Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies

Jayjg (28/8/4)

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)

Frazzydee

Frazzydee has been an active member of Wikipedia since 7 November 2003. He has made 1,906 edits as of August 22, 2004. I think Frazzydee should become an admin because of his diligence in pursuing candidates for speedy deletion, vandalism and possible copyright violations. He interacts well with other users, and has gotten much praise from other members of the community. Being an admin would speed up Frazzydee's ability to deal with vandalism and candidates for speedy deletion, he has already shown judgment and diligence in pursuing these issues. -Flockmeal 06:31, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. I gladly accept your nomination. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✎]] 06:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I do not have 1,906 edits. I have 1,505 edits as of now. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support:

Flockmeal 06:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
A very mature and responsible editor. Just gave me his advice on adding a new picture to Church, in fact. Strongly support. --Slowking Man 07:31, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Mike H 07:32, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
ffirehorse 07:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian✍Talk 14:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) After seeing your work with speedy delete candidates, I support.

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 20:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very responsible editor. Known him since the age of 5. Wholly deserving. Yelyos 20:59, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Lots of good work on reverting vandalism, cleaning up pages. CryptoDerk 21:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Guan aco 23:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GeneralPatton 00:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pizzahunks 16:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I think he would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an admin. He connects well with people and is willing to help.

Tεx τ urε 16:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh boy, I was about to nominate him. :) -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:33, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Enthusiastically support. Frazz has shown nothing but class, empathy and clear, level-headed thinking. He's also shown some real friendship. I'd vote twice if I could!! - Lucky 6.9 03:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support, even if he tried to delete my articles :) (He was right at that time) Deelkar 05:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FG 05:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strongly support! -SocratesJedi 05:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Already working hard on speedies. PFHLai 06:16, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Support. --Lst 27 21:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hadal 03:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support, very intelligent and hardworking person from my conversations with him in private messages, Wikipedia and the #Wikipedia channel. --ShaunMacPherson 14:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Geogre 14:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) Frazzy is friendly and interested in the interests of the project, not his desires.

Frazzydee's honesty in correcting his edit count alone say much to recommend him. -- orthogonal 15:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another obvious support vote. Keep up the good work Frazzydee. Antandrus 23:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sean Curtin 01:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

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

Certainly. ugen64 03:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mark 05:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can vote as well right? Not that he needs it.--Marco 13:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very smart and very friendly, who could ask for anything more? Bishonen 20:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Helpful and patient with new users and our inevitable mishaps :P--Che y Marijuana 21:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

— Kate Turner | Talk 22:58, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 10:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andre 06:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I just took a peek at my contributions list to see how many edits I made, and I realized that a mistake was made. My contributions list shows that I have made 1492 edits as of this writing. Of course, I will notify everybody who has voted about this unfortunate error. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you probably have more, due to speedies. Yelyos 23:21, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

It seems that voting by newbies is frowned upon on these pages. If someone finds it inappropriate, please edit out my vote, or just move it to the comments section.--Che y Marijuana 22:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The only such concern is that people may attempt to use sockpuppets to vote more than once; sockpuppet accounts typically have few contributions. If you're a legitimate user, there's nothing to worry about. :) --Slowking Man 01:43, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Siroxo

Siroxo has, at this writing, 2347 contributions since 16 May 2004. Siroxo has done some nice work on articles as well as showing interest in a variety of housekeeping and policy issues, so I think he would be a very appropriate choice for adminship. I think he shows good judgment and tries to deal calmly with contentious issues; for example, his suggestions on Talk:Affirmative action recently helped that often controversial page get unprotected again. --Michael Snow 20:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, nomination accepted. [[User:Siroxo|Here is a schmancy new signature and a line of text that is long enough to show how it might look when there is some stuff coming before it. Please take a look at it to bask it in all of its radiant glory

—siro χ o

#627562

#7b967b

#4d6c94]] 20:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Support:

Michael Snow 20:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agreement. Mike H 20:25, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Oh yes.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:36, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 20:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
squash 22:06, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) Also help voted to support for proposition on template images. Also overall I think would be an very good admin.
—No-One Jones 22:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 22:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Another fine nomination of Michael's -- Siroxo is a very good editor, and has the right skills to succeed as an admin.
Rick K 23:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) Definitely!
Certainly. SWAdair | Talk 03:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andre 03:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Geogre 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) A steady guy who follows his convictions without failing to listen and consider. Geogre 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Johnleemk | Talk 11:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 13:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Very responsible editor. Strong support. • Benc • 18:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Noisy 18:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Support! - Lucky 6.9 07:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
PFHLai 09:42, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
ffirehorse 01:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-- orthogonal 07:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 09:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC). I didn't vote immediately because I didn't know this user. Now that I've checked him out, I like what I see. He is definitely admin material.
JFW | T@lk 13:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Good work
Merovingian✍Talk 14:15, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 20:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GeneralPatton 00:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tεx τ urε 16:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strongly support. Lst 27 21:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hadal 03:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

Contributions

Rossami

Rossami has made over 3900 contributions starting 2 Apr 2003. Has shown interest in issues related to adminship, such as deletion policy, and done particularly good work writing up the mechanics of the deletion process (a page Rossami created). In my observation, Rossami consistently tries to remain polite and works to resolve conflict as calmly as possible. I think Rossami has earned our trust and the community would benefit from having this fine contributor as an admin. --Michael Snow 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I accept the nomination. Rossami 15:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support:

Michael Snow 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cyrius|✎ 05:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Strong support. Was planning on nominating myself once the stats page showed a few more edits. Clearly understands the deletion policy, and will follow it with a more literal interpretation, instead of the more liberal interpretation of some admins. Also unprovokable, and a firm believer in hearing both sides of an issue before taking a stand. Niteowlneils 11:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mike H 12:13, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian✍Talk 12:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andre 18:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Benc • 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mike J. 21:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How did we miss this one for so long? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:41, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Ruhrjung 20:30, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC) (Not a day too early.)

Of course. Everyking 20:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig 22:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SWAdair | Talk 07:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What Meelar said. Johnleemk | Talk 18:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 20:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BCorr|Брайен 20:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat 08:06, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Rhymeless 08:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pcb21| Pete 14:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC). Excellent work on VfD.

Geogre 01:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Rossami has a laudable and appropriate attention to the fine points of policy. See comments for the reason for my support.

Satori 01:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Chris 73 Talk 08:01, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

David Cannon 10:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC).

Sewing - talk 13:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC). Mainly because he is playing devil's advocate on VfD these days.

Support, based on Rossami's argument for giving articles time to grow on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sty. -- orthogonal 07:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ffirehorse 07:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ugen64 19:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

172 20:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guan aco 21:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

David Remahl 21:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Austin Hair 00:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

GeneralPatton 00:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with Rossami but I definitely want him/her to be an admin based on the calm, clear response I received. - Tεx τ urε 15:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who wades through the cesspool of VfD while remaining calm (unlike myself) deserves a support vote. - Lucky 6.9 17:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--Lst 27 21:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

I'm changing my vote. I had initially voted Support, but Rossami's recent contributions to VfD in which he feels that any and all garbage is worth keeping on Wikipedia calls into question his fitness for sysophood. Rick K 19:14, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I have to go in the Oppose section since Rossami has not addressed RickK's comment or the comments of supporters who agree with the sentiment. I'd like to see some explanation. Where are the usual questions asked of the admin candidate? - Tεx τ urε 16:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

Rick, do you mind citing sources on this? I'd be interested in this as a grounds for a possible vote change if I deem it necessary. Mike H 19:16, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The change of vote seems to have been precipitated by a disagreement over Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sty. --Michael Snow 20:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the decision Rossami has taken but I won't remove my support vote. Checks and balances and somesuch. Mike H 20:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with Rossami here, but we all make mistakes. I'll keep my support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had also been taken aback by Rossami's comments in that VfD discussion, but voted to support anyway. In the balance of things, I think he is and will continue to be a definite asset to the Wikipedia. SWAdair | Talk 03:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Every time I have ever been on the other side from Rossami, he has had the law on his side. This is a good thing. The problem is with the interpretation of law and how narrowly it is done. I never have had an occasion to do anything but respect him. He reasons well and truly. So long as he recognizes that interpretation is involved, that the spirit of the law is to leave room for interpretation, I don't have a problem. I hope his rectitude never leads him to the madness of intolerance or scolding. I feel confident, though, because Rossami does the most important thing an admin can do: he listens. That's why, even though I had churlish words for him on that VfD, I have no hesitation in supporting him. Geogre 01:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the Sty discussion is the evidence, I don't see a problem. He had a well-reasoned and well-presented argument, based on current policy. If the wikigods would only let such civil discourse prevail in every dispute.... Satori 01:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. He has never, ever, ever, been contentious that I've seen. Geogre 23:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PFHLai

This user has made over 2,200 edits since April 2004, and has undertaken many housekeeping duties with a knack for neatness, such as updating Template:opentask. PFHLai seems to have a good grasp of the workings of wikipedia, has always been courteous on talk pages, and will surely put admin powers to good use. --Jia ng 04:56, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Jiang, for the nomination. This is a pleasant surprise. Thank you. I accept the nomination.

I would like to thank all those who have already voted for me. -- PFHLai 18:14, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Support:

Jia ng 04:57, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Theresa Knott 05:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does plenty of necessary work with templates and project pages. Seems like he will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. --Slowking Man 07:25, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 11:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC). A superb candidate. Anyone nominated by Jiang and supported by Theresa is 99 percent certain to get my vote, but I have good reasons of my own for supporting PFHLai, too. His work is always of a very high standard, and his commitment to the Wikipedia project is beyond question.
Conti|✉ 11:56, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 12:53, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) PFHLai is a solid contributor with a lot of community sense; I wish he'd share some more of his molecular biology knowledge with us.
Of course. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ah, Mr. Opentask is up here... I of course support. -- Grunt (talk) 14:55, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
172 18:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton 20:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ambi 12:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 19:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Strong support. • Benc • 21:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Danny 03:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian✍Talk 13:01, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig 22:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andre 03:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ffirehorse 01:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

User has 2293 edits as of August 22nd. --Slowking Man 07:25, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?

A. I just did. Will move on to various items on Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list soon.

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. Sure, I like being a WikiJanitor. :-) I might have to be completely off-line for a while to prepare for my PhD thesis defence later this year, though. Should be okay.

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. Funny that User:Grunt called me "Mr.Opentask"... :-) but yes, I can keep Template:Opentask neat and tidy and well stocked. I am also interested in contributing to the 'selected anniversaries' section on the MainPage. I will also handle vandalism and requests from fellow editors. I have been doing these things, anyway. One new thing that I am thinking of doing is to work on the "adoption" of orphaned pages.

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

A. Frankly, I have not been writing much. I am just a WikiJanitor most of the time, proofreading and wikifying. If I had to pick one article, I'd say Cluster of differentiation. After my expansion of this article, someone liked it enough to write at Talk:Cluster of differentiation to say "Yippee ....". :-) I look foward to writing more after I am done with my thesis.

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 been managing the Template:Opentask, and polishing articles as they come off the Opentask. I'll keep doing it.

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 usually stay away from hot topics, so I don't get much nasty edit conflicts. But I do see many newbies at the Opentask (also at RC and on my Watchlist) messing things up. I usually just revert to undo/remove the damages. I used to be rather uncomfortable dealing with them, but it's getting better now. ... I think the best way to deal with conflicts over editing and the resulted stress is to avoid them, starting with being polite and reasonable on Talk pages. ... I have also learnt that trolls feed on our reactions. So, even if I get stressed out to the max, I would try not to show it.

Thanks and good luck!

Grunt

In just a short time, Grunt has become an invaluable member of the Wikipedia community, helping with the cleanup and general maintenance and involving himself with policy discussions. With over 2,100 edits, he knows the 'pedia well, and will, I believe, be an excellent sysop. Danny 22:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept. -- Grunt (talk) 23:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Support:

Danny 22:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Guan aco 22:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Andre 22:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does lots of grunt work. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Seen him in action. Impressed.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:04, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Less lazy than I am. Also a superb contributor. As Grunt might say, "Grunt." --Slowking Man 22:27, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Rhymeless 23:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Much valuable. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 23:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
AAAAAAH! AWESOME! ~* Blankfaze tnurGs -- and supports! blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
WHAT? Grunt is not already a sysop?! Along with mav, he's one of the hardest working users we have here. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rick K 23:46, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, I needed about a week to get that much votes. :-) Conti|✉ 23:52, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Definitely. A good person. Very even-handed. :) Node 01:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Specifically, chaotic good. ;) -- Grunt (talk) 01:30, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
Definitely. -- orthogonal 01:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support. Grunt has been an invaluable addition to Wikipedia. I was incredibly suprised when I first saw his contributions, since I assumed that he had been here for much longer! However, regardless of his time at Wikipedia, he has proven to be a great asset. -Frazzydee 01:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I too am quite impressed. chaotic good is the only way to be in life, LOL. Antandrus 01:37, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
tnurG. Austin Hair 02:43, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
Zocky 09:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
172 09:52, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:29, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 12:53, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Considering my comments on IRC prompted Danny to nominate Grunt, my vote will count double, won't it?) Grunt's RC Patrol and community work confirms he'll make a splendid admin.
Highly deserving. He also passed my patented personality test. - Mark 14:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Elf-friend 14:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Chris 73 Talk 15:25, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep]] 15:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) Great editor
That'll do, Grunt. That'll do. Mike H 18:31, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton 20:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ha, I was going to nominate him this week myself after seeing his tireless RC patrol work, Danny beat me to it by a couple of days. —Stormie 01:20, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
A thoroughly appropriate username nobody can object to. Like Stormie, I was looking forward to nominating him, though I was waiting until he'd at least been here three months. Still, has already done enough to show he would make a good admin. --Michael Snow 01:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Definitely. SWAdair | Talk 01:49, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ambi 12:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would make a fine admin, snort. Arminius 16:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Adminship is way overdue. PFHLai 17:09, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
* /me grunts. David Remahl 17:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
— Kate | Talk 17:19, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
Excellent contributor. Yelyos 17:52, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Benc • 22:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
David Gerard 23:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cyrius|✎ 05:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 05:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Strong support, based solely on seeing his speedy tags--one of the most prolific taggers, and they're always unquestionably deletable. When Grunt becomes an admin, the number of articles that I end up deleting will drop by close to half. Niteowlneils 11:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oogachaka. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:04, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Iainscott 08:39, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam Bishop 20:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BCorr|Брайен 20:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

oh go on then ... sannse (talk) 22:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A totally horrible 45th level thief mage with tailor made special items not found in the original Baldurs Gate.... Oh, yes. By all means. We need more grunts. Geogre 03:32, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Go, Grunt! Yeah! - Lucky 6.9 07:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

David Cannon 10:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC). Support.

Yay! 50th vote! Erm.... flame bait ugen64 20:28, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I know I'll be asked these questions, so here are the answers before I get asked them ;)

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?

A. Read through it as soon as I knew about it..

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'm here on a daily basis, and am already doing most of the things I'd be doing as a sysop (see below).

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'd be patrolling RC, making speedy deletions and reverting/blocking vandals as needed; I'd watch WP:RFPP and do something with that as well.

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

A. Probably C-Train and/or X-COM: UFO Defense.

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'm a grunt worker. I do RC patrol already, marking SDCs and reverting/reporting vandals, and issuing welcomes to new users.

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 discovered the mess at Azerbaijan, South Azerbaijan, History of Azerbaijan, et. al. and have been working to mediate disputes between the involved parties (at various points User:Amir1, User:Mani1, User:Roozbeh, etc.).

Thanks and good luck!

It has come to my attention that Grunt is incredibly smart. This leads me to question his suitability as an admin. If we promote him, will he attempt to take over the Wikipedia? Will this create tension with the rest of us admins, who will feel profoundly inferior? I don't know the answers to these questions. But seriously, congratulations must go to Grunt. :) - Mark 08:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ezhiki

I nominate Ezhiki for adminship. He is a bilingual (English/Russian) editor who has been with Wiki since March. He primarily concentrates on Russia and ex-USSR related issues. He is the originator and the primary contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian federal subjects. I believe his adminship would be very useful in maintaining consistency and resolving contested issues. Gene s 14:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:19, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

note: Ezhiki has 1200 edits, from March 1st 2004 -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support:

I certainly support him. Gene s 14:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Support. He's done an amazing job at the Russian WikiProject. - UtherSRG 15:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz 16:02, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
We need more multilingual sysops. Neutrality 16:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Definately. [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep]] 16:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sometimes, the admin rights are handy for those who trying to keep the consistency. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 18:08, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Everything looks terrific. — David Remahl 18:08, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Very impressed with these edits. Rhymeless 03:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian✍Talk 13:18, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ambi 09:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Austin Hair 10:26, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) (Quality, not quantity, blankfaze.)

Andre 14:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 19:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 21:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) Blew me away with skill and patience at Republic one fine day.

David Cannon 11:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC). A great candidate. The fact that he is an interwiki user is a big plus also.

GeneralPatton 20:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung 20:37, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC) Counting only the number of edits is of limited value. Four full months may be a somewhat short time of experience, but not necessarily too short.

Oppose:

не в это время. User is a TERRIFIC editor, terrific, terrific, terrific. But 1200 edits IMO is just too inexperienced. In other words, I don't think someone with 1200 edits is quite "jaded" enough for adminship. Will gladly support after 2000. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jaded. Hmm. interesting qualification. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Haha - I just think with the amount of crap admins have to put up with (at least that's how it is in my experience), admin candidates should have LOTS of experience. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I could stop using "Show preview" button for a while :))--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 23:46, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm. Interesting point. I may give you a better look. If you really want my vote, consider instant messinging me at "blankfaze" on AIM, or finding me on IRC. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nah, that's all right. You probably have perfectly good reasons to believe that the number of edits is important. It is your decision after all.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:52, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
вы правы. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I've been an admin since like July or June of last year and I just now am getting around 1500 edits. So please don't mind when I say this has nothing to do with it. [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep]] 15:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?

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, if asked to. I would prefer editing over these chores though.

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 would be able to help with any of those, but again, this is not something I would like to spend most of my Wikipedia time on.

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

A. Primorsky Krai and many articles that link from it.

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. Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian federal subjects, which is aimed at grouping the articles on Russian federal subjects into consistently formatted series, and the edits I made to the "19xx in television" (xx=48..72) series of articles, cleaning up a lot of mess there (there is still a lot of cleaning left to do).

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. Nothing major, just little things here and there which are mostly settled through discussion.

Thanks and good luck!

Sewing

I nominate Sewing for adminship. Sewing has been with Wikipedia since March, apart from an extended wikiholiday in June and July. Without his efforts, Korea-related material on Wikipedia wouldn't be worth speaking of. Nearly everything to do with Korea has been edited, expanded, categorized, and organized by Sewing. I cannot think of a better candidate for adminship. David Cannon 10:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

note: sewing has over 3840 contribs, beginning properly on 25th Sept 2003 -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am suprised and honoured that I have been nominated. After considering the responsibilities that come with the position, I humbly accept the nomination. --Sewing 12:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: I don't know if it's proper Witiquette, but I've asked contributors on East Asian topics—some of whom I've had disagreements with in the past—to add their opinions to this page.

P.P.S.: I have made the full case for myself—including how I would handle debates—under "Questions for the candidate" below.

Support:

David Cannon 10:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian✍Talk 11:13, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Kokiri 12:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality 16:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The mere fact that David Cannon is responsible for the nomination lends credence to the user. Reviewed, and this seems like a very nice user. David Remahl 18:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course! I've come across he's works quite often and saw only patience and the ability to keep cool even in the midst of heat. I remember when he first came aboard WP, he was surprisingly receptive to advices and suggestions. He still is very amicable. In addition to his good rapport with the community, he offers us with the excellent and much-needed English info on the wonderful Korean culture, history, and geography (basically, him and Kokiri are the only people working on that subject now). And, the nominator, David, is somebody whose opinion I trust, since I supported him myself as an admin. --Menchi 20:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fuzheado | Talk 03:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), good contributor. Sewing, you can always hold admin privs in reserve. No obligations or responsibilities.

I'm not familiar with Sewing, but David Cannon's nomination, Menchi's comments on his demeanor, and Sewing's own actions in notifying users who might oppose his nomination all speak very highly of Sewing. Anyone that honorable has my trust. SWAdair | Talk 04:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Markalexander100 05:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ambi 09:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andre 14:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 19:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jia ng 22:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GeneralPatton 20:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe 04:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I say no more. After reading, I am convinced. I support the nomination. -- Taku 05:24, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Taku:
It was very generous of you to change your vote. You must have thought about it a lot to change your mind, and I will not let you down. Thank you. Domo arigato gozaimasu. -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 16:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig 21:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose: # I praise his contributions. It is true that he made great contributions as far as I know. But I don't think he needs an admin power. He could ask any admin any time. While he is not a bad contributor even in a slightest sense, it is better those who edits controversial issues remain non-admin. -- Taku 02:23, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) ~~#* And, Mr. Murata, your reason for opposition is...? --Menchi 02:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~ enchi: Taku seems to argue that those who edit contraversial issues should not be given admin powers. Taku: You'll probably that Sewing no longer edits such articles (see his user page for why). Kokiri 09:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) #** Just to make it clear, if someone asked me to act as an admin in, say, a Japan-Korea debate, I would refuse to get involved—like any responsible administrator—since I have a personal interest in the issue, and people on the other side would rightly not trust my judgement as an admin. On the other hand, if there were an edit war involving, say, France and Germany, and someone asked me to help out as an admin, then I might help out, since I could be fairly dispassionate about it. --Sewing 16:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

~~Comments:~~

~~Questions for the candidate~~

~~A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:~~

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
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. Just maintaining the Korea-related topics is a major task; deciding what additional responsibilities I can take on is the main factor I have to mull over right now....

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. The more people from around the world are actively involved in Wikipedia, the better. Greeting and offering assistance to new users would be high on my list of desired tasks. Also VFD, to help with deleting pages created by mistake, since I know from personal experience that legitimate users often need pages deleted not because of controversial content, etc., but simply to make a page move easier, or because the page title was mistyped, or what have you.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. List of Korea-related topics and its sister page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), with help on both especially from Kokiri.

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 systematically updated, expanded, rearranged, culled Wikipedia for articles for List of Korea-related topics. Just yesterday, I added colour-coded boxes to help in cross-referencing romanized spellings and grouping common topics together. I have helped to somewhat standardize Korean naming conventions. Recently, I have begun adding Korean name tables to articles, which have helped to clean up all the variant spellings of Korean proper names in different writing systems. And I have added or expanded reams of new articles of varying lengths, not just on Korean topics, but on Vancouver SkyTrain and Taxicabs, for instance.

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 used to have tangles with Nanshu (who has tangles with many users—especially Jiang these days—and whom I have notified regarding my nomination), but I learned to avoid as much as possible touching articles that involve conflicting Chinese, Japanese, and Korean points of view, since these articles usually attract strong opinions on all sides, and it's often very difficult to even establish an NPOV that all sides are happy with. (Sometimes I'll add alternate spellings and pronunciations of key names or words in such articles, though, when the names are frequently used in 2 or more languages, in order to make the articles more inclusive.) As an admin, I would not allow myself to adjudicate in any disputes concerning this heady world of contemporary East Asian politics (Japan vs. South Korea vs. North Korea vs. China vs. Taiwan), and those who were nice enough to nominate me probably know that I would not do that.
~~Rhymeless~~
A careful editor with diverse interests. Reserved and thoughtful in exchanges with other editors. About 1600 edits since April 2004. Someone I consider a solid contributor. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~I accept this nomination. Rhymeless 19:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Support~~
Wile E. Heresiarch 14:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality 15:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian✍Talk 21:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hard-working contributor with a good deal of experience. He may only have registered four months ago, but that does not preclude him from adminship. And, anyone who makes 1600 edits in four months' time definitely seems devoted to me. --Slowking Man 22:48, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Geogre 02:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 03:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 03:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1 03:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guan aco 04:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't see any issues with his becoming an admin. -- Grunt (talk) 23:42, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Stormie 02:29, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Andre 07:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strongly support. Ambi 09:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Warofdreams 14:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SWAdair | Talk 07:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

David Cannon 10:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) Support.

[[User:Theresa knott|]] 11:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mike H 15:40, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~
~~But would probably support at a later date, with more edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Comments~~
Oppose. This is almost certainly a sock puppet account of User:Mike Church. Metric Dollar 18:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And Metric Dollar is almost certainly a sock puppet account of one of Mike Church's enemies. Guan aco 19:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I doubt it. It's probably a sock puppet of Mike himself. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him a straw man. Isomorphic 22:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does Mike Church edit from AOL? This user does. Guan aco 01:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I've been called a lot of things, but never a sock puppet of Mike Church. You think I'd be the first to know. In all seriousness, if you have any proof at all, I'd be interested to see it. Rhymeless 20:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
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.

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. Likely VFD and newpages, I should spend more time on cleanup as well.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'm not as sure on this one. Perhaps Australian Museum or Bill Veeck. Recently I've been trying to add some basic information to the Rambot city/town pages, working partially from a desk encyclopedia.

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 really haven't encountered vandals as much; or rather, people seem to find them quicker than I do. I've done some work with cleanup and disambiguation pages.

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 of the articles I've worked on have been rather non-controversial. Had a few minor disagreements on VFD, but these were solved quickly.
~~Thanks and good luck!~~

~~ContiE~~
I had the pleasure of working with ContiE to drastically improve Continuum (computer game). After doing some research on his contributions, I discovered that he has been a Wikipedian since May 2003, and has almost 3000 edits. I am impressed by his attention to detail, his neutrality, and his willingness to do messy tasks like Wikifying pages and cleaning up redirects and disambiguation pages. I feel that ContiE would make an excellent admin and an asset to the Wikipedia community. ContiE has accepted this nomination. --Slowking Man 03:10, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
~~I accept the nomination. --Conti|✉ 04:12, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Support~~
Merovingian✍Talk 05:44, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definitely support! -- orthogonal 09:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strongly support. Neutrality 14:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support.Arminius 22:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. • Benc • 22:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz 23:33, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1 03:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guan aco 04:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I smell a grunt worker.. excellent candidate for adminship. -- Grunt (talk) 23:44, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Looking over the contribs, I see nothing bad & lots of good. Stormie 02:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

What Stormie said. Zocky 03:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andre 07:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geogre 17:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) A cleaner rather than a pugilist. What a welcome change.

David Cannon 10:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) Sounds like a good candidate to me.
Comments 2753 edits as of this time. -- Grunt (talk) 23:19, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
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. I think I will spend more time on WP:VFD and WP:CP when I'll become an admin, to help (and delete/redirect/merge) when needed.

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 already look through recent changes regularly for suspicious edits and vandalism, mark articles as stubs, wikify them etc.. Reverting vandalism quickly will be a very handy tool for me. I also will visit votes for deletion and copyright problems more frequently as I mentioned above.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I almost solely do minor chores like wikifying articles, fixing links and reverting vandalism. My biggest work in this respect was to sort the people in Category:People (and its subcategories) by their surname.

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. See above. Also, a while ago I came across an anon I now call the "sneaky vandal guy", who adds sneaky vandalism to a few sites. I now have these articles in my watchlist and do a fact check everytime an anon adds something to one of these articles. Some vandalism was in these articles for weeks before I removed it.

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 been in a little conflict about the category Birmingham, England. In my opinion, the category is overcategorized, the creator of the category disagrees strongly though. I've put this case to request for comment after no consensus was reached and now started a poll on which articles should be removed from the category. In the future I'll ask at RFC first when I can't reach any consensus on my own, I think it is a good way to get some neutral opinions.
~~Thanks and good luck!~~
~~Geogre~~
Geogre is conscientious, well-read, and well-spoken. Avoids controversy and edits carefully. Someone I consider a solid contributor. More than 2000 edits since November 2003. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Plus he has a great sense of humor. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I thank you for the nomination, Wile E. Heresiarch. I hope that any who have questions feel free to contact me by IRC or on my talk page, and I'll be happy to answer any concerns. I accept the nomination and hope that I can serve to make the project stronger, as well as better. Geogre 00:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Support~~
Wile E. Heresiarch 14:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 15:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I've met him in passing, but check out this guy's contribs. He's practically obsessed with WP:VfD.

Strongly support. This user does allot of important work on wikipedia including cleanup and voting regularly on VFD. From my interactions on irc and from what I have seen from his edit history he seems to have the proper temperament and abilities to be a good administrator.Arminius 16:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He has been very helpful to me in my quest to write sound articles. Support. Mike H 17:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Adam Bishop 17:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 19:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) This is getting kinda old but err... "wasn't he an op already?" O:-)

Salasks 19:31, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

172 23:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Danny 23:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I havn't seen many edits by this user, but am impressed by the "Questions for the candidate" statement. Sam [Spade] 04:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Level-headed, hard-working, active contributor with a good understanding of policy and a proven desire to improve the Wikipedia. That would be a "YES!" SWAdair | Talk 10:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GeneralPatton 13:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian✍Talk 16:02, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Strongly support. --Lst 27 23:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andre 04:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) top bloke.

Stormie 11:41, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

--ShaunMacPherson 15:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) ; It is good he likes to look at votes for deletion, and I think his votes have been reasonable, esp. for articles I thought that should stay. Lets not delete too many articles, just the bad ones.

Bishonen 21:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC). Wikipedia would be lucky to have Geogre as an admin. He's such a wikimaniac already that I'm not equally sure he'd be lucky to be one, but that's something else.

David Gerard 23:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) (even if he is a stinkin' deletionist) - he also deserves a medal for his dives into the cesspit that is Wikipedia:Cleanup.

Lucky 6.9 02:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) Support wholeheartedly. Deserves a medal for his work in the VfD cesspool as well!

A conscientious editor who does not see adminship as an important and ponderous privilege but as a responsibility. -- orthogonal 04:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andris 10:33, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support. Gdr 19:32, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Geogre would undoubtedly be a great asset to the administration of Wikipedia, our paths have crossed only a couple of times, but his professional dedication to the project has been very evident. If elected he will probably be glad he has a sense of humour.Giano 21:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality 02:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support. Geogre seems decent. - Mark 08:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support. James F. (talk) 14:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After spending some time with him on IRC, I think he's a downright jolly good fellow. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Benc • 18:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zocky 02:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC): Geogre is opinionated, but he is rational and not rude. Exactly the kind of person I want as an admin.

Infrogmation 15:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gee! Ogre! - UtherSRG 13:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~
Reluctantly oppose. While I have no doubt about the integrity and good intentions of this user, and it's obvious they care about Wikipedia, I do not feel comfortable voting for someone with whom I have such strong and fundamental disagreements regarding what Wikipedia should be and how it should be run, at least while people consider adminship to be an important and ponderous privilege (to borrow someone else's words: but I feel this is quite a widely held sentiment). —Kate | Talk 15:16, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
That's a broad comment. Could you possibly elaborate so other editors know what your difference of perspective is? Cecropia | Talk 20:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Broadly, Geogre's opinion on what we should and shouldn't write about, and the level of detail we should go into when writing, is a lot more restrictive than mine. Obviously this isn't any reason to oppose adminship by itself. However, I also get the feeling that the community in general thinks of sysops as the people who 'run' Wikipedia, in that they're expected to make (as well as enforce) policy and so on—they have the 'mark of adminship', as such, that is seen as corresponding to established and senior users. Rather than being a small thing that should have hardly any relevance, adminship is an important characteristic of a person. As I feel that Geogre's ideas for what Wikipedia should be would be harmful & limiting to the project, I can't support his adminship (and thus advancement of his philosophy) in good faith. —Kate | Talk 22:15, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
Regarding the statements you have made, I wanted to mention that while I disagree w you in the case of User:Geogre (he seems a nice guy to me),
Oh, I quite agree there. My problems are with his opinions rather than his personality.

I agree w you generally. I bought onto some of the BS about admins being a janitorial/cleanup position when I first came here, but I have since realized that many (perhaps most?) admins don't view it that way at all. I have seen people time and time again come to a discussion with the assumption that admins are more right, more deserving, and more capable of wielding power than other "lay" users.
I'm not sure that only admins hold this view - a lot of users seem to start with "mis"conceptions about what admins are.

This philosophy tends to be found along with prolific usage of the word "troll", a tendency towards policy violation/bending (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), and the idea that anon editors are contemptible.
While I can't emphasise enough that "there is no cabal", I do get the feeling that there's a very "them and us" attitude at times, and certain recent policy suggestions seem intended to codify an excuse to use "common sense" as an admin deems suitable. And that's a lot more power than any admin should have... —Kate | Talk 23:47, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC) (Apologies for off-topic ramblings :-)

What to do about it is an interesting question for which I do not yet possess a ready answer. Sam [Spade] 22:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~
~~Guan aco 23:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)~~
Comments
Writing comments and answers here was the last thing I ever wanted to do. I don't think it will help the neutral, convince the opposed, or bolster the approving. However, with the extended comments above, I suppose that saying nothing might be taken either as pride or lack of anything to say.
I wholeheartedly agree with Kate that admins do not possess greater power, and I hope to help disabuse those who think that administrators are anything more than Wikipedians to whom some janitorial trust has been extended. I know that we have had Sysops acting in blocks in the past, and I, too, am concerned that people have been using the RfA to pick out friends and to ensure ideological orthodoxy and thereby create power in what is intended to be merely an administrative position.
Since administrators do not and should not be Power Users, I'm not sure how my moving to administrator status would make my personal philosophy more limiting or determining for Wikipedia. Since there is no additional power to change Wikipedia, the argument seems puzzling. I respect Kate's right to disagree, but I cannot see how the misperceptions of some people that administrators are the Voice of the Project are a rationale upon which we should proceed. The only thing I will say in my particular case is that I have never, in all my time on Wikipedia, been anything other than consensual. I re-review every article I have voted for on VfD to see if I can change my votes, never redirect without gaining a consensus among users, and I always, always yield to the wishes of the group over my own feelings (even when I am sure that I the one who's right). Unless Kate feels that I will use Speedy Delete or in some way change my practices to become peremptory, I don't really fully understand her concern.
It's quite true that I believe that we should not break out articles on minor subtopics when they belong in the master subject. However, I completely deny that there is validity in "inclusionist," "deletionist," and "eventualist." These are, to me, rather bankrupt terms. To me, there are only individual topics, individual articles, and indvidual Wikipedians. Those who operate in good faith, with a belief in the project, are people I can work with. The most I hope for is a coherent and consistent set of criteria from our editors and administrators individually. If we know each other, and if we can count on each other, we can navigate between the strengths and weaknesses of our personnel.
Again, I apologize for the unseemly debate, and I respect Kate's opinion, even as I wish it were different. Geogre 03:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Briefly (hopefully); I deliberately avoided speaking about 'inclusionism' and 'deletionism' for exactly that reason. However, whatever you want to call it, there are always differences of opinion on such matters. I would, preferably, have chosen a more .. inclusive method of imposing my wishes. However, lacking the ability (or knowledge) to change the community's thinking, I can only work within them; which is to say that while the community regards administrators in a certain fashion, it's in the interests of both me and my vision of Wikipedia that the administrators should be made up of people whose views I feel are good for Wikipedia. —Kate | Talk 04:46, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
I actually agree very much with Kate. I just disagree with hir voting stratagy :-P If an admin is supposed to be a janitor, then anyone who we can trust not to Blow Things Up should be handed the keys to the broom-closet, even those who strive for janitorarchy. Kim Bruning 10:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you would kindly respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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 do. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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. Votes for Deletion and Clean Up maintenance are already duties I perform pretty much every day. I believe that I can aid the others who already work on those areas. I also hope to be able to help other editors and, I hope, to help in defusing some of the conflicts that sometimes arise between motivated, interested, and informed editors. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. My forte is ecclesiastical history and British history and literature in the 18th century. My best article is probably A Tale of a Tub, but the article I think I am most proud of is a Clean Up rescue called Spire. I tried to turn it from a substub to an article, and then I sought and found another wikipedian with an interest in architecture (Giano) to add more bulk, and I felt that the two of us, working cooperatively, made it a good article. The ugly duckling transformation of that article was a real joy to participate in. Finally, on numerous occasions I have sought to rescue VfD entries. Ethos was a fair example of that. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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. My greatest contribution to date has been in aiding both in VfD rescue items and in setting forth what I hope are consistent criteria for judging articles. In general, I have not attempted to get into vandal spotting because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my particular strength was not in that area. I will, absolutely, offer my help from this time forward (if my nomination is approved) to any who seek it on these issues. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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 haven't. Like everyone, I have been exasperated by the opinions of some fellow users, but I seek, and wish that each of us would, to differentiate the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians from the intentions or actions of them. I believe that if any of the self-created "groups" of ideologies were to triumph, Wikipedia would be doomed. At the risk of uttering a cliche, I think that diversity is our greatest strength. My taxonomical interests balance against another user's exuberance. My paring and pruning aid, I think, the creativity and energy of another contributor. At the same time, my own articles, with their tweedy and academic bias, are solitary things without the contributions and powerful imaginations of others. The closest thing I feel I have come to an extended gripe has been at watching admins fall into a philosophy that this is their club or that there are social components that trump the one overriding duty of all Wikipedians: We must look to our encyclopedia, and the articles remain after our private tiffs and jokes have faded. Geogre 00:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck!

~~Shallot (Joy)~~
Shallot ~~made his first contribution here all the way back in 2002, and~~ (see comments) has well over 8000 contributions since August 2003. He's done especially good work in improving our articles related to Central Europe and the Balkans, and even though these subjects are sometimes contentious, has managed not to provoke serious disputes. I think his even temperament, good sense, and demonstrated skill at reducing conflict would make him an excellent administrator. Shallot has said he's always been able to find other admins to help delete pages or revert vandalism, but making him an admin would let him take care of things just that much quicker. Anyway, I believe this is a case where the community needs him as an admin more than him needing admin status for any kind of personal validation and ego boost. --Michael Snow 17:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Support
Michael Snow 17:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. Shallot will make a first-rate admin. —No-One Jones 17:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig 17:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) Shallot is certainly well qualified, in my opinion, and Michael's confidence in him is the clincher, for me.

blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Elf-friend 20:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jia ng 21:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 21:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good work.--Neutrality 22:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

V V 00:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) Has he accepted?

Everyking 01:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A reasonable contributor. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian✍Talk 10:59, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ambi 11:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Asim Led 14:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Salasks 19:33, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Danny 23:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geogre 00:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Shallot has been with us for a very long time, has never thrust himself/herself forward, and is dedicated to the project.

SWAdair | Talk 10:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good contributor, also diplomatic. GeneralPatton 13:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course! He has been here for a really long time, he should have been an administrator 3 months ago. --Lst 27 23:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard 23:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz 00:29, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Austin Hair 03:08, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC) I've been acquainted with Joy for a number of years, having served with him on OFTC staff, and wholeheartedly support him as an all-around stand-up guy.

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 13:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) Agree completely. Even though we had a dispute or two , I think he is a great contributor.

Zocky 14:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC): Shallot has been a voice of reason on many potentially controversial issues about the countries of ex-Yugoslavia.

-- orthogonal 14:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andris 14:43, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Zocky's opinion already stated above. --Romanm 16:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
~~I'm neutral because this voting is becoming a xerox of Enver Hoxa's/Hafez al Assad's elections with 100% approval. Mir Harven 18:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
~~LOL! Thanks, my head was going to explode, too :) --Joy [shallot]~~
Comments
Actually, those things dated 2002 on my contributions page are a result of the fact that the date on newly moved pages doesn't change after the move, so it appears as if the new page was created back when the old one was. This behaviour makes sense in page histories, but it's not exactly intuitive in the lists of contributions. Anyway. --Shallot
Questions for the candidate
Yeah. :) It'd be nice, but note what Michael and myself have written on his and my talk pages. Nota bene, I've recently requested a change in username to Joy which may get fulfilled in the meantime, but this discussion should be titled shallot because the Wikipedians know me by that handle. Thank you again. --Shallot 17:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I should also mention that I've read a lot of the docs related to the topic and that I promise I won't use any new feature without reading up on it again. In fact I don't really plan to use the new features if I am chosen as admin, at least while I'm fresh... Also I can't honestly remember the complete list of noteworthy contributions :), and I have also read a lot of the docs related to the topic of how to handle various conflicts that arise in editing and practiced a lot of it. --Shallot 17:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Topbanana~~
Howdy. I'd like to request adminship please, primarily to assist in ongoing tidy-up work but also to potentially use special:asksql. I'm more of a tidier than a writer - the bulk of my 5000 or so edits since registering 5 months ago are minor; fixing bad links, correcting spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes, adding disambig and interwiki links and so forth.
Support
Kim Bruning 14:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Truely exceptional janitor. This page should really be called licences for janitorship, and folks like Topbanana should be granted such licence :-)

Warofdreams 14:51, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) - fantastic work, particularly on the beta reports.

Everyking 16:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Topbanana's handy reports alone are an impressive qualification for adminship. --Michael Snow 16:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Topbanana's dilligent and uncontroversial work, and my productive interactions with Topbanana, give me adequate cause to believe Topbanana will use the admin capabilities wisely and well.

Jwrosenzweig 16:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) I already had a positive impression, and the comments above definitely reinforce that. I'm very excited about the possibility of the reporting Top would be able to do (in addition to the existing excellent reports).

JFW | T@lk 16:51, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Support Topbanana's most impressive offline reporting. Can certainly be trusted with adminship and AskSQL. Also like the username...

Andris 16:52, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC). Topbanana's reports have been extremely useful. I thought he was already an admin.

Elf-friend 18:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC). Support.

Impressive.--Neutrality 20:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course. Lupo 21:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guan aco 21:28, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

rbrwr ˆ 22:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A great contributor. Support. --Lst 27 22:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am delighted to finally have the perfect opportunity to say "You mean you're not already an admin?? Support!!" —Stormie 23:39, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

SWAdair | Talk 06:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) I would like to echo all of the comments above, especially Stormie's. :-)

Swell user. Support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 08:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Has done great maintenance work. --Merovingian✍Talk 09:08, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

172 23:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rhymeless 00:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strongly support.Arminius 00:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tεx τ urε 19:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GeneralPatton 13:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andre 04:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

older≠wiser 19:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1 13:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes thanks.

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

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'm a regular on WP:VFD and scan Special:Newpages regularly, but the task I'd particularly make my own would be Wikipedia:SQL query requests.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I'm not much of a writer - my better efforts would be Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Opisometer.

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. Wikipedia:Offline reports and User:Topbanana/Reports

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. While I've acted as a successful mediator in other online forums, I've managed to avoid both conflict and that onerous task here.
~~Rlandmann~~
Not usually one to blow my own trumpet, but am requesting sysop access mostly to help with some of the tidying-up that I do around the pedia. Specifically, I'd like to be able to delete mistakes in page names (mine particularly!), and also delete outright junk (ie Speedy Delete candidates). --Rlandmann 15:46, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~9,282 edits since March of 2003. Over 3000 in the last month. Snowspinner 15:58, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Support~~
Looks good to me. Snowspinner 15:58, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Rlandmann has my full admiration, I would have nominated him had I knew that he’s still not an administrator. GeneralPatton 16:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A definite support. Rlandmann does a LOT of work here, especially at for the aviation pages. Elf-friend 16:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks solid, did not see any signs of trouble -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:19, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality 16:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Everyking 16:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cribcage 17:21, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well if Anthony voted against you, then I feel pretty darn safe voting for you. Please do make sure you are familiar with all Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, especially the speedy deletion policy. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard 20:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1 21:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strongly support. --Lst 27 22:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian✍Talk 22:58, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

David Cannon 23:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC). You mean to say that Rlandmann has been with Wikipedia all this time, and still hasn't been granted sysop access? I'm sorry we've overlooked you for so long, Rlandmann. You have my unqualified support.

Haven't noticed Rlandmann before, but a quick check reveals great contributions, courteous and helpful talk page discussions, and good work on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Definite support. —Stormie 00:32, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Geoff/Gsl 05:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 08:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) Good contributor.

Warofdreams 11:54, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent contributor to me. - MykReeve 12:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig 16:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) I'm just sorry I didn't think to nominate before -- a very good editor.

Yet another data point for my argument that self-nominations are not inferior to "regular" nominations. Just look at all the people above, several of whom regularly look for good people to nominate, and all of whom overlooked this overqualified contributor. And myself, just as guilty as the rest. As my penance, I support. --Michael Snow 17:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You weren't a sysop already? Oops. James F. (talk) 21:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Been here longer than me. Edited more than me. Hasn't gotten into any fights. Isn't an admin yet? Correct this, we will. Isomorphic 02:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Catbar 03:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Decumanus 03:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

older≠wiser 13:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

jengod 21:21, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jia ng 22:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought he was already an administrator. --Lst 27 22:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 23:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More Rlandmann, please. +sj + 05:24, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guan aco 23:46, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Andre 04:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~
We shouldn't be deleting mistakes in page names, we should be redirecting them. anthony (see warning) 15:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I assumed that what he meant was the ability to delete redirects for the purposes of page moves and the like... which is very useful. Snowspinner 15:58, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me that that's what ey meant. anthony (see warning) 16:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Even still, deleting page namings caused by typos and the like is on the list of reasons at Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion, so I don't think this comes out to being a problem. Snowspinner 02:04, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
It was recently added as a reason by an anon. But the fact that this is a legitimate candidate for speedy deletion (at least until I remove it) just makes me more concerned. anthony (see warning) 01:51, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
Sorry - to clarify what I meant by deletes - I meant both deleting to make way for a move, but I also think that some pages are irredeemably badly named. For example, "alan dower blumlein". Forgetting the fact that it's apparently a copyvio, I don't see any point in keeping that particular redirect... but please someone correct me if I'm wrong... --Rlandmann 16:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion. anthony (see warning) 17:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not making myself clear? Since it's probably a copyvio, it's a moot point anyway. I'm not saying it's a candidate for SD - only that if and when we have an article under Alan Dower Blumlein, I see no reason to keep the current article title (quotation marks and all) as a redirect. alan dower blumlein perhaps, but not "alan dower blumlein" --Rlandmann 22:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You don't need sysop power to list something on redirects for deletion. anthony (see warning) 01:51, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Come now... Angela's on the Board now, she can't implement all the deletions for us anymore. ;) - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's true. Though, since there were 222 deletions yesterday I doubt anyone could do them all. :) "alan dower blumlein" was never a CSD even before Anthony reverted the latest addition to the policy. See When should we delete a redirect?. Angela . 02:52, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
~~Holy Prepuce is hillarious! Thanks for that article -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
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

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. Watching recent changes. I do this as a matter of course anyway as part of the work I'm doing on aerospace topics, but when I come across obvious mistakes or rubbish, I like to act on them, regardless of whether they're in a subject area I'm working in or not. I participate in VfD and Copyright Problems as a by-product of this watch I keep.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Well, I'm particularly proud of Holy Prepuce :) and also Alexander Lippisch and Hellmuth Walter.

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 categorised several hundred aircraft articles, and do my best to try and keep articles within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft reasonably neat and consistent.

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. Twice - once over an article name and once in a stupid revert war (ironically, while attempting a dispute resolution!). I believe that the solution to all conflicts between users is community involvement - and it was my impatience to sit tight through a formal dispute resolution that led to the aforementioned revert war. Anyway, whether formally or informally, the involvement of third parties is definitely the way I'll go in future.
~~User:Stormie~~
Stormie has been a full contributor since March 2004, and does an excellent job of patrolling for vandals and of producing his own work. Definitely should be an admin. Rick K 21:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
~~I am honoured to be nominated and gladly accept! Thanks Rick! —Stormie 23:42, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Support~~
Rick K 21:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality 21:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mike H 21:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GeneralPatton 22:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--Lst 27 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dysprosia 00:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David Cannon 02:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC). Strongly support.

Cribcage 04:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rhymeless 04:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Graham ☺ | Talk 08:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JFW | T@lk 13:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Mainly noticed his VfD work, but trust his judgment Pedia-wide

Warofdreams 13:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

older≠wiser 13:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 15:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Quick check of 1 or 2 edits shows nice work.

Jwrosenzweig 15:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) A good choice.

Merovingian✍Talk 16:17, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard 22:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Elf-friend 22:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

SWAdair | Talk 03:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chris 73 | Talk 11:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Geogre 13:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AndyL 14:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)\

Isomorphic 02:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. A perfect fit for the job. -- Hadal 04:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172 17:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

jengod 19:11, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Decumanus 03:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tεx τ urε 21:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arminius 02:38, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Impressed by his diplomacy in resolving the Joaquin Phoenix dispute. --Michael Snow 18:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Comments~~
~~2729 edits for anyone who wants to know. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Note: This nomination has been removed twice so far, once by Lir [1] and once by Merovingian [2]. Somehow this made me vote for him. Chris 73 | Talk 11:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)~~
Chris, I think both of those were accidents falling out of the strange section duplicating/destroying events that seem to happen on heavily edited pages, but regardless, your vote of support is much appreciated. :-) —Stormie 12:40, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
You're probably right. I contacted Merovingian, and he apologized. Anyway, you have my vote ;-) Chris 73 | Talk 11:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes, I have, and have actually been considering putting myself up as a self-nomination. Rick beat me to it. :-)

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?

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'm quite an active Recent Changes watcher, so I find myself quite often reverting idiot vandalism and tagging nonsense articles for speedy deletion - admin privs would make this job easier. Also I'm reasonably active on WP:VFD, and would be happy to help out with implementing the keeping & deleting at the back end of the queue, as well as voting at the front end.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. The work I'm proudest of on Wikipedia is mostly rugby-related - I've created some new articles on players, worked heavily on some competitions (added a lot of info to the Tri Nations Series and National Provincial Championship, and created Ranfurly Shield), and keep things up to date on Current sports events each weekend. :-)

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 do the recent changes watching, copyedit & wikify new articles, and browse through Wikipedia:Cleanup for things to do. I've also put some hard yards into gruntwork like Topbanana's possibly misspelled links list and the list of French articles with no English interwiki link. Also, I've recently been trying to help mediate some edit conflicts on X-Men, although I'm not sure how successful I've been, since a formal request for mediation was made after I started trying to help. :-)

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. Can't say I've ever been involved in any particularly stressful or grievous conflicts yet, thankfully. Worst I've gotten has been the occasional anon vandalising my user page because I reverted some other vandalism - and that's more likely to make me laugh than make me stressed. —Stormie 23:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck!
~~User:DropDeadGorgias~~
DropDeadGorgias has over 1600 edits since 5 Mar 2003 (with increased activity from February of 2004), has shown interest in issues like featured articles and deletions, and would benefit from having admin abilities. In my opinion, this user shows good judgment and an even temperament, and would make a fine administrator. --Michael Snow 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~I accept, and it's an honor just to be nominated. BTW, this gender neutral stuff is really annoying. I'm a dude. I'll put a note on my page.... - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Support~~
I know I'm not the first to say this, but I love the username. --Michael Snow 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear -- both to the compliment on the username and Michael's assessment of DDG's suitability. :-) Strong support. Jwrosenzweig 19:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Finally someone I'm familiar with to vote for. An excellent choice. BCorr|Брайен 19:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

<cliche>He/she is not already an admin?!?!?!?!?!?!</cliche> Seriously, this is a big surprise to me! Strong support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought you already were an admin. Jeez! :)--Neutrality 20:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz 20:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Quadell (talk) 20:52, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Great contributor GeneralPatton 22:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lst 27 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172 02:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David Cannon 02:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cribcage 04:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Graham ☺ | Talk 08:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I thought you were already an admin. Johnleemk | Talk 11:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support from the gender neutral Warofdreams 13:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

older≠wiser 13:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 15:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good edits, and good skill using the wiki.

Merovingian✍Talk 16:25, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard 22:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Elf-friend 22:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my interactions with this editor, I have been deeply impressed by his commitment and lack of stubbornness. I feel he is both responsible and committed. - Mark 07:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

jengod 19:10, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Benc 02:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Decumanus 03:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chris 73 | Talk 04:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tεx τ urε 21:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

theresa knott 21:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Catbar (Brian Rock) 02:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Comments~~
Looking through DDG's history, it's clear he or she is a hard-working user who has added much to WP. It looks like heshe lost hisher temper here, but the matter was quickly resolved equitably between them. Quadell (talk) 20:52, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes - DropDeadGorgias (talk)

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 - DropDeadGorgias (talk)

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 would be able to help with watching recent changes, executing deletions and removing failed deletions on vfd, and responding to editor requests. - DropDeadGorgias (talk)

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Hmm, my interests are all over the board, so there are some silly articles that I've done a lot of legwork for (COBRA Organization), and there are some more substantial articles, like Gmail, and The Library of Babel. The most tedious thing I ever did was disambiguate all of the mathematicians on Mersenne prime, which is harder than it sounds because most mathematicians only go by their first initials. - DropDeadGorgias (talk)

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 done a lot of work to bring some literature articles up to speed, particularly those of latin american and japanese authors. I also fleshed out a lot of the information on tropicalismo, and the related artists. - DropDeadGorgias (talk)

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'd like to think that I've been pretty level headed about resolving conflicts. I recently had a misunderstanding with User:Tannin about thumbnailed images on Hard disk, which seemed like it was almost going to escalate into a revert war, but we were able to come to a solution that met both of our needs with the new image markup. I don't really get into revert wars, because after the first few reversions I make it a point to resolve the issue either on the article talk page or the other user's talk page before editing again. If that proved unsuccessful, I'd probably escalate to RFC, but I haven't had to resort to that yet. - DropDeadGorgias (talk)

Thanks and good luck!
~~User:Kim Bruning~~
I would like to nominate Kim Bruning for administrator -- in my experience working with Kim on and off for the last several months, he has been the model of care, patience, and positive attitude we need so desperately as administrators. His careful work with WHEELER is an excellent example of his ability to interact productively and reasonably with an editor who has driven a number of admins (myself included) into dialogue that cannot be classified as entirely civil. I hope, in fact, to learn something from his ability to work with editors I find frustrating. I have spent several months waiting for Kim to accept that he is worthy of the nomination and allow me to nominate him, which only assures me that he's right for the job -- I think a reluctance to accept a position of increased authority is an excellent indication that someone is unlikely to abuse that position. I hope you will find him as worthy a candidate as I do. Jwrosenzweig 19:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Kim has been here since February 24, 2004, and has 1,236 edits at the present time. Jwrosenzweig 19:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've checked Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit based on Kim's comment below -- he's right, and that would add another 250 or so edits to his tally, and take him back into early December, by my reckoning. Jwrosenzweig 23:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Accept Kim Bruning 22:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~Support:~~
Jwrosenzweig

I agree. Mike H 20:02, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ditto.--Neutrality 20:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Skill in dealing with challenging community members is one of the most important requirements for an admin. moink 20:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--Lst 27 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good edits GeneralPatton 22:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172 02:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cribcage 04:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The patience shown working with WHEELER is truly exemplary. older≠wiser 13:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support. Kim's interactions with other users are exemplary. He/She's great! (j/k) - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:03, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ability to deal patiently with difficult users is one of the best possible qualifications for adminship. --Michael Snow 16:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1 16:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC). I'm impressed by this user's perseverence on User talk:Stopthebus18.

Merovingian✍Talk 16:36, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Support. I've come across Kim's comments here and there and am impressed. Kim seems to be one of those uncommon folk who are an oily influence (as in troubled waters), and that influence is sorely needed. To the extent Kim can share it, WP would benefit. Awesome admin powers would not be amiss in this case, I think. Lack of edits (see below) do not seem to me to be an impediment, in this instance. Let's hope Kim's temperament survives a year or so of WP intact, eh! ww 18:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support, one of the very best. Sam [Spade] 02:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard 22:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AndyL 14:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes! Spent an hour or so checking the history, and I'm impressed. Calm and level-headed, and I particularly liked the "Editing on Wikipedia should be fun. Why else do it for free?" (Quoting from memory). Lupo 21:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

squash 08:18, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I rarely care enough to vote, but Kim is certainly going to be a good admin. Taw 11:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dysprosia 11:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Antandrus 01:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) Very impressed, especially with how Kim has handled controversy on various talk pages.

anthony (see warning) 15:58, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

pir 12:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

—No-One Jones 16:57, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Oppose:~~
More edits! (But you are a swell contributor.) blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There's a couple more under User:80.126.238.189 (I thought those had been reattributed? Ah well, no matter :-) ) Kim Bruning 22:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yup.

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 usually look at Wikipedia during short breaks, while waiting for my computer to catch up with me.

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've managed to nab a number of vandals from time to time. Admin powers would probably be really handy for that.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Republic has gotten kind of stable now.

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've managed to keep people talking with each other, I hope.

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 end up solving conflicts a lot, maybe because I think it's a fun challenge. I deal with conflicts by looking at peoples' behaviour logically, and trying to figure out what's causing them to behave that way in the first place. Kim Bruning 22:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~User:Robin Patterson~~
I nominate Robin Patterson for adminship. I know that his 605 edits since January 30 are at the lower end of Wikipedians' tolerance range, but from my own dealings with him I know that he strives for quality over quantity. I hope that all will take note of the high standard of his work, and elect him to a position to which he is well suited. David Cannon 01:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the votes of confidence, David and others. I may not actually DO anything with the position (seeing my main "responsibility" as a continuation of being the major operator as a sysop on Wikipedia Maori over the last few months), but one never knows. Kia ora! Robin Patterson 03:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~Support~~
David Cannon 01:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Lst 27 02:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good edits indeed. GeneralPatton 02:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality 03:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely older≠wiser 04:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ambivalenthysteria 05:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian✍Talk 11:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a thoughtful, balanced contributer to me. Quadell (talk) 18:10, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Support, the quality is definitely there, even if the quantity is low, and I think Robin is a very helpful, friendly and level-headed contributor. —Stormie 00:17, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Cribcage 04:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(See below). —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:29, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 16:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Lots of useful edits on New Zealand information. + Also contributes at another language wikipedia. (see under comments)

A quality contributor. Being a sysop elsewhere doesn't automatically make you a sysop here, but I trust Robin is familiar with our policies, since it's probably been necessary to draw from them in the effort to build the Maori Wikipedia. I also don't expect admins to necessarily be highly active in that capacity, so I'm not concerned with how Robin divides time between here and there. --Michael Snow 21:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, Robin would be deserving of "important and ponderous privileges" if we had any to offer here -- in the absence of them, I heartily approve of entrusting Robin with the few abilities of an administrator (and their attendant disadvantages). :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

squash 08:14, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

No big deal. anthony (see warning) 15:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ALargeElk | Talk 10:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~
Sorry, seems like a genuine and good contributor, but far too few edits for me. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that a person's edits are not and should not be the only factor in adminship decisions. Certainly, they are an important indicator, but it should be asked as well what a prospective admin will do for Wikipedia. No offense, but it seems like Mr. Patterson is quite involved with the Maori Wikipedia, and, as he himself has stated, "may not actually DO anything with the position." Perhaps more people need to view adminship as an important and ponderous privilege rather than a social title. --Slowking Man 06:04, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Adminship is not an important and ponderous privilege. It's the technical ability to perform certain administrative actions, and the trust from the community that one can perform those actions in an accepted and helpful manner. At least, that's how it should be; in reality administrators are (through no fault of their own) somewhat revered as Important People and their admin status gives them an elevated social position. I am therefore supporting this nomination on the grounds that whether or not this user intends to, or will, make use of their privileges, there is no reason for hir not to have them. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:29, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

On the contrary: Fewer people should view adminship "as an important privilege" -- or else, we need to change the official policy ("no big deal"). In the meantime, since adminship remains officially nothing more than acknowledgement that a contributor is competent and trusted, a contributor's intention to use admin options (or not) is hardly relevant. Cribcage 06:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lysine states that adminship involves the giving of trust from the community to the adminee. This is exactly right, and this is why adminship is important. Among other things, admins have the ability to ban users and IP ranges from accessing and/or editing the Wikipedia, to use the revert function, to move and delete pages, and to protect pages. While admins do not have unilateral leeway over executing such responsibilities, these certainly are not unimportant abilities. I disagree with the tendency for people to be viewed as qualified for adminship solely based upon edits. If people should recieve adminship after reaching some quota of edits, then voting is unnecessary. However, since adminship is important, I don't see why we should grant a person adminship if he or she is going to be inactive. Do we elect people to legislatures who publicly claim that they won't have time to attend sessions or vote on laws? --Slowking Man 08:10, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
You're missing the point of a wiki. Yes, an admin is able to protect pages or ban users. But an anonymous user is able to come along and edit nearly any page of our encyclopedia. We don't restrict that ability to registered users, on the logic that, "It's too important." (You may have noticed that fact is our single most consistent source of criticism.) We've chosen to restrict a few select options, and our official policy is basically: "Anonymous users shouldn't be able to ban people; and since registration is free, there's little difference between an anonymous user and a day-old user ID. So we'll restrict these few options temporarily -- once we're sure you're on the level, you're in." As has been stated time and again and again: If you want to change the official policy, then do so. Otherwise, abide by it. Cribcage 13:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People should not automatically receive adminship after a certain number of edits: rather, a certain number of edits may be regarded as the base qualifications for adminiship. There are generally a fixed or limited number of members of a legislative body; it is therefore important to elect those who will make the most desirable difference. However, there are no practical limits to the number of sysops at any one time, so there is no inherent disadvantage to appointing sysops who may end up doing less work then their fellows. I agree that number of edits is not the sole, or most important criteria for adminship; however, proper assessment of a nominee's temperament can only take place after they have reached a certain amount of participation, which in real terms often translates to a minimum number of edits or length of time. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 08:23, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
Slowking Man wrote: If people should recieve adminship after reaching some quota of edits, then voting is unnecessary. However, since adminship is important, I don't see why we should grant a person adminship if he or she is going to be inactive. Do we elect people to legislatures who publicly claim that they won't have time to attend sessions or vote on laws? I'm sorry, but I beg leave to disagree.

We've all seen police officers sitting in parked cars, doing nothing. Are they wasting time? Is it a waste of money to pay them? NO. Even if the officer is doing nothing, the fact that he is there acts as a deterrent to people who would flout the law. I assure you, I won't be speeding if I know that a police officer, however "inactive," is around! Likewise, a sysop need not be "active" to be effective. The fact that others know that sysops are around is enough to discourage most would-be vandals and other problem users. I recall one experience I had with an article that two users were endlessly reverting and counter-reverting in a seemingly senseless edit war, without adding anything substantive to the content. I didn't have to do much. I (a) protected the page for a very brief period, and (b) put a note on the talk page, requesting that both users provide sources for the information they were fighting over, and included the "administrator" label in my signature,. I haven't had to do anything more since - they've both dropped the matter. Just like the speedster with the sedentary police officer, they both know that I'm around somewhere, "inactively" watching the page - and are therefore behaving themselves.

The analogy of a legislative body is flawed. It is for good reason that sysops' official title is "administrator," not "legislator." Sysops do not constitute a legislative body in any sense of the word: we have no power, as a body, to make rules and regulations, only to enforce rules that the Wiki-community as a whole, consisting of all registered users who want to particpate, has decided upon. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your reasoning here, Slowking Man. David Cannon 22:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
The idea is to determine whether we can trust Robin Patterson not to do anything crazy with admin privileges. One way is to look at some number of edits, and some period of time to statistically figure out if someone is trustworthy. But there's more ways. In this case Robin Patterson also contributes at another language wikipedia, and is apparently trusted there already. This tips the balance in this editors' favor for me. Kim Bruning 16:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Yes, some of it more than once, a few months ago.

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. Slightly, and yes, but see my main reply above.

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. Anything requested, but no guarantee of noticing anything urgently, because my visits are relatively rare and short compared with those of some contributors. My New Zealand timezone may be an advantage.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most successfully and helpfully to?
A. I don't recall anything outstanding; but my village, Plimmerton, and city, Porirua, have substantial contributions, with more to come if I get time and can avoid more distant distractions such as Tom Lehrer and Colonization (game). There was also the list of trees that I added after creating it for the Maori version. Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia Maori (see main response above) and the welcoming of newcomers. Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

6a. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret?
A. None of the world's estimated 130,000 Maori language speakers has yet shown his or her hand in any significant way (except in the English Wikipedia).

6b. What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. Found WP years ago... Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 05:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)~~
~~User:Lupo~~
User:Lupo is an encyclopedia addict and on Wikipedia since 18 Dec 2003. He has 1713 mainspace edits and 2812 edits altogether. He is active in almost all areas of Wikipedia (WP:RCP, WP:CU, WP:FAC, VfD, WP:CP, WP:SD, etc.). He got three of his new articles on Did you know (Frankfurt kitchen, Short-horned Lizard, Amerigo Vespucci), and is currently working on turning Kitchen into a featured article. A calm and reasonable editor in exchanges with other editors. He has been nominated for adminship before on 25 Mar 2004, and the main objection was the lack of experience on Wikipedia. I believe he has now enough experience and would be an excellent admin. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~Thank you, Chris. I am honored and accept this nomination. Lupo 19:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Support~~
Chris 73 | Talk 00:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality 03:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spectatrix 06:17, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

"A statement of trust and appreciation." Indeed. Cribcage 06:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) Teached one ex-communist resident about copyright-me.Thank you.

Warofdreams 12:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Very good at maintenance. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:08, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Gentgeen 17:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seems just what an admin should be. Quadell (talk) 18:33, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Patient and polite character when dealing with problematic users is just what an admin should have. Also very good contributions and maintenance. --Romanm 21:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Positive record, no abuses. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 22:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 17:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good at maintenance.

Acegikmo1 21:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC). This user has comprehensively answered a few questions I had on User talk:Lupo. I appreciate his responses, which have convinced me that he feels very strongly about some Wikipedia policies and has good reason for doing so. Lupo has also made many excellent contributions to the encyclopedia. As such, I believe that he is a trustworthy user.

I strongly supported Lupo's failed nomination in March, and I strongly support his (I'm glad to see successful) nomination today. He is an asset to the project. -- Hadal 04:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz 13:54, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

jengod 19:09, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
Comments
Questions for the candidate'
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
Oh yeah. The standard questionnaire. My answering here does not relieve any responsible voter from checking my contributions him- or herself and form his or her own opinion.

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?

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?

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.
Answer to (1), (2), and (3): I'm not running for a political office here, and neither am I applying for a job. I accepted the nomination because I'd be willing to expand some of my housekeeping activities a little bit if the community considers me trustworthy enough—getting the "janitor's keys" would allow me to do some of these chores myself instead of having to ask others to do them. I would have declined Chris's offer for a nomination if I wasn't familiar with the relevant reading list.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
See the nomination statement by Chris, or check my selected contributions.

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?)
Nothing spectacular. I'm helping out a little bit here and there.

6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
Not having checked up on the nominator of my nomination back in March prior to nomination.

Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 05:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're welcome. Lupo 12:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~Snowspinner~~
A good, good, good editor. Had the unfortunate experience of coming through RfA way too early. But he's a good deal more established now. He's eager and energetic and has already delved into chores-type activities. I can't think of a single non-admin Wikipedian right now that would be better suited for adminship. 2629 edits, been registered for 3 months, 6 days. - blankfaze | (беседа!)
~~I accept. Snowspinner 17:18, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)~~
~~Support~~
blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cribcage 17:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought he already was an admin! Full support, of course. Neutrality 17:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

~~I do believe Snowspinner is a he.~~ Either way, I support. Mike H 17:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

It's still very early for my tastes (just above my personal minimum) but my interactions with Snowspinner convince me he'll make a fine admin. →Raul654 17:24, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Cyrius|✎ 17:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I said I expected to support after he'd been here 3 months, and ... -- Cecropia | Talk 18:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard 19:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) Hell yeah.

Support strongly. Arminius 20:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-"- --Romanm 20:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

V V 22:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dpbsmith 23:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most definitely. RickK 23:23, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Starx 23:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Ambivalenthysteria 00:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

theresa knott 00:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dori | Talk 01:22, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

James F. (talk) 01:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About time. —No-One Jones 01:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos|§ 01:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. An exceedingly worthy Wikipedian. - Mark 01:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I supported last time, so I guess I had a good reason for doing so :). anthony (see warning) 02:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This guy's okay in my book. - Nat Kraus e 06:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support 172 07:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian✍Talk 09:30, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Spectatrix 18:41, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Of course he should be an administrator. He is so nice... Lst 27 20:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sarcasm? Acegikmo1 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course this is not sarcasm. Snowspinner is a really nice guy... He supported my nomination in June, and when my nomination failed, he posted comments on [3] and asked what I can do to get their support the next time... That is so nice... I am also impressed by his edits... How can anyone not support Snowspinner? --Lst 27 02:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1 21:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

older≠wiser 21:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--GeneralPatton 21:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rhymeless 22:14, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. SWAdair | Talk 06:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Warofdreams 12:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- JCarriker 13:07, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Darn. I wanted to be one of your top 3 supporters. Missed first post, I guess. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 13:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow (no relation) 18:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support, just because I don't want to be in the same group as Avala; fractured logic like that could be contagious. j/k, snowspinner's great. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:47, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

What the...you're not an admin yet? Unbelievable! An excellent Wikipedian who carries himself well and makes great edits. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tεx τ urε 17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ilyanep (Talk) 23:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC). Hate to ruin the nice even 40 :D

Nunh-huh 23:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Love your work. —Stormie 01:14, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Support. I'm sorry I overlooked your nomination earlier, Snowspinner. You have my unqualified support. David Cannon 10:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quadell (talk) 18:39, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

MykReeve 19:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cimon 22:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

snoyes 23:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course. john k 02:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ALargeElk | Talk 12:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

David.Monniaux 12:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JFW | T@lk 12:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Avala's rioting is senseless.

Kim Bruning 16:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) You can tell a lot about a person from how they deal with their own mistakes.

Dieter Simon 00:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) I will give him the benefit of the doubt and vote for Snowspinner. Yes, lack of fluency in a language in itself is not a valid reason, as in Avala's case. After all the Wikipedians can copy-edit an article. Snowspinner has patience in dealing with difficult cirumstances and will gain more experience.

Support, while I agree w much of the criticism, and feel SS is an opinionated, strong willed individual, who is capable of being wrong or exaggerated on occasion (who isn't), his obvious integrity and deep focus on neutrality and fairness more than make up for any mistakes he has made (which don't ad up to much, BTW). IMO the ability to admit when we are wrong, and the sincere desire to be right are far more important than a specific error or two. Sam [Spade] 03:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ilyanep (Talk) 05:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

mav 06:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support. Elf-friend 14:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support AndyL 14:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support, of course. -Seth Mahoney 23:42, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Support. User is obviously qualified if Lir and Plato are opposing. --H. CHENEY 02:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Without question. -- Hadal 04:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~
[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - You have support of the GP, who calls other users "cunts", and uses fascist abbrevations. It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can still turn to yes but not under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of third party, but I am affraid that users like GP will be able to continue with such behavior. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This very well may be the dumbest, dumbest, dumbest vote I've ever seen on RfA. Vote on the candidate's merit, not that of the people supporting him... blankfaze | (беседа!) 11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don`t want to be in the same group with such people as GP. And please don`t call my votes - dumb. We have no personal attacks policy in here.Avala 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but that vote is dumb. If you don't want to be in the same group, then just don't vote at all! Voting against someone on account of something they have absolutely no control over and that relates in no way to their potential to be a good admin... makes you look like an 8-year-old. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just utterly baffled here. a) Who is GP? b) What actions, exactly, would you have wished and expected Snowspinner to take? Not taking sides, just puzzled. Dpbsmith 13:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To answer your first question, Dpbsmith, I think "GP" means GeneralPatton. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

On b) It looks like you are asking the question to blankfaze but presumably you mean avala. Pcb21| Pete 10:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This thing with Avala has been going on for a while, for more see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Avala. -- GeneralPatton 02:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll second the opinion that your vote is dumb. (A personal attack would be calling you dumb.) It's unfortunate you can't muster the maturity to separate one user's behavior from another's reputation -- but it's not surprising, reviewing your history. Glass houses, pal. Cribcage 18:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, am glad. I think George Washington should be the only American to have the honor of being elected unanimously. Waitamminit, is Snowspinner even American at all? Rats, I should have asked him that before I voted! - Nat Kraus e 10:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

~~Are you kidding?~~ Oh, yeah, you are. The not funny thing kinda got to me for a minute, there. Mike H 15:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have decided to vote to support the nomination solely because God has not voted in opposition. - Tεx τ urε 17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I oppose solely because people are jumping on Avala for opposing. Who cares? If he feels like opposing, then allow him that privilege. Frankly, I don't care what his reasons are. And anyway, Snowspinner has 40 votes in favor... I do expect people to jump on me for this one as well. And Cribcage -- have you even read the personal attack page? If I were to say, "articles written by Cribcage are dumb", that's obviously a personal attack... or, "every article written by ugen64 is racist"... ugen64 21:40, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, I think your vote is just as dumb. Cribcage 02:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, dumber. At least Avala's was (peripherally) related to the current nomination. My discretion as a beaurocrat is to totally ignore both Avala's and this objection, and I recommend any other beaurocrat do the same. If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make frivilous objections like this a serious policy matter. →Raul654 18:47, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed...if it weren't like 55 votes to 3, I'd be with you Raul (as a sysop, a beuraucrat and most importantly a member of the WP community). Ilyanep (Talk) 05:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, honestly. This is a vote. You can't discount my vote just because you disagree with my reasoning, unless you want to completely do away with the democratic nature of choosing administrators. Although I've called many people's votes "dumb" (including, to name one example, Kingturtle, whose standards I thought were much too high), I've never asked people to ignore a cast vote. Of course, I am with Raul -- "If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make [frivolous] objections like this a serious policy matter" -- I would strongly object if my vote were discounted simply because the rationale is considered "frivolous". ugen64 22:54, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring your objection because I disagree with your reasoning - I'm ignoring it because it's completely, totally, 100% irrelavant to the nomination. And, for the record, the poll which defined how a bureacrat does his job (which I wrote, for the record) ended up saying exactly that - a beaurocrat may use his discretion in weighing votes and give them unequal consideration. →Raul654 23:08, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. [personal attack removed by Ambivalenthysteria]. Lirath Q. Pynnor
(Personal attack was "Snowspinner is a jerk." I feel that especially on voting records like this, confidence in the system requires transparency, and transparency requires not altering someone else's words. I also note that Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks was never passed, and so is not policy. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))

I think Lir should have been banned a long, long time ago -- but for the record, I don't like the idea of censoring others' comments, particularly on a ballot. Cribcage 02:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Ambi was out of line. It was an unsubtle and unequivocal personal attack, and was well justified under Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I'd have done it if it were any RFA other than my own. Snowspinner 13:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
But Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks was never passed; it's partly Snowspinner's reliance on non-policy policy that led to my vote. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's a reasonable point. Cribcage 19:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to leave a link to the diff showing personal attack removal. But that's me. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Here is the link: [4]. I looked at it and thought "is that all?" but it is a direct personal attack and the removal is appropriate. - Tεx τ urε 18:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that Ambivalenthysteria should remove, or all personal attacks or none. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. sorry snowy maybe next time!--Plato 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reluctantly oppose. After reading User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence, in which Snowspinner includes as "evidence" against Avala that Avala opposed Snowspinner's previous nomination here, and that Avala nominated a candidate Snowspinner finds unworthy, I'm worried that Snowspinner doesn't clearly enough distinguish between his personal opinions and Wikipedia policy, and is too likely to see mere differences of opinion as actionable "rule breaking". I say this as someone who also finds Avala difficult, and as someone who had planned to vote for Snowspinner both here and for ArbCom. -- orthogonal 22:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My objection was not that Avala nominated a candidate that I find unworthy - it's that he does not seem to consider "engages in edit wars and deletes other people's polls" to be a reasonable grounds for opposition, while finding "I don't want to be on the same list as person X" to be reasonable, which is part of the larger problem of not respecting or engaging with the community of Wikipedia and its consensus and conventions. Since that's unclear, I'll edit the evidence page to make that clearer. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Snowspinner 23:07, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose, based on the tendency for confrontation and rash judgement evident on his edits to this page. Zocky 23:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In the name of openess, I think, though I'm not sure, that what zocky is objecting to is that I removed a pair of nominations under the policy that obviously unsupported nominations may be removed. I did so because they were becoming exceedingly vicious and hateful, and, in the case of one of them, because it appeared to be posted by a sockpuppet and seemed designed to foster exactly the kind of flame war that it did foster. Were I an administrator, I would have done exactly this, and probably warned some people for personal attacks as well. I say this by way of saying that, yes, I am willing to be decisive in my actions. If something is causing a problem, I will attempt to fix it. I will note in my defense, however, that I did not remove the nominations once they were reinstated. I will be decisive - I will not be stubborn and insistent. Unless there's something else entirely that you're referring to here, in which case I confess curiosity as to what it is. Snowspinner 23:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
That is a part of it. Removing a nomination in less than 24 hours on an international website means that people from some parts of the world don't even get to see it. I call that rash judgement, yes. The other is including "Avala's limited fluency in English" as a reason to oppose his RFA. That's either a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia (which I choose to believe) or a sneaky perpetuation of personal antipathy. I found both very undesirable in someone who is trusted with the Delete button.Zocky 23:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Limited fluency in English is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. This is the English Wikipedia. Admins especially should be fluent in the language as they must communicate frequently with other users. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the amount of time matters as much as you do... there's just no way that Avala's nomination is going to pass, and I think that was clear when I removed it. A nomination with 12 votes in opposition, which was what I think it had at the time, needs 40 supporters to pass. Only one RfA has ever passed 39 votes. It was not concievable that it was going to pass, no matter how many people had time to vote on it. Clearly there was disagreement with this. I stand by my decision, but I'm not rushing to take it down again, as I said. As for the other... I personally attribute a lot of Avala's seeming hostility to difficulty expressing himself in English. I find that a more sympathetic opinion than that he's a hothead. I think we're reacting to the same set of behaviors here, at least, though attributing different causes to it. Looking at my wording, though, i can see how it could be misinterpreted - I'll clarify. But both of those are neither here nor there, and I don't want this to turn into a lengthy debate on the matter. Feel free to bring it up with me on my talk page or on IRC if you want (And please do - I'm happy to explain myself). I just wanted to note that my approach towards this page regarding Avala's nomination and its removal would in fact be consistent with my approach towards conflict as an administrator, so that, should anyone else find it extremely objectionable, they would be aware and would vote accordingly. :) Snowspinner 23:54, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm entitled to the last word on my vote. Removing anything of consequence in less than 24 hours keeps even regular editors, who take time to follow the running of Wikipedia, out of the loop and denies the user's right to reply to objections.

The other thing is, Avala's English is nowhere near as bad as you claim. I read all his comments on this page carefully. He has problems with articles and tenses, but so do most Slavic speakers. All his text is in fact perfectly understandable, if one reads it carefully. Zocky 01:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is a reluctant opposition and does not reflect any personal feelings I might have toward Snowspinner's past or continuing contributions to the site and project. However, I reviewed the evidence against Avala, and I felt that there were a number of occasions when an appeal to a broader community might have easily forestalled the animosity. Avala's English is not fluent, and he is a citizen of the former Yugoslavia. Consequently, some of his arguments were hampered by the language barrier, but, additionally, many of Snowspinner's misunderstandings were caused by not seeking out other, more fluent, English speakers from the area to help negotiate opinions. After a certain point, it seems like the fight was about the fighting, and not about any particular issue, article, or decision. That it reached such a point without outreach, without seeking the aid of neutral parties, does reflect somewhat poorly on Snowspinner's reactions to a belligerant fellow editor. Finally and ultimately, though, I feel that Snowspinner's time on Wikipedia is simply too brief. I say this not because I believe there is a magic number of days or edits, but because the motivation to move to administrator quickly worries me. If one's desire is based upon getting one's will, then it is bad. If one's desire is based upon changing the course of the project, that, too, is bad. If one's desire is to particpate in a social world of admins, then, I feel, the motivation is suspect. Only if the desire is based upon duty and a belief that the project is far more important than any of the project's participants is it appropriate. I do not in any way whatever mean to imply that I believe that Snowspinner's motives are bad. In fact, I think Snowspinner is a reasonable, intelligent, and dilligent contributor to the project who has shown himself of the highest commitment. Instead, I oppose because I feel that it takes a great deal of time as a regular user to show a person's continued perseverance and to establish how such a person will react to others in opposition. I do not think there is enough of a track record. Hoping by all means that I offer no offense and provoke only thought, Geogre 17:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gentgeen 23:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Snowspinner has enough editing experience. Yes, he has over 2,600 edits, but looking at his last 100 contributions there are only about seven edits to articles. He may only have a few hundred article edits altogether. Paradoxically, this appears to be the very reason he has received so much support as opposed to the other nominees on this page - at least I can find no other explanation (if I'm wrong, maybe some who supported Snowspinner but not the others can explain their voting) other than that he is simply better known, and this is because the average "Wikipedia:" page is more widely read than the average article (and article edits are not signed). I find it troubling, however, that this way we tend to create a class of "professional sysops" who are merely supervising the actual editors who work on the articles. And I note that Snowspinner is already running for the Arbitration Committee, which I don't see as a good sign. Everyone here should be an editor in the first place, and the administrative tasks should be shared among editors, not entrusted to a separate class who does little else but administrating. Gzornenplatz 13:54, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
If you want to see specific article work I've done, Video game studies, Chicago School (literary theory), Janet Murray, Michel Foucault, X-Men ReLoad, Betty Brant, Rallos Zek, 2004 Tour de France and the stage recaps of 2003 Tour de France are all articles I've done work on. I don't pretend that all of these are great articles - they merely demonstrate article editing. Note also that, although many of my edits are in the Wikipedia namespace, a large number are on talk pages - often talk pages of articles. That is to say, not all contributions to articles happen on article pages - I've helped resolve a number of disputes and worked towards consensus on a number of articles, often without touching the article page itself much at all. Snowspinner 16:35, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Note also that I have withdrawn my entry to the arbcom race - my reasons are on the candidate statement page. Snowspinner 17:26, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm supporting Snowspinner's nomination -- but for the record, I absolutely second your last three sentences. Cribcage 16:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~Neutral~~
Well, after some consideration, I am compelled to oppose here. I do not often vote in such things, but I am not at all certain I agree with many of this user's views on WP administration, particularly regarding resolution of disputes without recourse to enforced procedure and regulations. Specific examples include Avala's RfAr evidence (which, while not containing any specific objections which would on their own disqualify a user from adminship, exemplifies my general feelings), and an opinion that mediation is not helpful; however, I also have a broad non-specific objection to hir general attitude and opinions in such matters. While adminship should be something bestowed upon anyone willing to enforce the community's decisions, rather than an ability to enforce one's own views, there is at present a certain status associated with adminship and it does result in one's own opinions, however inadvertantly, carrying more weight than a normal user's. I therefore cannot personally support adminship for those whose desired procedures differ so much from my own. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 00:27, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC) Having considered this further, I am changing my vote to neutral; not because my opinion has changed, but because I do not feel comfortable opposing a nomination on the grounds that I personally disagree with the direction the community is taking. The solution to the exhalted admin status seems to be in having more admins, not less. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:41, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Guan aco 11:55, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) For the same reasons as Lysine.

He surely is experienced and respected enough, but he is maybe too bold and therefore I'm unsure that he won't make something wrong by the negligence. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 00:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comments
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if I care to respond:
1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
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. Hell, I already do some of those chores. Now I can just speedily delete things myself instead of having to tag them and wait for someone else to do it. :)

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 watch recent changes for vandal updates and either revert or tag them for speedy deletion. I intend to continue this. I track vandalizing users and report them frequently to ViP. I intend to continue this, and also to monitor ViP for reports that need to be dealt with.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. At the moment, I'm pretty proud of 2004 Tour de France. I would be proud of Michel Foucault, but I got distracted before I really finished work on it. Oh, and Video game theory is pretty spiffy, though also in need of expansion. (Yes, I confess, I have a bad habit of writing half of an article before flitting off to some other task. But I really like the halves of articles I write!)

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. Wikipedia:What is a troll. It didn't pass, and I'm sympathetic to people who say it needs more work (I intend to put that work in once the vote ends), but I think it's a great start towards a real problem.

6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. Heteronormativity. I tried to settle a dispute between some users and wound up basically pouring gasoline on the fire, leaving the article still a mess. I should have stayed a bit cooler, and couched my objections in existant Wikipedia policies like verifiability. Big learning experience. Snowspinner 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck! -- Snowspinner 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
There is one condition for my support. Could you give up of support (he supported you earlier) of User:GeneralPatton who called me "cunt", then he said "I will shit on your kings picture" etc. He used abbrevation ZDS of Ustasha movement, the fascist movement. Only thing I ask to give up of him and similar users to show that you are an example of dealing with such users and that you are ready to become an admin. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
For more about Avala and his way of doing things see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Avala.-- GeneralPatton 02:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I never requested comment of GeneralPatton attacks, for an example when he called me a cunt. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am uninterested in doing favors in return for support, for obvious reasons, however, to make clear, I have never supported personal attacks, and, in fact, actively oppose them, including GeneralPatton's attacks to Avala, as well as Avala's hostile responses. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and there is no excuse for them. Snowspinner 20:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
~~Favor? I just wanted to make things clear. I will be neutral for the next few days to see the situation and then I will decide. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)~~
Maybe it's none of my business, but I'm curious since you announced it: What does "to see the situation" mean? Is it basically, "I like to follow the pack -- so if there's a consensus, that's how I'll vote"? Cribcage 06:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
~~For everybody's reference, the previous (failed) RfA can be found at [5]. Snowspinner 22:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)~~

~~Unsupported applications~~
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
~~Archives~~
~~This page is not archived. Less recently-created admins can be found in the page history:~~
27 Jul 2003 - 3 Sep 2003

Sep 17, 2003 - 13 Nov 2003

2 Dec 2003 - 4 Feb 2004

3 Oct 2003 - Dec 10, 2003

3 Feb 2004 - 10 Mar 2004

10 March - 6 Apr

Apr 10 - 20 Apr 2004

20 April 2004 - 31 May 2004

2 June - 22 July 2004