --Lst 27 23:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ugen64 00:36, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
EDGE 07:01, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) -- He jumped the gun on my edit of Pirate Radio, and this displeased me, but he was very nice and friendly after he realized what a horrible mistake it all was. I like nice and friendly people.
Ambi 07:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 10:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Very much so. --MerovingianѤTalk 10:44, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
By all means. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 12:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My interactions with him have been positive. Seems stable. - Nat Kraus e 16:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Support. Jayjg 20:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. Antandrus 15:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hard working, level-headed, works well with others and requires three personal sandboxes. Um... Yes. SWAdair | Talk 07:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sure. --Pgreenfinch 16:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
CryptoDerk 04:17, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
squash 11:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
–Andre (talk) 21:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 03:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Met Benc a number of times, and found a person with a good deal of initiative. Support all the way!•→Iñgólemo ←• 04:34, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
About damn time. I can hardly think of a better candidate for adminship. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Doing good work. PS original signature JFW | T@lk 23:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

~~Oppose. Don't appreciate personal attacks on the motives of people making VfD listings.~~ Rick K 19:27, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Although I've seen nothing but good contributions from Benc, he's only been active for two months despite signing up in December 2003. Moreover, most of his edits are minor "formatting" or "management" edits, such as adding categories. This isn't bad, of course; willingness to do such administative work indicates that Benc will be a very productive administrator. But it prevents me from getting an comprehensive view of Benc's dealings with content-related matters. As such, I am neutral. Acegikmo1 02:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Changing my vote to neutral. Rick K 04:51, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
I concur with Acegikmo1. -JCarriker 05:59, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Yes.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Yes.

A. Responding to general requests for assistance. I would also like to help out with VFD maintenance if needed, and its oft-neglected sister pages (TFD, CFD, etc.)

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. If I have to pick one, it would have to be anarchist symbolism because it's grown the most, despite its being no stranger to controversy.

A. I do a fair bit of grunt work (disambig wikilinks, refactor talks, categorization, etc.). But my most visible contribution would probably be Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles. Yeah, it's a little idealistic and introspective, but I like it all the same. :-)

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

A. I don't shy away from controversial topics, just controversial edits. As a personal rule, I always stop editing and take it to the talk page after the first revert. The several times this has happened, I have never failed to reach a compromise within several days. I will continue to do so.

Nichalp

Vote here

(14/2/1) ends 14:55 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nichalp has been here for several months and has around 956 edits in the main namespace. Among other edits, he has made valuable contributions to India related pages, always gets into constructive dialogue when points of view differ and generates goodwill. This along with his consistency would make him a good administrator. KRS 12:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks KRS, I accept. About the 956 figure: I devote just 2 hours daily online, in which I also read the news, check email, chat & surf the net. Hence to get a higher figure (2,000 for blankfaze) will take some time to achieve. Nichalp 18:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Note:As on 22^nd September number of main name space edits is 1153 and total number of edits is 1712. KRS 02:19, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

KRS
Gzornenplatz 18:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
—Morven 19:26, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC) Seems to be good at working with others for consensus and improvement.
ugen64 00:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Two featured articles in about 1000 edits is indeed impressive. Appears to interact well with other users and will probably serve well as a sysop. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 17:02, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
ed g2s • talk 03:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) So far, so good.
Yes. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 10:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David Remahl 19:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Nicholas is very good in English. Also, he got exceptional patience to explain petty obvious facts in talk page to convince ignorants. Let the world be benefitted more out of his work. --Rrjanbiah 05:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
squash 11:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC) I support Nichalp because of his quality of edits not considering the treshold of becoming a Wikipedia sysop is around 2000 and 3 months, as it balances out each other. Nice work... Nichalp, hope you can work on other articles to make them feature articles... :-) also your knowledge of India is very valuable.
I'm moving to support. --MerovingianѤTalk 15:36, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
–Andre (talk) 21:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 03:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Netoholic @ 21:56, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC) -- Too few edits, and a very narrow scope. We just haven't seen enough of him to know what he'd do with it. Adminship is more than just "reverting vandalised edits in a single switch" on your favorite articles.
Lowellian 16:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC) Too few edits.

Neutral

Lst 27 00:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) Not enough edits.

User:Merovingian (moved to Support)

Comments

I assume KRS intends to vote in support too? :-) — David Remahl 19:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, assuming that, the toctally is at 4/1/0 now. ugen64 00:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I have added my name KRS 14:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WRT Netoholic's comments, I feel that though each person is free to have their own standards in terms of number of edits for an admin, I don't think its fair to comment on the scope of a Wikipedian's contribution. KRS 14:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not? — David Remahl 19:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A pertinent discussion here. KRS 04:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as the 'scope' is concerned, I disagree that it should be made a negative point. Although I contribute related articles to three main topics, this does not mean that I am in anyway less qualified to contribute FA articles in electronics, computers and physics among others. I'm not bound to any 'favourite' articles, I also read varied topics and contribute nuggets of info if possible, or add a post on its talk page for others to clarify ambigious statements. Nichalp 20:11, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify, the namespace edits are about 1,000; other edits exceed 2,000. It is slightly on the lower side as I use my word processor to edit articles and further use the preview button before saving the page, thereby bypassing typos etc. Nichalp 19:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Yes, I have.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Yes, I am already involved in regular maintainence. For brevity sake, I won't mention it here.

A. I watch the India page (among others) which attracts a lot of vandalism. This is a thankless job, but I don't mind. If an editor should ask me for my opinion, I make it a point to reply. Regarding the other benefits of an admin, I don't think I'll be using the SQL querying, but I'll be looking forward to deleting some junk.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. I rewrote the Cricket and India pages from ground up, and sucessfully saw them through to be elevated as a Featured Article. However, my most satisfying article has been the Indian numbering system, as I sniffed up some rare and forgotten data.

A. I have categorised many articles, dealing with Mumbai and Cricket. I now am currently working on cricket sub-categories. I also revert a lot of vandalism, move pages, disambiguate terms, upload some of my created images, as well as seeing that main pages are below 30kb.

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

A. I have been involved in three so far. If I believe I am right and have a valid reason, I stick to my guns and provide references to support my view. However, if my opposite provides a sufficient reason for his/her stance and I think s/he, has a point, I do not pursue the matter. It is a stressful job no doubt, reading the negative comments; but thankfully it does not last very long.

Proteus

Vote here

(20/0/0) ends 21:16 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proteus, or Peter Tilman, has been a user for several months now, and has approximately 2300 edits next to his name. He has made several important contributions in terms of maintenance: reverting vandals, correcting errors in form and usage, moving articles to their correct locations and the like. His expertise, especially in matters pertaining to the United Kingdom, is invaulable. He is always polite, answers the questions of novices and avoids hostilities. -- Emsworth 21:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Emsworth. I accept the nomination. Proteus (Talk) 13:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

—No-One Jones ^(m) 21:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 21:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 22:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ugen64 22:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) - Emsworth, I assume there are five supports, including your invisible vote :-).
MerovingianѤTalk 23:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
We can always use more grunt workers! :) -- Grun t 🇪🇺 00:27, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 16:44, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
–Andre (talk) 17:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course! Great contributor. --Lst 27 20:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jia ng 21:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:18, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic @ 22:01, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC) -- Good worker, seems quite civil, and participates in the community.
Yes. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 10:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, wow, I just assumed... James F. (talk) 19:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Support. Jayjg 20:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely... Mackensen 21:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course. john k 00:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
172 03:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strangely, it would appear that a nominator may support a nomination he or she has made ... -- Emsworth 02:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andris 16:17, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Yes.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Yes.

A. I try to help wherever I can, and I have quite a lot of free time, so I'd try to contribute in every way I could. When I revert vandalism at the moment, I don't really see it as a chore, anyway - more as satisfying myself that vandals aren't ruining brilliant articles or making WP look bad.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. Probably one of the peerage articles, like List of Life Peerages or List of Baronies.

A. Probably creating Category:Members of the Privy Council and adding all its current members with articles to it, or perhaps the moving of numerous articles on peers to more appropriate locations.

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

A. I try to avoid avoid conflict if I can, but if necessary I usually ask other Wikipedians I know have knowledge in that area to see if they can provide input, which normally helps settle things down.

David Remahl

Vote here

(32/1/0) Ends 09:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've argued for self-noms to be given the same consideration as "normal" nominations many times, so I think it would be hypocritical to wait for someone to nominate me, or even worse to ask someone to nominate me. I've been using Wikipedia since May 31, 2004 and have approximately 2050 edits on en (a high proportion of those are minor, but I have contributed quite substantially too). I've taken the liberty of answering the standard set of questions below. Feel free to ask me anything else — here, or on my talk page. Note: My user name is "Chmod007", and my signature is my real name: "David Remahl".

Support

First post. PS, it's me, Mero, from #wikipedia!! --MerovingianѤTalk 10:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Support wholeheartedly. I actually thought about nominating you a few days ago, but didn't get around to it. Sorry about that. Now show up at Chalmers damnit :) Fredrik | talk 10:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
— Kate Turner | Talk 10:20, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 14:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Nice to be able for a non-controversial candidate....my first here in a while. :-) David is an excellent and intelligent user, well worthy of this position.
—No-One Jones ^(m) 14:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1 14:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If people I trust support him, I see no reason not to. And adminship should be no big deal anyway. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 14:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 14:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Self-noms should be given the same consideration; as long as they have at least one supporting vote, it's almost the same thing, no? And as Ananrion notes, adminship is no big deal, as desysopping is frequent and easy to achieve. [Reinserted after User:33451 removed my vote. -- orthogonal 19:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)]
Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sippan 16:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
func (talk) 16:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) This will get me some of your Mac shareware for free, right? ;-)
Although I waited too long and missed the opportunity to nominate him myself, I'm glad to see he uses this opportunity to make a point I support about self-nominations. --Michael Snow 17:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, ofcourse. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 18:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
–Andre (talk) 19:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wasn't he already an administrator????? Strongly support. --Lst 27 19:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. +sj + 21:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Grun t 🇪🇺 00:32, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
Support strongly. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 22:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Danny 23:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bishonen 00:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) Excellent user, extra points for the self-nomination!
Geogre 01:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) Extremely strong approval. He has gone the extra mile in trying to contact authors and always shown moderation, and yet strong standards.
David Gerard 20:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I could have sworn I had already voted support, but I'm not seeing it in the list. Well, here it is now. Support. SWAdair | Talk 23:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
SupportBesu 06:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well this is a nobrainer. CryptoDerk 14:30, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Austin Hair 19:34, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg 22:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hopping on the bandwagon, and anyone that Mr Grinch opposes, I endorse. --Golbez 00:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Good user. ugen64 04:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Great user. - Mark 06:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nice user. squash 00:54, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

He's accused me several times of trolling and sockpuppetry, without any grounds for such accusations. — i386 | Talk 14:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- He had grounds indeed, and rightfully accused you. You should not try to dirty this man's good and honest name. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - He can if he thinks chmod007's actions are detrimental to his abilities as an admin. --MerovingianѤTalk 10:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- If he's accused you of sockpuppetry, it's on the grounds of your documented use of sockpuppets - David Gerard 20:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

#Oppose. He makes unjustified personal attacks. Evidence: Talk:General_Mayhem#Repost. In the discussion, User:Ambi is seen as an icon of sincerity, individuality, creativity and female dignity. Then, Chmod007 comes along and starts making personal attacks. That kind of mental instability is something an admin should not have. Besu 21:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Note that 33451 has admitted to having more than one account. One of the accounts was used to vandalize, he has just slipped up and blown his cover on another account as well, see my talk page. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, "33451" is the username of the person who signed "i386" above (not the candidate in question). V V 02:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who would like to form their own opinion on i386 and his alleged puppets can have a look at the "WikiWatch" thread on Theresa's talk page, a copy of 33451's talk archive and my talk. — David Remahl 14:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(edit conflict, this is what I was trying to say before, but poorly worded).Okay, my comment before was poorly phrased. Let's look at it this way: WikiWatch was a sockpuppet, but I thought that by replying to him on my main account, I could convince other users that more than one person had heard of the WikiWatch Foundation. So although his accusation was correct, is had no background and was totally inappropriate. Also, I object to his adminship on the grounds that this user links to other users' subpages without their consent. — i386 | Talk 17:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- - You just have to love the "truth is not a valid defense against charges of libel and slander" argument there. --Michael Snow 18:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I put back the link, but now it doesn't link to your namespace. I wasn't, and still am not, aware of any policy prohibiting linking to pages in other users' namespaces. Satisfied? — David Remahl 17:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - There is no such policy, and it sounds mostly like an unjustified attempt to extend ownership over pages in the user namespace. David can link to any page he chooses, and the only issue is that by linking to a wiki page, you always risk the possibility that the page you link to will change in some way. — Michael Snow 18:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - No, not at all. I simply don't want trolls such as him linking to my subpages (main pages are fine) to ruin my reputation unless they are posting on an RfC or RfAr. I can't afford to have trolls using my own subpages against me. — i386 | Talk 18:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - I'd say this was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, except that David is no kettle. --Michael Snow 18:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        The pot calling the refrigerator black? - David Gerard 20:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (before he reworded his statement)Then, how come you suspect that a sockpuppet search would show the incredible coincidence that WikiWatch and you were actually editing from the exact same terminal at the exact same school? — David Remahl 17:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Candidate would make Wikipedia only other-writable. V V 02:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:-P. For the unitiated, this is a reference to my nickname, chmod 007. — David Remahl 08:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To anyone that may consider voting against, on grounds that this is a self-nomination: I fully endorse this nomination, as if I had myself nominated him. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Besu has 3 edits. Nevertheless, I want to explain the situation on General Mayhem. I do not believe that claiming that a particular attitude is wiki-unfriendly is a "personal attack." I've got nothing at all against Ambi personally, but in this case I think she used policy unnecessarily to the letter. In any case, it was nothing more than a simple disagreement. I did not "come along" all of a sudden and start making attacks. Everyone was also more irritable than normal that day, since General Mayhem was the target of repeated vandalism. Everyone on the page had been helping to clean it up. Furthermore, Ambi and I were both on IRC at the time, so we had the opportunity to work out the "conflict" there. — David Remahl 06:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Of course. I obviously wouldn't nominate myself if I didn't have a good idea of what it was.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. I've manually reverted vandalism many times. I've taken part in VfD and policy-forming concerning that process. I will continue to do these things, only more efficiently.

A. Oops, I already answered this above :-).

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most successfully and helpfully to?

A. Hmm, difficult question. I'm rather proud of the articles I've written almost exclusively myself (Crypto Operating System, Mark Abene, PlainTalk, etc.). However, I wish that in the future, other people will want to edit them as well!

A. I've always done a lot of image tagging. I've added interlanguage links too, which is the main reason for my contributions outside of en (my native tongue is Swedish). I've also done some categorization, but not for a while because I think the cat system is too arbitrary right now...As for vandalism, as I said, I've always manually reverted it as I've seen it. Last week I helped keeping a watchful eye on the people who were editing/vandalising General Mayhem, making sure they stayed on that particular page.

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

A. I was disturbed by Robert Brooks' behaviour on Penis. He removed a link to an "anti-circumcision" website, and I put it back and suggested a small informational message [1]. Later-on, he expanded the informational message in a POV way and was generally disruptive (he is now on RfC, thanks to Theresa). Most conflicts have been minor like this one. I really haven't edited that many controversial subjects, although I can't promise you I'll stay out of them forever. I'm quite aware of what constitutes abuse of sysop powers, so you need not worry about that.

CJCurrie

(22/1/4) ends 15:50 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CJCurrie is a PhD history candidate at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario. He has been with us since April 2004 and has focussed largely on Canadian topics. His articles are thoroughly researched and meticulous and his editing has been problem free. He's also avoided any conflict with other editors. AndyL 15:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. I've become extremely interested in Wikipedia as of late, and I'm willing (and able) become involved at the next level, beyond simply writing articles. CJCurrie 20:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 17:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). We represent the Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild / And in the name of the Lollypop Guild, / We wish to welcome you to Muchkinland.
Seems a strong user. Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A very strong user - Tεx τ urε 19:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lst 27 21:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones ^(m) 21:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian[[Image:Atombomb.gif|]]Talk 04:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Careful & well-mannered. A solid contributor.
Sjc 09:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Support; thoughtful and careful work which will translate well into adminship.
172 12:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Danny 14:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- SimonP 15:31, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 13:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) Seems a solid candidate, and a good contributor. I have confidence that CJ will make up for any lack of experience in fighting here by consulting others before making momentous decisions.
Adam Bishop 20:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 22:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Expecting to have seen lots of involvement in Wikipedia's debates only biases the process against the levelheaded kinds of people we need as admins. His reasonable tone and excellent work shows that he has internalized well the policies relevant to editing, and I have no doubt that he can internalize the policies related to admin privileges as well. --Michael Snow 00:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rhymeless 01:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I recognize him (well, his name, anyway) from several other Canadian political forums (can.politics and the Election Prediction Project, for two) and can attest that he knows his stuff. Bearcat 05:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
CryptoDerk 14:28, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg 22:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Will support after 2,000 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Cannot get a clear picture on community involvement. Hard-working, certainly, but I have no real way of knowing the level of CJ's knowledge of policies at this point in time. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 22:18, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
I agree with Grunt. I certainly don't think CJCurrie will misuse admin powers, judging by the quality of his edits. However, he has very few edits to pages outside of the Main namespace, and, since his user page consists solely of his name, I have a hard time judging his views on Wikipedia. I certainly don't think that every admin needs to be a mean, lean, policy-writing machine like Angela, but I do think that admins should at least be familiar with resolving conflicts and have some sort of involvement in metadiscussions. --Slowking Man 03:19, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ugen64 00:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) - I cannot, in good faith, support someone who is willing to take editing to "the next level". (just kidding, guys, don't jump on me, now)... actually, I'd like to echo Grunt's concerns. ugen64 00:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

1,068 contributions for those interested. blankfaze | (беседа!) 16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. I have.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. I am, and I do.

A. I would be interested in watching for vandals and vandalism, and would be willing to assist in overseeing the "recent changes" list.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. Political parties of Canada. I've added several new parties to the list, and have written articles for many of them.

A. I've not done extensive work in correcting vandalism or mediating disputes (as of yet). I have categorized numerous articles in the field of Canadian political history, particularly as regards politicians in the province of Manitoba.

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

A. I have not been involved in hostile exchanges with other users.

Zoney

(40/0/0) ends 13:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zoney has been with us since early March 2004 and has greatly expanded our coverage of Ireland-related subjects and European topics. Zoney generally handles conflicts well, and has an amiable outlook towards others. I have no doubt the community can trust him. Neutrality^talk 13:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination, I've gotten more heavily involved I feel in Wikipedia over the last few months, and I feel confident at this stage to take on greater responsibilities. zoney ▓ ▒ talk 15:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Neutrality^talk 13:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David Remahl 13:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). My encounters with Zoney have been constructive.
Norm 14:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 15:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). Definitely, a friendly fellow except that he won't tell me where he keeps his pot o' gold.
- Argh! Stop teasing us Irish :-) The Simpsons are bad enough... JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - This is reverse discrimination. No one is opposing him because he's Irish! ;-) func (talk) 23:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - No, orthogonal was slagging about the pot of gold. In case you're confused, no I did not take offence, I was just commenting on O's reference to Irish Leprechauns and the like. God, I shouldn't a said anything... JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - And just in case anyone else is confused, both Ludraman and I had those little smiley, jokey emoticon things ;-) after our comments. func (talk) 23:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        I heard Ludraman came to Wikipedia in the wheel-well of an Aer Lingus jet. Ludraman told me to burn things. -- orthogonal 21:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        I did? I did? between func and yourself, I think im missing something here... JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 21:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        
        Is it ok to use words like Lingus on a family-friendly website? func (talk) 23:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        Only if no other words come before it ;-) --MerovingianѤTalk 09:53, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 15:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Antandrus 16:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've been impressed with his contributions and common sense.
Zoney is a great contributor and fun to work with. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
blankfaze | (беседа!) 16:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
func (talk) 16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've only seen good edits by Zoney, (love the Irish breakfast, btw). :)
Good user. Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Conti|✉ 19:29, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Tεx τ urε 19:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Arminius 19:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Ludraman. --Lst 27 21:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
squash 21:15, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) Zoney also hangs around on #wikipedia on freenode. His or her contributions to Ireland articles and the other edits are great... would be nice sysop.
— Kate Turner | Talk 21:20, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
—No-One Jones ^(m) 21:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Anárion|Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ]] 22:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know you... -- Grun t 🇪🇺 22:15, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
Acegikmo1 23:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian[[Image:Atombomb.gif|]]Talk 04:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Good contributor, will make good admin JFW | T@lk 04:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
172 12:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sean Curtin 23:11, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
—Morven 23:18, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Second John Collison's thought above. The Zonester will serve Wikipedia well! He also shows curiosity about topics outside his native Ireland - he's dialogued with me about California transportation topics in Ridge Route, and added to that article by his questions. --avnative 23:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Blah, blah, support, blah, blah, leprechaun, blah, I can't believe he's not an admin already! Tuf-Kat 00:19, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Blah, blah, support, what he said. Ambi 10:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 10:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Danny 14:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) You know a candidate is well qualified when you see their nomination, immediately go to support, and then discover that there is nothing either humorous or laudatory to say about them that hasn't already been said. :-)
Markalexander100 01:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Benc • 10:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC). Absolutely. Zoney is an excellent contributor, always willing to lend a hand to those needing help.
ffirehorse 22:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Austin Hair 22:53, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Rhymeless 01:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cyopardi 02:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kevin Baas | talk 15:56, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
Jayjg 22:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yeah yeah, let's get on with the Special:Makesysop... ugen64 00:55, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

I think it has become quite clear that we are not going to achieve consensus on Zoney. I therefore suggest that we hard-ban his IP. func (talk) 15:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Im with func. I cannot in good faith support anyone who thinks I would make a good admin. My vote is oppose. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. I have.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. I will.

A. Certainly responding to requests, I like order also, so I hope to get up to speed on article/history mergings. I'll be available for other chores also.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. Train station and railway platform perhaps, along with associated articles.

A. As regards running/maintenance, I like to give opinions. I now frequent Village Pump a lot, and am happy to give my voice on any issues needing decisions.

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

A. Most serious conflict was probably when I just arrived, over Irish breakfast - I'd handle it better now I think. Nevertheless we worked out an agreement that involved expanding the article (the other party didn't want to keep the article, so that was something!). I'm not one for getting stressed, I'm a typically laid-back Irishman!

Gerald Farinas

(21/0/2) ends 02:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gerald Farinas is one of the most dynamic Wikipedians I've had the good fortune to meet. He is dedicated, friendly, bold, and hard-working, and has made invaluable contributions to hundreds of Hawaii-related subjects, almost single-handedly. I know the community can trust Jerry to be a good sysop.

Neutrality^talk 02:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been nominated a couple months ago but withdrew my nomination feeling that I wasn't quite ready and needed more experience interacting with other Wikipedians. I'm honored for this nomination and will accept this time around. --Gerald Farinas 03:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Neutrality^talk 02:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is my time to say, "He isn't an admin already?" Mike H 02:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Rhymeless 03:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones ^(mail) 03:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 04:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Anyone willing to withdraw his own nomination to get more experience I think demonstrates that he's more concerned with Wikipedia than his own ego. So I strongly support. So I really ought not to have mistakenly listed this under "oppose", should I have?
Merovingian Talk 06:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Lst 27 15:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Andre 16:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Guan aco 21:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 00:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Young? Is he unusually young for a college student or something, blankfaze? The average college student probably falls near the middle of our age demographic. In any case, regardless of chronological age, Jerry has demonstrated plenty of maturity to qualify for adminship in my opinion. --Michael Snow 01:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, oops, I seem to be mistaken here. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
After seeing some of his incredible work on articles like Alan Keyes, how can I say no? -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 01:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
172 10:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Strong support. Within his first day or two on Wikipedia he contributed five articles. One was a short paragraph about Moanalua High School, and it got listed on VfD. Fortunately, he wasn't discouraged and shrugged it off, which tells me almost everything I need to know about him. Perhaps he shrugged it off because was too busy working on a very good article about Rogers Park, Chicago to worry about it. Since then, he has contributed mumble-hundred articles, and all the ones I've glanced at being just superb. Moanalua High School survived VfD by the way, and subsequently got polished into a little gem. Gerald Farinas knows how to write encyclopedia articles, and has a non-contentious personality.
I'm not sure how I've failed to ever see Gerald's name before, given his large number of edits, but he seems like an excellent editor, and courteous and helpful in discussions. Definite support. —Stormie 01:42, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Benc • 02:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tεx τ urε 19:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Can I change my vote to oppose due to my jealousy of your office view? Or should I support you and hope to leverage this into a job?
Danny 14:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course. +sj + 21:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
James Easton 04:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) Support. He's got to be one of the most charming people on Wikipedia and has something most editors lack. When it comes to disputes or arguments with others, he has tact and is quite polite.
Ambi 09:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Unsure about his knowledge experience with the Wikipedia community. Is certainly polite with others, but I am not sure if he has a complete grasp of all of the policies in place here. Plus, what would he do as a sysop? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:55, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
- Grunt, when you ask "what would he do as a sysop", I'm not sure what you mean. Could you expand on that, please? -- orthogonal 18:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - I mean, essentially: How can the Wikipedia community benefit from making Gerald a sysop as opposed to his not being a sysop? -- Grun t 🇪🇺 22:20, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
- What do you do as a sysop? --MerovingianTalk 23:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - I do grunt work; specifically, RC patrol and vandalism cleanup. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 22:20, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
~~If I'm not mistaken, isn't he a bit of a young chap? Seems to be a good contributor, but I would worry about inexperience, maturity, and the like, perhaps.~~ Oops. Not that young after all. 8750 edits? Wow, impressive. But if Sir Grunt is reluctant to support, so then shall I be! blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
He's 21, if that matters. Mike H 01:24, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, fie, I feel afool. I must be thinking of someone else, or... something. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you're thinking of me; I'll be 16 in November. --Merovingian Talk 23:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Nay, Mero, you are young, but responsible. Though I know not what you were thinking when you decided to put an animated gif in your signature! blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:D --Merovingian Talk 07:50, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Don't let my vote influence yours, please... -- Grun t 🇪🇺 22:24, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, Sir Grunt, but I trust your judgement in most any situation; and if you have reservations about supporting, then I, a user notoriously reluctant to support, shall too. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

~8750 edits since May 17. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 02:55, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

That number may be slightly misleading—he has a pattern of rapid consecutive edits to the same article, which probably is an indication of care and meticulous proofreading—but he has created a truly impressive number of articles in any case. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So does User:Lord Emsworth, and we all know how he turned out :-). ugen64 01:00, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Yes, several times since being first nominated for adminiship a couple of months ago. I withdrew my nomination then so I could get a better grasp of Wikipedia rules, policies and the overall culture that Wikipedians maintain.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Yes, I work at a desk all day and when work is slow I usually end up on Wikipedia. I do have a considerable amount of time free to perform the necessary chores that come with the position.

A. I would be free to do whatever is needed to be done in various areas as needed.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. I'm quite devoted to the Hawaii-based articles, especially the major historical articles: Republic of Hawaii and Territory of Hawaii. I also spent a lot of time categorizing the Hawaii-based articles — Category:Hawaii.

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

Andrevan

(20/0/0) ends 05:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andrevan has shown hirself to be an excellent Wikipedian. It is clear to me that Andrevan can be trusted with the privileges and responsibilities of adminship. Sie is hard-working and trustworthy and as an admin will undoubtedly be able to contribute much more to Wikipedia. Node 05:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept the nomination. For what it's worth, I have 1325 edits up to this point. Andre 06:01, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An update: I now have 1618 edits. At this rate, I should be able to hit 1800 in time for Blankfaze to vote for me! :) Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I now have 1801 edits. Victory! Andre 01:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Node 05:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. Longtime contributor, and a fellow video game aficionado to boot! --Slowking Man 06:13, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian[[Image:Atombomb.gif|]]Talk 06:50, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Norm 12:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ана́рыён 13:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mike H 15:20, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality (talk) 15:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lst 27 16:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zchangu 18:00, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 19:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We can always use more grunt workers. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:04, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
Guan aco 22:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Beau99 22:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 00:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I oppose anyone who's so confrontational that they can start arguments over articles about invented, non-existent deities. Listing my vote in the support category is a valid surrealist technique. --Michael Snow 01:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tεx τ urε 19:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
FriedMilk 05:01, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, what the hell, might as well. You should feel special, because, having evactuated for Sir Ivan, I am without a broadband connection, and am using some of my precious time on this dreadfully slow dialup connection to support YOU. Fie. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 13:56, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
squash 07:34, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC) Good user with good edits.

Oppose

~~Sie? I don't know what a sie is, and as such, I'm not sure a sie would make a good admin.~~ ~~Will support after 1,800 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~

You are opposing someone because Node used a gender neutral pronown? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 23:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blankfaze, believe me, I'm a he, not a sie. Node just used gender neutral pronouns because he wasn't aware of my gender. If you want to oppose me because of my lower-than-your-standard edit count, do so, but please don't oppose me because my nominator referred to me in a gender-neutral manner. Andre 03:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I kid, everyone, I kid! blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Sie" is a neologistic gender-neutral third person singular pronoun, analogous to "he" or "she" but without specifying gender, but also without, like "it" implying the referent is non-human. -- orthogonal 23:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It's also, uh, the German word for "she". Who came up with this nonsense? john k 02:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - In German Sie (with capital S) is also third person M/F single or plural for a polite form of 'you' (like 'Usted' in Spanish, 'Vous' in French or 'U' in Dutch). English does not have this form at all. (Hint: john, brush up your German) 213.51.209.230 21:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Through Wikipedia, I found out about Spivak pronouns, which I think I prefer. E, em, and eir sound much better to me than sie and hir, besides which, I like sounding slightly Cockney. func(talk) 00:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, you all seem to forget about hu! Oh, that political correctness silliness!--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 13:56, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Yes, and I read it again just now to refresh my memory.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Yes, very interested, and I'm sure I'll have time to do them.

A. RC patrol is mainly what I think I can help with... vandalism, speedy deletes, and other maintenance that shows up on RC. Of course, I will respond to requests and do VfD as well.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. I'm a big fan of No soap radio, which I wrote most of myself. However, it's hard to pick one contribution that was the most helpful.

A. I try to add a lot of new, interesting, and appropriate material, but I've also done NPOVing and vandalism revertion.

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

A. Just one on Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn, but that was hardly a conflict, and everyone was satisfied with the end result.

Arminius

(14/0/3) ends 00:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arminius has shown himself to be very calm in helping to curb vandalism as well as improve existing articles by tweaking them for POV. In his 1,330 edits since he started here on June 4, he has proven himself to be a very prolific editor and writer, helping in (mostly) articles related to government, economy, and the United States unofficial "dynasties", although he edits in a wide variety of topics. He is well-versed and very trustworthy. I have the utmost faith in his ability to perform admin duties responsibly. Mike H 00:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination and hope to live up to the kind words given by the nominator. Arminius 00:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

Mike H 00:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Mike H's support is enough for me. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Antandrus 01:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Another one I've been impressed with here; good admin material.
David Remahl 01:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 02:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~-- orthogonal 11:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~
Gzornenplatz 11:34, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Andre 19:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lst27 Of course! He's an excellent contributor.
Merovingian[[Image:Atombomb.gif|]]Talk 04:59, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
An exemplary example of the type of person that a good Wikipedia contributor and would be a good sysop. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:01, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
[[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 22:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good person to have around - Tεx τ urε 19:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 00:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'll take a chance.
Danny 14:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Too bad Chad Pennington will kill him before he gets to use any of his real powers. (Arminius will understand this). Support CryptoDerk 00:41, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Austin Hair 01:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
I am very impressed with Arminius. I've been impressed with his work since I first saw it. I have nothing but support for the work he has done. I do feel, however, that simply not enough time has passed to vote for him as an admin. This isn't a matter of getting more of a record, but of going through some of the ups and downs of Wiki-involvement that just come along with time. I hope for a re-nomination in 4-8 weeks and a chance to vote for. Geogre 13:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To be fair (and I respect your vote), he started working at Wiki the same day I did, and I was just promoted. Mike H 15:19, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Geogre. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~-- orthogonal 17:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Agree with Geogre; Arminius supports sysops unilaterally departing from policy.~~

Comments

Just some explanation for Mike H: Your case was unusual, for me, because of just how blinking active you were. Your edits were everywhere, and you were stepping in to be The Man for an area that Wikipedia needed someone. I have not one ill word for anything I have seen from Arminius, and he's getting much more active now (or more noticeable? and being noticeable is not a good thing by itself, since some folks get really noticed for the wrong things), and so I really want to vote for him soon. Indeed, I'll be happy to do the nomination. Just a little time, that's all, so that I can see, now that Arminius is going to face the buffeting winds, how he reacts to them. Geogre 15:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?

A. Yes

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Yes

A. I regularly view recent changes looking for new articles that need maintenance and looking for vandalism to correct.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?

A. I would have to say my best contribution is categorizing articles (which can be seen on my user page), although I hope to soon be able to say mediating conflicts.

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

A. Yes I have had a few, and I'm happy to say in every case an agreement was worked out which satisfied both parties.

Jayjg

Jayjg (contribs) has been with us for a few months and has made about 2000 edits. He has contributed to a large number of articles that are traditionally associated with heated exchanges of words. Jayjg, however, remains cool and factual, maintaining a sensible tone and working towards good articles. He is a respected member of Wikiproject "Judaism", and shows a good understanding of Wiki spirit. He would undoubtedly make a splendid admin. JFW | T@lk 07:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to read up on what being an admin involves, the various responsibilities etc. There's a reasonably long list; while I appreciate the support given to me so far, I'd like to finish reading all the materials before making a final decision. I should be done by end of day Monday September 6. Thanks again to all. Jayjg 23:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been through the materials, and it all seems reasonable, so I accept the nomination. Of course, the tide seems to be turning against me right now, so who knows what will happen? Thanks all for voting, for, against, and neutral. Jayjg 19:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I propose to extend this vote for one ayd, to see if a consensus develops (right now, considering the ~~two~~ three late votes, it's at ~~78.6%~~ 79.3%). ugen64 19:51, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

74% now. Snowspinner 20:58, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

76.5% now; quite a flurry of late activity. Thanks again to all voters who have taken an interest, for, neutral, and against. Jayjg 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Extended 24 hours--See talk--Cecropia | Talk 22:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

JFW | T@lk 07:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian✍Talk 09:23, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

—No-One Jones 17:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) While Jayjg hasn't been around for quite as long as I'd like (only since 15 June 2004), his work on a large number of difficult and controversial articles shows impeccable politeness and the will to work for neutrality despite holding a strong POV on certain topics.

Antandrus 18:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) Strongly support him as an admin.

Danny 18:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Everyking 19:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lst 27 21:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

172 22:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Cannon 01:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC). I know Jayig and have complete confidence in him.

Andre 15:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Having a POV is not a problem, it's putting that POV into Wikipedia articles. Jayjg seems to be able to control that, from what I saw in his contribs.

Austin Hair 23:38, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) From what I've seen, Jayjg has done an admirable job of keeping his cool while up against POV warriors. He has my support.

Voting FOR Jayg because Xed is against him. Rick K 00:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Rick, all due respect, my friend, that is terribly stupid reasoning. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Didn't you oppose Ludraman's adminship using essentially the exact same reasoning? (See below). Jayjg 21:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have decided to change my vote because I have noticed how polite and gentlemanly Jayjg is. I don't think I knew enough about him before, but his professional attitude is such a breath of fresh air, I think that he will make a great admin! Pitchka 22:24, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote. I stand by my reasoning below (which has more to do with WP procedures than Jayjg personally) but Jayjg's behaviour here has convinced me that he's capable of seperating his personal POVs and admin tasks, so I trust Jayjg. - pir 09:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Viajero 16:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-- orthogonal 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC).

After hours of searching, I found only one single instance of Jayjg stating something to the effect of his POV being NPOV, when I thought it wasn't, which is why I feel confident in supporting his candidacy. His manifest civilty is a strong additional plus! --Ruhrjung 02:07, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

+sj + 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zero 02:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute! I know who you are! :P -- Grun t 🇪🇺 02:59, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

ugen64 19:29, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Would make a great admin. Yelyos 19:50, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

CryptoDerk 19:51, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I orginally voted neutral, but this is a borderline case and adminship should be no big deal. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Mike H 22:01, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 22:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

DanKeshet 03:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel 05:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Slightly mixed feelings here: Jayjg is a bit of a POV warrior, and I'm not sure all of his contributions have been positive, but I am sure that he understands and cares about the difference between what he does as an editor and what he would do in the capacity of an admin. I trust him not to abuse the latter. -- Jmabel 05:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Xed 17:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe him to be biased on several important topics, to the point that I question his ability to remain neutral in disputes and use powers such as protection responsibly and without bias. blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you never represent a POV anywhere, Blankfaze? JFW | T@lk 19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, no, not really. I try to be as objective and unbiased as possible. For instance, I have removed vandalisms and POV additions (although I agreed with some of them) from George W. Bush and other articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be about informations, not opinions. And I am not certain that this user understands that. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So you wouldn't consider insisting on British spellings over American spellings on the grounds that British English "is correct English" and "the superior and proper form of the language" to be POV? :-O Jayjg 05:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Haha. Well, I don't really "insist". As I said on my talk page, I don't go changing United States Secretary of Defense to United States Secretary of Defence or something of the like. I only correct AE spellings in articles I come across that are not at all related to the US, and on extremely visible pages such as the Main Page, of course! blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg is highly biased towards a POV that I find rather extreme (which in itself is of course completely legitimate). He is very persistent and dedicated to pushing this POV to the exclusion of opposing views. On the other hand he is very professional and polite. The question is whether he will maintain this professional conduct as an admin, or whether he will use the increased powers in the same way he uses his "common" Wikipedian's powers (i.e. to push his POV). It is of course impossible to predict, we are asked to express trust in advance. Normally I would give him the benefit of the doubt. The trouble is that once I have given away my vote here, I clearly have no realistic means to hold him to account in the case where he does abuse his admin powers (and judging by the vote at Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy) this will remain so. So after debating about his nomination ~~all day~~ for a while, I have decided to ~~vote against~~ change my vote(NB not because of his POV but because with current Wikipedia procedures I can't bring myself to take the risk of endorsing him strongly enough). - pir 19:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, pir, and your explanation on my Talk: page as well. Jayjg 05:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 19:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Pirs argument is rather strong, so I'm going to be a bit lazy, and just agree with hir. I'll certainly give due consideration in a month or two when Jayjg comes by a second time. :-)
Noisy 01:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Normally I wouldn't vote without personal experience of a contributor, but the lack of unanimity in this instance made me look at the contributions list. My opinion – from an admittedly brief perusal of the list – is that Jayjg has too narrow a focus to be a true admin ... (I'd be surprised if his watchlist tops 200) ... and that some usage of the 'Show preview' button would have significantly cut his number of edits. Finally, I've been here about the same time, and I don't recall seeing the name on any of the community pages that I frequent.
209 actually, when I just checked it. What is a reasonable number for an admin? Jayjg 01:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gee, is a large watchlist a requirement for adminship? I have all of eight pages on mine, and obviously one of those is my own user page (no prizes for guessing the other seven). --Michael Snow 02:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreement. I was just made admin and I've used my watchlist all of three times. Honestly. Mike H 02:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
I'm up to 222 now; as a result, I now feel approximately 6% more fit to be an admin. ;-) Jayjg 03:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From what I've seen so far, I haven't been too impressed. Would perhaps reconsider at a later date. Ambi 07:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If he isn't aware of "how rogue admins are reigned in" then he needs to do more reading before becoming an admin. - Tεx τ urε 17:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think I'd like this to come back for reconsideration in another month or so. Snowspinner 20:39, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Jayjg has made some fine contributions. However, he seems to be a bit confrontational in some of his edits and explanations. I do not think that he is rash; indeed, he has handled volatile articles rather calmly, such as those related to Judaism and Christianity. I'm not against him recieving adminship; I just think that Jayjg should attempt to be a better communicator, especially if he becomes an admin. --Slowking Man 22:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Pir basically. As long as adminship is given out as a life tenure without possibility of recall, I can't support someone with a strong POV like that. Despite all the "janitor" talk, adminship in the present system is a position of considerable power, and power tends to corrupt. But as I have not seen particular misbehaviour on his part so far, I won't oppose; and I would readily support if there was any real, functioning mechanism for de-adminship in place. Gzornenplatz 09:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Good points both on the issue of adminship. I don't understand how "rogue" admins are reigned in either, and that is worrying. Jayjg 18:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~Mike H 19:22, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Next time will probably be best.~~
~~Ditto Mike H.~~ [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) (changed vote to support)
I really like what I've seen of Jayjg. He has seemed to be calm, rational, and persistent in his view without being exclusionary of the views of others. The whole thing with Xed's votes is a bit moot, as Xed surely does seem to be new and a little too motivated. The only reason that I'm not voting for Jayjg is that I want a little more time on the project before the nomination. I.e. barring anything really disturbing happening, I will vote 'yes' on the next nomination, which I hope is made in 8 weeks or so. Geogre 15:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliments, and its true I haven't been on Wikipedia all that long. Jayjg 15:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I just reviewed his edits on Yasser Arafat and basically I agree that he passed over that fine line of POV in his edits, even by so very little. However, is this reason to fear adminstrator abuse? I don't know. Gadykozma 01:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Good feedback on the edits and adminship. Thanks. Jayjg 15:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Engages in stalking behaivior. Highly biased in issues related to Israel.--Xed 17:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This is based solely on a disagreement on Druze, where this user attempted to push a certain POV. He's only been around for two weeks. Xed, if you think this is stalking, you ain't seen no edit warring yet! Please revise your vote after looking through the edit history of Jew. By Wikipedia standards, this is no stalking. JFW | T@lk 19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - If I could add 10 more votes to 'Oppose' I would. As well as stalking me, he accused me of making up this quote by Nixon - "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal". This is not acceptable behaviour for an administrator.--Xed 19:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- See also this RFAr. I request Xed's vote is ignored if the tally is borderline (which won't happen anyway). JFW | T@lk
  - I'm to be ignored because I disagree with you? What an unusual system of democracy.--Xed 19:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - No, you are to be ignored because you seem to make frivolous or ridiculous (or both) assertions. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - By 'frivolous assertions' I suppose you mean my opposition to harassment via email.--Xed 20:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I've removed your vote because you are presently banned for trolling. It can be reinstated if you behave yourself. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - vote reinstated by third party - thanks--Xed 22:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- My concerns about Xed's vote remain. A single spree of edit wars is a poor reason for voting against adminship. I note that Xed has been unbanned. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Jayjg has accused me of making up a quote. I have mentioned this many times. you have failed to address this, as well as telling me which way to vote. Additionally you have made patronising comments such as " It can be reinstated if you behave yourself", "revise your vote after looking through the edit history" and "I would urge you to reconsider your vote". --Xed 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - I have a reputation of being patronising, paternalistic, pedantic and every other word with a P. Making up a quote is an accusation that can be dealt with on the page's (or user's) talk page, and not here. And, see below, I have giving up trying to change your mind. Can I now go back to editing, please? JFW | T@lk 23:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please note: JFW has attempted to delete my opposing vote after I refused to take his advice to change my mind--Xed 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rubbish. I deleted your opposing vote because you'd just been banned for trolling. As the decision was made to unblock you, I did not oppose Blankfaze's action to reinstate your vote. I am not trying to force you to change your vote. I am simply very concerned by your general behaviour on Wikipedia and I refuse to let this influence this RFA vote. JFW | T@lk 23:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - A patent lie. You say above 'request Xed's vote is ignored if the tally is borderline' BEFORE I was temporarily blocked. You wanted it removed from the start--Xed 00:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I asked for your vote to be ignored because you were trolling, which later led to your blocking. Will you stop hairsplitting? JFW | T@lk 00:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Jfdwolff please stop feeding the trolls. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are Xed and Pitchka sockpuppets? - pir 16:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Xed certainly is. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Pitchka is a sockpuppet, but his other username (User:Timothy001 hasn't voted. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Moved from Texture's vote)
Do you have any examples of rogue admins being censured in some sort of permanent way? I've never seen or heard of it being done. In fact, as far as I can tell, if one is persistent enough (regardless of whether or not one is an admin), one can never be permanently censured or banned from Wikipedia, since inevitably some admin somewhere will un-ban you. Some admins seem to make it a policy of un-banning people. Jayjg 18:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's an attitude that worries me. You don't seem to have respect for the position. How can you be expected to fulfill the obligations with that opinion of the position you aspire to? in cases where admins have used their power in questionable circumstances they have been taken to account. I haven't heard of any actions that required censure "in some sort of permanent way". Do you have an example in mind that was not reviewed by the community? - Tεx τ urε 22:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I highly respect the position, but I am also aware of the issues surrounding it. This does not mean the position itself is bad, but as Pir, Gzornenplatz, and Kim Bruning have pointed out, Wikipedia "clearly ha[s] no realistic means to hold [admins] to account in the case where [admins do] abuse [their] admin powers (and judging by the vote at Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy) this will remain so." The question here is not whether you have heard of any admin actions that required censure in some sort of permanent way, but rather, what is the procedure that would be followed in such a case. Do you have a Wikipedia page I can examine which outlines an agreed upon process for such cases? Are Pir, Gzornenplatz, and Kim Bruning wrong? To clarify further, if a legal system had a methodology for appointing judges, but none for removing them when warranted (e.g. for taking bribes, mental illness, etc.), then I would be concerned about that as well. This wouldn't, of course, mean that I disrespect the position of judge itself; rather, when powers are granted, but there is no way of "un-granting" them, then everyone should be concerned. Jayjg 02:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Use_of_administrator_privileges? It used to be Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions and you can look there for past claims against admins and any actions taken. I don't know of any since it was combined with Requests for comment. - Tεx τ urε 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen it. It doesn't answer the question at all, and the issue remains. It is quite clear that there is no procedure for removing admins (if necessary), only a procedure for creating them. Jayjg 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, sir, we can agree on that. There is no real way to hold admins accountable, short of the snail-speed Arbcom. THAT, sir, is precisely why I'd not want to risk giving you admin powers! blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your honest feelings on the subject, Blankfaze. I appreciate the feedback. Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You haven't yet given me an example of what you are worried about. Where has an admin needed deadminship? Give me that one example where misuse of admin abilities has not been addressed. Who is this admin you need removed? What did some admin do that makes you think it is necessary? Rogue admins are reigned in. This has not yet had to involve deadminship. The adminship process is to weed out anyone who would do something so bad as to need removal. I'm glad that it has proven successful. I am having trouble following your complaint or lack of understanding of admin oversight. - Tεx τ urε 04:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe I have made my position clear, which is, I understand Pir's (and others) concerns about the situation itself, that there exists a process for creating admins, but none for removing them (if necessary). The issue is not about any specific admins, but about the process of creating admins itself, which is a one-time event; while it may weed out people who might initially "do something so bad as to need removal" there is no guarantee that a decision made at one point in time might still be appropriate at a later date. People do change. Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No-one is aware of how "rogue admins" are reigned in, including you, because there is no process for doing so, and because it apparently has never been done, so there is no precedent either. Jayjg 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have answered you but you have not answered my questions and don't appear to agree that there is oversight of admins. That convinces me more that you should not be an admin. Do you think you will be beyond control when you have adminship? Is that why you want it? - Tεx τ urε 04:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the issue of who answered whose questions is getting us a bit bogged down at this point, so I'm going to move on from that, as it's making the tone of our discussion more confrontational than I would like. Regarding potential adminship for me, of course I wouldn't be "beyond control", and I have not sought adminship, but, as a pleasant surprise, have been nominated for this honour. Oh, and I agree that there is oversight of admins, and have never argued to the contrary (though there still is no process for removing admins); in any event, that's great news, because now you don't have to be "convinced more" about my unfitness for the position. :-) Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Texture, I don't think you're being quite fair. As user:Pir notes, Jayjg has shown to be perfectly capable of seperating POV on article material and administrative/community activities. I would frankly find him an unlikely person to be become a rogue admin. He has not requested admin powers - I take responsibility for nominating him, and he has - to be perfectly honest - been more hesitant than anything in accepting the nomination. I think Jayjg is a thorough contributor and will make a thorough admin who will adhere scrupulously to policy. From the above I cannot possibly determine what question you'd like Jayjg to answer! Rogue admins are reined in with RFC/RFM/RFAr, and perhaps with the new accountability policy. What more is there to this question? JFW | T@lk 05:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Texture, while perhaps being a tad overagressive, is being plenty fair... Pir (though I think him a good chap) is wrong, flat out WRONG in this case. Not only is Jayjg incapable of separating his POV from his editing, he blatantly puts POV into articles! He's right up there with POV wackos like VV and Rex071404... And, for the record, there is no "new accountability policy"... the proposal failed. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Thanks for stating your honest opinion again, Blankfaze. As you can see from the voting, other contributors strongly disagree with your POV on this, but that's the way it is sometimes on Wikipedia; one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit". Oh well, if everyone thought alike life would be pretty boring. :-) Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit" Not necessarily. If a person is so highly biased that they distort, misrepresent or even falsify facts, it is more than just a question of opinion. To pick an uncontroversial example, holocaust denial is not a case of just one person's NPOV is another's highly POV edit. Demonstrable, proven facts must not be subject to political discourse at Wikipedia, even if they are outside of our beloved encyclopedia. Otherwise, we will be writing an Orwellian encyclopedia where we aren't allowed to state clearly that 2+2=4, but would have to say that some people think 2+2=4 whereas others believe it to be 5 and other 3. (To avoid misunderstaning, I'm just stating a general truth here, I'm not implying anything as to your edits.)- pir 11:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - Hi pir, thanks for your thoughtful paragraph. However, I think it's possible you read a little bit more into my comments than I intended. I do think many things are amenable to reasonable proof. The problem is, some people "distort, misrepresent, and falsify facts" without even believing they are doing so. Either they are simply not well enough read in a subject to know fact from supposition and fantasy, or they are highly indoctrinated in a set of beliefs, or (for various reasons - emotional, cognitive, etc.) impervious to rational discourse. In other words, things may be reasonably proven, but many people are not reasonable. Sometimes one reaches a point in a dispute where it becomes clear that your worldview and those of the person you are debating with are so far apart that there is no way a concensus can be reached. In that case, you are left with two choices; either continuing to press your position, or withdrawing from the debate, "agreeing to disagree". Sometimes I feel strongly enough that my own view is correct that I tend towards the former, while other times I just don't think it is worthwhile pressing my case. Regarding blankfaze's views on my edits, I already pointed out in the pages that I felt he was holding me (and others) to a standard to which he didn't hold himself, and that his views differed radically from those of other editors. He clearly disagreed, and I felt the dialogue had gone as far as it could go without leading to animosity. In such a case there is obviously no point in saying "I'm being reasonable while you're not", when the other person feels the exact opposite. Thus I opted for the more neutral statement one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit", which didn't insist that either side was correct. Jayjg 21:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - Regarding the Orwellian encyclopedia, I see traces of that in many articles, and I do attempt to improve it when I can, or am knowledgable enough to do so. Your "uncontroversial example" of Holocaust denial is, in fact, highly controversial, and (to my mind horrifyingly and sadly) there are tens of millions, and perhaps hundreds of millions of people in this world who sincerely believe there was no Holocaust, or that it was engineered by Jews/Zionists. And they do regularly come to Wikipedia insisting that their view be included i.e. "some people say that around 6 million Jews were deliberately killed by the Nazis, while others say that at most a few hundred thousand Jews died, that it was not deliberate, and that the current beliefs are a plot by Jews/Zionists to create the State of Israel and hold the world to ransom." A quick perusal of the history of the Holocaust article will show as much. In such cases I strongly resist the "some people believe 2+2=5" views, with mixed results. However, many debates are not as clear-cut as whether or not 2+2=4. I've been involved in debates with some people (including, in my view, excellent ones with you) in which I felt at that my viewpoint had strong merit, but that the weight of opinion on the other side made it necessary to accede to their preferred presentation. Jayjg 21:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Academic Challenger

Academic Challenger has been with us since mid-November 2003 and has done invaluable expansion work on many of Wikipedia's articles on political figures across the world. He also is a prolific article creator, and has proved himself to be fair and even-tempered. I know the community can trust him to be a sysop. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do accept the nomination. Academic Challenger 23:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In my experience, an excellent contributor, and one whose edit count is not an accurate indication of the level of contribution to this site. Should be a good admin, if not a proactive one, methinks. Jwrosenzweig 22:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Support. --Lst 27 22:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Jwrosenzweig. Everyking 22:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, Frazzydee has less than 2000 contributions and has a practically unanimous nomination... ugen64 22:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
— Kate Turner | Talk 23:08, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Agree with Jwrosenzweig. If you read through his userpage, you'll discover that he also has contributions as an IP (nearly 200 more). You might also get a good idea of just how impressive an accomplishment his overall edit count really is under the circumstances. --Michael Snow 23:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Checked through his edit history; I feel he's a very strong contributor. Potential to be a good admin here. Support. Antandrus 01:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 01:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton 01:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jia ng 09:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian✍Talk 13:43, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

JCarriker 18:27, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Andre 06:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

172 22:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tireless & trustworthy, imho. —Stormie 00:10, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

ffirehorse 02:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz 09:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Numeric standards considered harmful. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

—No-One Jones 21:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pitchka 01:56, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Geogre 03:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) A mender, not a breaker. (I won't say uniter not divider, because that's big trouble.)

Absolutely. +sj + 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course. Rhymeless 05:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great contributions over a fairly long period. Warofdreams 18:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

~~Not at this time. Will probably support after 2,000 edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~

~~Check all the pages he's created. Like Jwrosenzweig said, "his edit count is not an accurate indication of the level of contribution." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~

~~Yes, yes, I saw. No matter. This is just my personal feeling here. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~

Neutral

I would like to see a bit more community involvement. This may just be me, however. --Slowking Man 23:21, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Who? -- Cyrius|✎ 23:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
After reviewing his work, and considering his circumstances, I honestly believe him to be a great if not exemplary user, and if not for the user's inexperience in interuser relations in the community, I would be willing to waive my usual minimums and support. However, I'd like to see this user come back after getting more acquainted with user relations and disputes. Will most likely support in the future. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

User has 1,070 edits, for those curious. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To Slowking Man and others who have doubts about supporting me because I do not have enough community involvement: It is true that I contribute more content than I contribute on talk and community pages, but I read talk and community pages such as VFD and Cleanup very often, and feel that I am very familiar with Wikipedia policy. I plan to become more involved in these pages gradually over the next few months, but I only comment unless I feel that I have something valuable to say or have a strong opinion. I do not have time to spend my entire life here, and so far am using most of what time I have to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political figures. However, I am gradually becoming more involved in the community, and believe that I would make a good admin, although I agree that I will not be one of the most active ones at first. I feel that one thing I could do as an admin would be deleting pages so that they can be merged and moved, particularly for duplicate articles. Academic Challenger 23:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kate

The Lady formerly known as Lysine Ikinsile, now operating under the more prosaic name of Kate Turner, knows very well that adminship is not "an important and ponderous privilege", but simply a technical capability that allows people to do more housekeeping more easily. Having learned my lesson from trying to count up Gtrmp's contributions, I didn't even bother with Kate because I know she has nearly as many edits if not more (despite having been here only since early June, if I recall). She is always courteous and has a talent for looking to find agreement even when people are at loggerheads. I see no reason for the community not to entrust her with the keys to the janitor's closet. --Michael Snow 01:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept, thank you. For the record, I have 11,940 edits since June 6, but the vast majority are menial cleanup tasks: I'd estimate I have about 1,500–2,000 "normal" edits. — Kate Turner | Talk 01:49, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Support:

Michael Snow 01:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sean Curtin 01:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Mike H 01:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Antandrus 01:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strong support! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can't think of a better admin. — David Remahl 01:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
RedWolf 01:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
My interactions with Kate have been very positive and productive (well, she was productive).-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Guan aco 02:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dysprosia 02:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) Yes! For sure.
Quite the witty gal this one is, and a diligent worker to boot. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton 02:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Most definitely. Kate's understanding of the responsibilities of a sysop -- and the limits of sysop power -- are right on target. -- orthogonal 02:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 03:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I support you, Kate. It would be nice, though, if I could see your face and not merely the back view:-)
Most certainly. ugen64 03:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner 03:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) Duh.
Yes. I feel she would make a good sysop. - Mark 03:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One of the most excellent contributors I've seen in a while. Diligent, dedicated, fair, and a whole bunch of other positive adjectives. --Slowking Man 05:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 05:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC): She's not a sysop already?
PFHLai 05:10, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
172 06:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
V V 07:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 07:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) NO FAIR! Someone beat me to nominating Kate. :-P
Conti|✉ 11:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:34, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Few people work as hard as she does; she runs a mailing list and made many thousands of edits to fix external links headers. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 18:02, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Support: Kate has been very helpful in redirecting all the cricket (sport) disambigs to cricket. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 21:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support. --Lst 27 22:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Arwel 23:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Very strongly support. A++++ would buy from again!!!elevenone11. CryptoDerk 23:49, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- LMAO. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly endorse. Austin Hair 00:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1 02:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kate's attention to detail on title conventions (and a more easily spelled username) get my vote. I have seen nothing but good out of her since I've been around. --avnative 07:28, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
squash 08:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Strong support! - Lucky 6.9 08:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Featured Article email custodian. Ancheta Wis 08:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David Gerard 12:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Dammit, and I was threatening to nominate her ... A natural from day one IMO.
Merovingian✍Talk 13:45, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

JCarriker 18:26, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

When I saw "11,496 edits" my mouth dropped to the floor. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andre 06:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we disagree in many fundamental ways about the way Wikipedia works, but I don't think that's a reason to oppose. Adam Bishop 09:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Arnfjör<eth>]] talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|action=edit&section=new}} Bjarmason [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/| ]] 12:09, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

"menial cleanup tasks" are the most important! func(talk) 19:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kate's not a sysop already? Tsk. James F. (talk) 23:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ffirehorse 02:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. SWAdair | Talk 08:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Of course! - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hopping on the bandwagon. :) --Golbez 19:43, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wait for me! - Tεx τ urε 15:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uhh... oppose, on grounds that she has db access... errr wait. no... make that support, on grounds that she's nice and deals with problems... nicely? Uhh... right. Node 03:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Amazed by this user's edits, have seen much of hir work from afar. Easily support. Rhymeless 05:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JFW | T@lk 19:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) Would recommend a somewhat more deletionist spirit, though.

Oppose:

— i386 | Talk 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ridiculous charade. She's already a developer. Why is there no vote for this? Developer is clearly a more important position than sysop, and there is not even an announcement, it seems to happen behind the scenes. How can you possibly trust someone with developer powers before the person is even here long enough to meet the minimum standards for adminship? Gzornenplatz 17:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Kate's a member of the illuminati already? \o/ TINwikipediaC! Kim Bruning 19:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ugen624 04:25, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC) - this user has caused me terrible distress, and I have been afflicted with a terrible case of multiple sockpuppet disorder (MSD).
- What? --Merovingian✍Talk 17:34, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Not enough support votes at this time. Willing to support at 60 support votes. (Feel free to move this vote, if I forget to do it myself, am kidnapped by aliens, or if this sentence is false.) Κσυπ Cyp 23:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

strongly oppose. ends IRC name with non-alphanumeric. just say "no" to punctuation terrorism. +sj + 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

Fuzheado | Talk 05:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) - willing to support at 12,000 edits. Just kidding! :)

Comments:

For a while in there, Kate was editing as an IP - has she returned to using her username? Snowspinner 02:06, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes - at least I think (hope) I can manage to avoid the things that annoy me and still edit as a user. I may need to do some anonymous recovery from time to time, though :-) — Kate Turner | Talk 02:10, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

How many times will I see my "important and ponderous privilege" line parroted on Rfa? ;) I still stand by it, however. Adminship is the privilege of carrying out the community's wishes; ergo, adminship is important because admins are trusted with the responsibility of performing the duties necessary to implement the community's will, such as bans and deletions. --Slowking Man 05:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten who wrote the phrase originally, I only remembered that Kate reused it later, in the same fashion I did. It's all in how you look at privileges. In the sense you mean, that adminship privileges are "important and ponderous" and must be handled with great care and good judgment, the same way you would treat a precious vase, the phrase has its merits. I'm afraid we've coopted it for another purpose, which is to remind ourselves that in spite of having a few additional technical facilities at their disposal, admins are not "important and ponderous" people with a privileged position in Wikipedia society, but have the same standing as all other members of the community. Ultimately, we're getting at the same thing, which is that admins exist to serve the good of Wikipedia as a whole. --Michael Snow 05:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, how can someone have developer status, (Kate's good work with changing edit attributions), and yet not automatically be an admin? I mean, if you trust someone with the keys to the back door, why is there an issue with whether or not to also give them keys to the front door? func(talk) 17:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it's silly (and your analogy is dead-on). She could very easily set the admin flag on her account (IE, as a dev, she can promote herself). →Raul654 17:51, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, sysops are not purely janitors: they have to make decisions about when users should be blocked, and other "value judgements" that require various degrees of social interaction and the ability to work well within the community. Developer tasks are generally either trivial from a social point of view - such as changing edits - or not related at all, such as work on the MediaWiki software. As well as simple trust, the RfA procedure therefore verifies the social aspects that are required for adminship, which being trusted as a developer doesn't require. (Of course, if I were to unilaterally set myself as a sysop, I'd imagine I wouldn't be a developer for long in any case...)

To give one example, there's at least one other developer who isn't a sysop on en:, but is given sysop rights by a bureaucrat from time to time in order to do the technical blocking that was required by the old version of the username change procedure. However, the need (and ability) to do this technical task does doesn't qualify the user to, for example, enforce a block from the arbitration committee - because that's entirely a social task.

Of course, this is moot inasmuch as a developer could set hirself as a sysop, but I would like to think that someone trusted with such technical access is able to abide by the (implicit) social contract.

At least, that's how I see it. — Kate Turner | Talk 18:08, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

And that makes sense. :) Um, just to be clear: I didn't mention her developer status to in any way call into question her promotion to adminship. She is obviously qualified and trusted, (which is why I voted for her). func(talk) 18:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the oppose votes on this election...i386/33451's vote does not offer anything in the way of reasoning, and his explanations on my talk page are even more worrisome. JFW's vote is some kind of inside joke and he told Kate on hirs talk page that Kate could remove it if sie wanted. I don't follow why Gzornenplatz' chooses to oppose Kate just because the developer selection procedure is somewhat odd. Finally, Ugen624. Is that a joke of some kind too? They're all naturally entitled to their opinion, but they do confuse me... — David Remahl 09:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Ugen624 is almost certainly a joke, given the explanation and that the user page redirects to Ugen64, who voted support. --Michael Snow 17:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's just a protest against the travesty of voting whether someone can be trusted as a sysop when the person is already a developer, a much more critical position in that regard. And maybe Kate should have mentioned this little detail - I just learned it when Func mentioned it above. Gzornenplatz 10:28, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
- FWIW, I wasn't a developer at the time the RfA was posted. I didn't mention afterwards because:
  1. I don't want people to vote for me because I'm a developer, or to appear as thought I'm trying to influence the process.
  2. I don't see a connection between "developership" and adminship. I shouldn't be a sysop soley because I'm a developer; conversely, I don't think I should be denied adminship soley because I'm a developer. As I said above, the implications from being a developer and being a sysop are very different,
- I do not agree that being a developer is a "much more critical position", because I do not have the right to do any standard actions carried out by sysops: I cannot ban vandals, I cannot (un)delete pages, etc. Yes, technically I could, but I'm not going to, because it hasn't (yet) been decided that I should be trusted with the right to do so. The fact that one can be able to do something, but yet not have the right to—and to concede and adhere to this agreement—is the basis on which one can be a developer and not a sysop. — Kate Turner | Talk 10:51, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

I'm slightly confuzzed. Is she Kate Turner or is he Edward Brocklesby? XYZ 16:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm both (although I don't use my real name online much). — Kate Turner | Talk 16:55, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Gtrmp

The unpronounceable Gtrmp, also known as Sean Curtin, has a whopping total of over 11,000 edits (no typo) since 19 Jan 2004. He has shown that he's familiar with Wikipedia policy and communicates in a very reasonable fashion when handling any disagreements. With these qualities, I think he makes an excellent candidate for adminship. --Michael Snow 01:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. -Sean Curtin 01:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

Why he hasn't been nominated already is beyond my comprehension. --Michael Snow 01:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strong agreement. Mike H 01:27, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. —Stormie 01:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Antandrus 01:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
YES! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton 02:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
—No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
PFHLai 05:11, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does plenty of important work with categories, Vfd, and such, as evidenced by his edit history. --Slowking Man 05:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 05:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC): Not only an impressive amount of contributions, but it seems like he's fairly involved with VfD also- I believe he would surely be a trustworthy asset as a sysop!
172 07:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course. Everyking 11:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 11:31, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Definitely. Bishonen 16:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
support. Scottbeck 21:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
support Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Support. --Lst 27 22:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
— Kate Turner | Talk 23:09, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 01:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian✍Talk 13:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Benc • 04:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andre 06:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ffirehorse 02:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SWAdair | Talk 08:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Support! - Lucky 6.9 17:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tεx τ urε 17:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support on grounds that he has an unpronouncable name. Node 03:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sean? — Kate Turner | Talk 03:33, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

(it's actually an acronym) Sean Curtin 00:25, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

A thousand times yes... erm, Support. +sj + 05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definitely support. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 09:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

TheCustomOfLife

Mike is an invaluable contributor with more than 7,000 edits and 300 articles started in the ~3 months he's been here. He is very good natured, and contributes well to the community in general. We would all benefit from his being an administrator. — Grun t 🇪🇺 02:20, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

It's simply an honor to nominate Mike. There is nothing more to say. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Consider this a joint nomination; I guess we both wanted to nominate him at the same time. :) — Grun t 🇪🇺 02:34, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll accept the (joint!) nomination. Mike H 02:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

Of course. — Grun t 🇪🇺 02:20, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
STRONGEST SUPPORT EVER. More than 7,000 edits and 300 articles to his name in less than three months. One of the best contributors to come through Wikipedia in a while. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Edit history looks good. Talked with him, too. I support. CryptoDerk 02:30, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Definitely. To the extent that Wikipedia is a soap opera, what better man to document it. For those not getting the joke, Mike has tirelessly documented almost the entire US soap opera sub-culture, and to a great extent, has done so with succumbing to the temptation to "break-out" irrelevances that we see in some other popular culture subjects. — orthogonal 02:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
EXCELLENT. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I also support Mike's evil twin brother Hank, who (when he regains his lost memory and returns from Darkest Peru, intending to frame Mike for his own murder) would also make an excellent (if evil) admin. — Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hahaha Finlay, you are by far the funniest kid ever to set foot in Wikipedia. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good edits, good articles, good person. I've been talking to him a lot recently. Good soap opera edits. Maybe if I revamp ATWT I could have a similar honor... ;) Lockeownzj00 02:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. — Diberri | Talk 03:11, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC): Of course. This is an overdue nomination.
Absolutely, unquestionably and enthusiastically support. I cannot adequately express my enthusiasm about this guy. Mike is a responsible, knowledgeable, hard-working and highly motivated user. He's also one helluva nice person who cares deeply about this project, its people and its success. We need more Mikes! — Lucky 6.9 03:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Certainly. He would use it responsibly and politely. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:54, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
For sure. —Stormie 05:44, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the only real wikipedia contributors to have had a conflict with Mike (over what was essentially an administrative misunderstanding), I feel that I am uniquely qualified to say that I support his nomination with no reservations whatsoever. In his time here he has proven himself to be a prolific contributor and will no doubt be a great administrator with the best intentions for Wikipedia at all times. Congrats Mike!. — DropDeadGorgias (talk) 05:47, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Very much so. Rick K 05:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
To beat the Rfa cliche further into the ground, "He isn't an admin already?" — Slowking Man 05:50, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
PFHLai 06:14, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
Strong support. Ambi 06:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What they said. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 07:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have not greater pleasure than to endorse the nomination of Mike. A perfect user; expert in his field, polite, cooperative and humourous. Mintguy (T) 08:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Dedicated editor - will be good admin JFW | T@lk 11:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton 13:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) I opposed Mike H's first nomination over fears about his ability to control his temper and to handle disputes reasonably. I am very pleased to say those fears have proven groundless, or perhaps it is better to say that Mike H has adapted with remarkable skill to the Wiki Way, and I have every confidence that he will act with caution, prudence, and wisdom as an admin. Wholeheartedly support.
Geogre 14:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) As every soap opera actress has said to every soap opera actor at some point in the show's run, "Yes."
Tεx τ urε 15:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support, would make a fine admin. Arminius 20:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Great contributor. Support. --Lst27 21:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Plus he has a great sense of humor. See what he wrote on the hug! section of User talk: Lucky 6.9. — Lst 27 15:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I give my support. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 00:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mike was very welcoming to me and worked out a good compromise to my complaints that he wasn't including PBS in his network TV schedules. I think he will have a lot of good to contribute. kmccoy (talk) 02:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely! I'm so glad he accepted the nomination. He'll be an entirely advantageous addition to the cabal. ;) — Hadal 03:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
172 04:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 07:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mike is a good guy, lacking any particularly strong opinions but perfectly trustworthy with the keys to the Closet. Austin Hair 08:03, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 15:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
David Gerard 19:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Woah...I forgot to add my name. Wholehardedly support. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Most violently support! --mav 03:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course yes.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:55, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

— Kate Turner | Talk 21:03, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Antandrus 22:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) He's a good one. Strongly support.

Michael Snow 01:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hereby declare my support for Mike H as an admin :D Sean 01:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

—No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose at this point, my vote is a mere formality... ugen64 03:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

So long as his uni work doesn't suffer... - Mark 03:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bishonen 15:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've been hesitating to vote because I hardly know Mike, but the edits and the golden opinions from all sorts of people on this page are impressive. I'm sure he'll be a very responsible and useful admin.

oh yes! - Lan3y - Talk 17:02, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

a little odd, but a good guy! Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support. He's a nice guy, even though he does look down on RfA self-noms. — i386 | Talk 17:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andris 21:12, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Very much support. One of the things I very much enjoy at WP is it's a place where all kinds of people may contribute what they know. Mike and I have a quality about ourselves that others tend to despise - a mind predisposed to trivia. We have different fields of interest, but the more the better! He's a constructive, caring guy (though I've never previously told him that in any prior communication) Mike deserves our full support, and may many more like him come as well. --avnative 07:44, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian✍Talk 13:47, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

JCarriker 18:24, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe 23:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OwenBlacker 00:23, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Adam Bishop 09:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seems reliable and rsponsable. Always seems to be around. Fair play to the man.----Crestville 19:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MykReeve 22:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He has good Wikipedia sense and will be good with adminship. --Bumm13 08:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By now, this is a mere formality, but he certainly has my vote as well. SWAdair | Talk 08:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andre 15:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He has my vote, certainly. Aphrael Runestar 21:15, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

I think Mike has the project's best intentions at heart. →Raul654 01:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

He wants to speedy delete perfectly legitimate stubs on no other basis than they "get on his turf" - he thinks he somehow owns the entire soap opera section of the encyclopaedia. When I removed the speedy delete tags, he told me: "I think removing these tags is really counterproductive and it aggravates me to no end. Personally, this guy is causing much trouble for me and my work and you're just aiding him. [...] I work in this section. I've written probably 100 (or more) legitimate articles on soap actors that I'm quite proud of. When I see things like this, it undermines the work I have done, and I feel like I am obligated to clean them up, to bring them up to my other articles. Sure, I don't HAVE to, but let's be honest, would you like someone shitting on things you liked to do?" I replied: "That doesn't make any sense. First of all, factual stubs are in no way "shitting". How do they undermine your work on different articles? You are not obligated at all at improving them. You're not responsible for the entire section of soap actors." Whereupon he said: "Apparently you're just not choosing to get how I feel about it, so there's no use talking about it anymore." Apparently he thinks his "feelings" should be the law of Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 08:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, but the whole attitude towards substubs/stubs/ incompetent users does not befit an administrator. Scottbeck 22:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

I strongly dislike the angry warning at the top of his user talk page; no admin should have such a hostile attitude towards discussion. I also strongly disagree with the idea that the substubs are vandalism and should be speedy deleted, but since he promises not to speedy delete them until/unless consensus on the matter is reached, for now I won't oppose outright, given his impressive number of contributions. Everyking 20:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've reworded the statement in question. I don't have a hostile attitude towards discussion either. Mike H 22:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

I think the B-Movie Bandit is a very hot-button trouble user and I still stand by my objections regarding him. I also feel a lot of those quotes are personally being taken out of context in an attempt to make me look bad, but I respect your vote either way. Mike H 12:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
That user is not hardbanned, so you have no right to blanket-revert his contributions. Whatever he may have done elsewhere, the stubs in question were not candidates for speedy deletion, and your argument that their existence makes you feel obligated to clean them up, but at the same time you don't want to do this, and therefore you prefer to delete them, is really not acceptable. As to quotes being taken out of context, anyone can read the whole exchange on my talk page. It doesn't speak for you either that you accuse me of attempting to make you look bad, as if my specific criticism here were just a pretext for some unrelated animosity I would have towards you - I don't. Your contributions are great, but you're too possessive of your section. Just as with Lucky 6.9, I'm not convinced at the moment that you should be given access to the delete button. Gzornenplatz 12:21, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
I do not agree with your vote and your reasons for it but I respect it either way. Thank you. To prove that I have cleaned up substubs, see Jed Allan or Taylor Miller or Catherine Hickland, which I nominated for did you know? I have cleaned up many more; if you wish, I will go back and find the ones I've done. The first two were done by myself and the last one was with the help of RickK, who is also an aficionado of soaps. Mike H 12:23, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I would not speedy delete or otherwise remove any contribution from this user until a majority vote or consensus is reached. However, I will be campaigning to make a speedy delete system policy, as I feel this user is contributing in ill form and is tantamount to vandalism. So, my feelings? Don't delete now, make it policy first. Mike H 12:28, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

How did I get in the discussion? The B-Movie Bandit is about to be hard-banned. Unless you are ready, willing and able to do more than format these substubs, you're only encouraging the idiot, IMO. Please reconsider. - Lucky 6.9 17:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, "about to be" is not good enough. If and when he actually is hardbanned, his stubs can be deleted, not before. Gzornenplatz 20:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  - Maybe I should have supported that arbitration against RamBot... anthony (see warning) 18:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz, if you have an ongoing dispute regarding Mike H's conduct, perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be a better place to further it, as opposed to the Rfa page. Also, I believe comments on votes belong in the below Comments section. I'm not trying to be anal-retentive or anything; I just don't like it when vote pages get horribly bloated. --Slowking Man 17:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I moved the comments. Gzornenplatz 20:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I had a failed nomination attempt in the first part of July. I rejected the nomination, but it was evident it wasn't going to pass anyway. Someone took it down but I asked HCheney to reinstitute it so I could formally reject the nomination. You can see the attempt here. Mike H 02:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Also, for clarification purposes, before I started making edits to my RFA nomination, I had 7,257 edits as of late night in the eastern U.S. on August 30. Mike H 03:06, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

In case one is not familiar with the B-Movie Bandit, please see User:B-Movie Bandit for a list of contributions. Any contribution attributed with his start that is more than a substub with the format "Actor so-and-so stars on soap opera from date to date" was the work of another user. Mike H 12:23, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

My stance on why these should go: Keep in mind that I would not delete until a majority vote, consensus, or a decision to hard-ban is reached. These stubs have been dropped for months. Now they number well over one hundred, if not two. It's not that they "get on my turf" (although the quotes that ostensibly "represent" that statement are correct and are my opinions), it's that they are not much of anything. I liken them to an unrelated IP dropping a stub on Margaret Truman in which it said "That daughter of Harry S. Truman". Sure, it's factual, but so is a hypothetical article called 4 (solution) with the text being "The sum of 2 and 2".

With these soap stubs, most people who are searching for these actors have watched soaps for a number of years (or long enough to know the actors' names). Simply listing years for a TV show is information one would already know. It's too brief, completely uninformative, and hardly helpful. I am not a believer that most of these stubs will blossom into full articles, because in many cases, time has proven that they have not. That's why I feel the way I do about this issue. Again, I will not use my deletion powers to serve my own interests, as cooperation is key to a Wiki and not self-service. Mike H 19:24, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

From my observation, Mike H has been the most consistent savior of the B Movie Bandit's work. While others have either said "Every stub is sacred" and let them go after wikifying, and others still have speedy deleted them, Mike H has put in the work to save them. As someone who is as close to an expert on minor TV personalities Wikipedia has, he is also an expert editor with an informed opinion. If Mike says that an actor or actress is tangential to a show that is already minor, I take his word for it. Note that Mike has never, to my knowledge, wanted the minor figures to be deleted. He has felt personally responsible for fixing them and has only argued for speedy deletes of those that were overwhelming in number and lack of significance. (Confession: I'm of the "delete substubs" camp, but I don't think it has bearing here.) Geogre 14:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well said. I think the fact that Mike feels a personal responsibility to these subs is laudable. I've fixed and redirected lots of these, as have others. I only adopted a more militant stance once I was convinced the Bandit wasn't going to play nice in our little cyber-sandbox. Mike's nomination should not hinge on the actions of a pest and his well-meaning attempts first to help said pest and later to stop him once we all realized that in no way was the Bandit going to answer. If we are going to set our standards so low as to allow this guy to continue his foolishness simply because what he does is factual, then perhaps we should all start dropping half-baked substubs, stand back from our computers and shout, "Voila! We have an encyclopedia!" - Lucky 6.9 17:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unsupported applications

kloy1334, 29 Sep 2004 - rejected
Poccil, 28 Sep 2004 - self-nomination withdrawn
EDGE, 28 Sep 2004 - rejected
Taoster, 24 Sep 2004 - rejected
Pumpie, 22 Sep 2004 - rejected
Cyborg Tosser, 10th September 2004 - consensus not reached
Neutrality, 17 Aug 2004 - consensus not reached, withdrew name from consideration
Lucky 6.9, 15 Aug 2004 - consensus not reached
Nikola Smolenski, 29 July 2004 - consensus not reached
Plato, 17 July 2004 - rejected
Neutrality, 17 July 2004 - consensus not reached
Chocolateboy, 15 July 2004 - candidate did not support own nomination
Falcon Kirtaran, 9 July 2004
Gareth_Owen, 6 July 2004 (declined nomination)
Plato, 3 July 2004
TheCustomOfLife, 1 July 2004 (declined nomination)
Marine 69-71, 30 June 2004
Lst27, 21 June 2004
Itai, 15 June 2004
Snowspinner, 8 June 2004
AndyL, 26 April 2004
ChrisDJackson, 20 April 2004
AdamRetchless, 5 April 2004
Calmypal, 4 April 2004
Colipon, 26 May 2004
Rogper, 20 May 2004
Misterrick, 11 May 2004
Markalexander100, 10 May 2004
Rei, 8 May 2004
WHEELER, 3 May 2004

Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship - Wikipedia

Unsupported applications

Archives