Wikipedia:Recently created admins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To update this page, purge it.

1 Most recent successful nominations
2 Links to earlier successful nominations
3 Candidacies not promoted
4 Archives

[edit] Most recent successful nominations

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Davidruben

Final (49/10/5) Ending 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Davidruben (talk • contribs) – In October I spotted David Ruben on my watchlist and I then took a quick look over his contributions and asked him about requesting adminship. I apologise for not having a close knowledge of David, but I think he could be a good admin. David has been here since September 2004 (!) and he contributes to projects like WikiProject Clinical medicine (see also his userpage). I believe he is an asset for Wikipedia. I asked him in October about running for adminship but he had to defer it until today because he was busy with real live. I'm pleased he indicated acceptance in an email I got from him today.

Dear Wikipedians, please take a close look at David, ask him questions and write what you think. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this RfA discussion and thanks to David for going through an RfA. Apologies for my bad English and I hope my lousy nom (eek, my first one...) does not hamper David's chances :-) Ligulem 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept - I'm truly flattered, especially as your first nom.David Ruben ^Talk 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks too for the User:Mindspillage/admin link, this made good reading and a cautious approach I would wish to emulate. Though I’m not entirely sure about admins avoiding 3RR situations - I agree blocking is not a punishment but rather an opportunity for editors to reflect on the various relevant warning templates posted to them (offering advice and directing them to review the various policies). I tend to think once 3RR is reached that editors do need to be paused from further editing, at least for a short while, in order to get them to start discussing on talk pages and act in an encyclopaedic manner in trying to reach consensus (further failure to engage, edit warring and 3RR needs be dealt with firmly as this is so disruptive to the good work of other editors). So whilst if granted Admin rights I would still concentrate on article writing and improvement, rather than exclusively working on mop tasks, I would be happy enough (cf Mindspillage's approach) to ask editors to reflect on the lack of collaborative approach and to make initial blocks where reverting continues regardless, or AGF continues to be breached.

Ended 02: 00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept - I'm truly flattered, especially as your first nom.David Ruben ^Talk 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Yes I think having mop functions would be useful. Some of these functions are page specific such as being able to edit and contribute to protected pages, so allowing consensus-agreed improvements to be directly enacted without having to seek out already over-stretched admins. Similarly semi-protection can be applied if it should become required. Finally the roll-back to reverse the actions of anon spammers who appear with a whole host of spam insertions into multiple pages would be useful (I'm aware there was a suggestion for this to be a separate privilege granted to some users without needing full Admin status, but this is not yet the case) and in particular I have previously needed to request this of admins on various medical, and in particular dermatology, topics that I tend to watch.

The more backroom sysop chores (and why such negative phrasing of the question vs "tasks" or "tidying up" ?) of WP:AN/I, AfD and 3RR are perhaps areas I will engage in less actively initially. I envisage perhaps starting with simpler cases: offering observations and then some opinions; all the while watching how other more experienced admins weigh-up issues and make final decissions & act (I've seen new admins jump into complex controversial cases and get their fingers burnt).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I've set out the more important (to me) articles I've created and had input in on my user page. I am proud of my work on Templates (Drugbox, Disease, BirthControl and Hospital) and the upgrading of the use of these templates on many articles. I also took part in the debate over WikiProject Drugs Template styling (see here) and with consensus reached, helped standardised the various templates (see WP:DRUGS). Other navigation templates I have worked with are Template:Diabetes (see edits) and Template:BirthControl.

The articles that gave me the greatest satisfaction were centred around moving and expanding the wrongly named London Dock Hospital to London Lock Hospital (first venereal disease clinic) which had been confused for the Albert Dock Seamen's Hospital (part of development of first hospital for tropical diseases) - the two had been confused across much of the web on checking via Google, in part because so many sites used wikipedia as their source (!) - seems websites, and some wikis, not always WP:Reliable sources indeed :-) All this led to researching and writing Seamen's Hospital Society article.

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

A: I previously acted as a mutually agreed unofficial mediator in the edit warring over Breast implant (see Talk:Breast_implant/Archive_1#Edit_war) between 2 very intense editors (one new to wikipedia styling and who posted huge number of small sequential edits in an unrestricted inclusionist legal approach, whilst the other, a specialist, initially reverted & edited without engaging in debate). Both editors considerably improved and started to reach consensus or at least constructive dialogue over some points. With relative few other editors joining in discussion over specific points, I eventually felt worn down by this single topic and felt I could be more productive focusing more of my time elsewhere in wikipedia. Subsequently one of the editors, despite my warnings, eventually sadly suffered wikiburnout and resigned from wikipedia, although has since rejoined. The article has continued to be disputed by several editors, several admins have been involved (giving rise to a consensus of editors & admins) as has the clinical medicine Wikiproject (see Talk:WikiProject Clin.Med.#Breast implants), the page protected and finally all parties seem to be engaging in useful constructive dialogue, consensus building and article progression. I highlight this as a case where the technical knowledge of the various editors is extremely high and despite the dispute over emphasis & NPOV, the article will eventually be a Good Article. I think my involvement in this process has been a good learning experience in how to try and calm down edit wars and engage with opposing editors (I think I'm still on reasonable terms with all the editors), and the effort of several admins who have been involved has been exemplary in their time & effort (the patience and reserve with admin tools in not jumping to simple blocks, but continuing discussion and consensus-building has been noteworthy).

Far more directly successful has been my involvement with User:Cindery who as a new user had much detailed information to contribute to contraception articles and a strong personal opinion on some of the risk/benefit profiles, with an initial heavy editing style. Constructive guidance/comments/edits/discussion by several editors has helped this user become highly proficient in wiki styling, citing and an admirable adherence to NPOV (even balancing out their earlier edits) - in short an editor whose contributions I now admire.

I tend to watch quite a lot of medical topics and revert tests, outright nonsense, or plain vandalism. Only serious attack I've personally had was with the banned User:General Tojo who, disagreeing with everyone else on Parkinson’s Disease, systematically created new sockpuppet accounts to revert any edits I made. This resulted in several admins having to watch over my user pages & edit history to block each account he created.

As for dealing with future conflicts and stress, I think it is important to remember that this is after all only an encyclopaedia (allbeit the best in my opinion and certainly the most dynamically exciting) and does not exist as a platform to argue out disagreements vs quiet reflective reporting (with citations) of real-world debates. So wikistress can be eased by involving other editors to discuss issues (rather than trying to act as a lone voice in the wilderness) and taking wikibreaks at least on reaching Wikistress - level 3, and certainly before Wikistress - became insane :-)

General comments

See Davidruben's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

With some auspicious 42 number of editors kindly taking the time to post opinions here, perhaps I should say a little about my perception of my WikiProjects experience (this is meant neither to be an essay nor lecturing to my more experienced Wikipedians, but an indication of how my wikiskills and experience have developed so far, and will continue I hope to do so).

The term "projectspace" is being applied to the whole overall encyclopaedic project (with its non-Admin administrative & Administrator tasks), but within the totality of Wikipedia there are small subsets, namely Wiki Projects. These too give experience in the tasks of management, discussion, reaching & acting on consensus in the development of an encyclopaedic field. They too address problem articles/editors within their boundaries. Of course, Wiki Projects do not have formal distinct 3RR, vandalism, RfC etc areas, but their talk spaces seem, in an informal manner, to carry out minor aspects of these same tasks; although without as much intense observation and holding to account for following rigid procedures (something as an Admin I would obviously have to be even more careful to observe in projectspace). So yes I think moving from article-space to the additional work in Wiki Projects, helps one to further appreciate how to work in a collaborative manner with other editors with differing opinions, in working to consensus and then to diplomatically, politely and civilly act (both in one’s own actions and in guiding any dissenters). Work in Admin projectspace would be a further move in this direction.

For each of the AfD, 3RR, AN/I postings I have made, I have always on each occasion read all the associated policies, guidelines and instructions; even when I have felt sure I already knew the policy. I would hope to be as cautious and careful with each new Admin tool granted - surely it is more desirable for a less familiar presence on the Admin pages to indicate their need to use any additionally granted tools in a reserved manner initially, than a more familiar non-admin indicating that they will rush in to all threads wielding their new-found god-like powers as they personally see fit ?

I really hope I would never fixate on Admin projectspace tasks to the total exclusion of Wiki Project & Article work - I like developing specific topics and articles. Conversely, I do not wish to only concentrate on my own narrow field of professional expertise - how terribly dull for work & leisure time to always be the same thing :-). Hence I would like to have some of the additional admin tools for very practical help in the tasks I already do here in wikipedia, whilst other tools would allow me to also contribute more fully and in a wider manner with POV, AGF, revert and other disruption by bringing across some of my already developed wiki-skills and experience. David Ruben ^Talk 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oh no, only 1 help talk edit! Seriously, why aren't you already an admin? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support 5000 mainspace edits. Thats good. But I am pretty sure this will come up in the oppose and the neutral votes. That you have contributed in only 6 AFD's. So during tis week, start discussing in AFD's and I think you should do good. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This would be in order to see reasoning about and understanding of the deletion process, not merely to have some number of AfD votes, and should not be necessary if candidate is experienced in other areas. —Centrx→talk • 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

6 AfD votes doesn't necessarily imply a lack of knowledge of the AfD process, despite what some people will say in the Oppose section, but suggesting banging in a few AfD votes this week to (what I preceive to be an attempt to) strengthen an RfA is very wrong Ageo020. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support absolutely. A strong contributor to medical articles and a voice of reason in dispute resolution -- Samir धर्म 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support without hesitation. Sarah Ewart 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support—very strong article contributions. Light on Wikispace edits, but excellent judgement. I'd trust Davidruben to handle the mop safely; heck I might even trust him to treat me medically. Williamborg (Bill) 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support A very strong candidate. TSO1D 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support {after edit conflict) Meets my standards in terms of time and edit count. Talk page indicates a civil user that helps others. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it is good to have admins with breadth and depth of knowledge. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Strong knowledgeable editor I've bumped into at WP:CLINMED. Should have been made an admin some time ago. Nephron T|C 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support a good candidate, and as a contributor in a critical area that people will reference needing 100% correct information --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Lupo 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong support. I've followed David's edits (though not in a stalker way :) since I first got here, and have only good things to say. His template work has been vital for several projects, he has shown good conflict resolution skills, is a major vandalism and linkspam fighter in Medicine-related articles, and patient and civil to a fault. I won't even mention his actual "content" edits as they speak for themselves. As for his seemingly "narrow" focus on Medicine and such, I think dedication to an area which requires significant specialist input is nothing but positive. Mop him! Fvasconcellos 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak support. Less than 200 Wikipedia projectspace edits, also dodgy answer to Q1 concerning editing protected pages - if there's a consensus, then unprotect the page. However, plenty of article contributions and I don't honestly believe he would misuse the buttons. Addhoc 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've personally encountered protection mostly with the various citation templates (eg Template:Cite journal), which seem to be perminantly protected. Following talkpage consensus, any agreed changes are then enacted by admins, but the templates remain protected afterwards. But I agree if a page is protected due to edit warring or exceptional levels of vandalism (noting the policy not to protect main page articles) then it should be unprotected as soon as the situation permits.David Ruben ^Talk 05:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. A great editor who applies his expert knowledge/judgement where it is much needed. Handles conflicts well and good with helping new users. I suspect that he'll use a subset of the admin tools, but use them wisely. The only negative I have is a worry that his admin duties would come at the expense of being a writer. Colin Harkness°^Talk 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Not a lot of project space experience but seems to have done his homework. --Ars Scriptor 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
30 cc of Suppizort, stat, and the drug pages could definitely use some admin watching, there's covert vandalism going on there....promise you'll look over Tramadol and maybe check the edit wars that sometimes flare up over the dependency issue? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support A good editor who meets my personal guidelines, and although project space experience is highly preferred, I can live with an candidate who focused on article building. I'm also glad to see people remembered and is paying attention to Mindspillage's adminship essay.-- danntm ^T _C 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support - per nom, although crz's statement is worth noting --T-rex 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support A great editor, with good qualifications. Hello32020 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. I am confident that the canditate is qualified to handle the tools. Agent 86 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support will not abuse the tools. feydey 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support as there is little to no indication this user will abuse the extra tools of an admin. -- AuburnPilot^talk 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support WP will greatly benefit from more admins with specialist knowledge in critical areas like medicine, and this editor shows diligence, commitment, and strong contributions to this important subject. Even his initials spell Dr. Dryman 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On this last point I must stress that my parents had no ulterior motive in their naming of me. In a number of clinical settings the local computer systems, whilst requesting that I login using my initials, would then apply error validation checks to reject "DR" as being a title or user-level (eg Dr, nurse etc) and refuse to let me log in ! David Ruben ^Talk 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, per nom. --S onicChao ^talk 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support knowledgeable and careful contributor in an area that could use more admins. Opabinia regalis 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. David's been here for longer than I have (by a bit) and hasn't annoyed any of our productive contributors (I know I have). That speaks to a levelheadedness and reasonableness to be admired. I expect he will find the tools useful in working on Projects, as well as in dealing with the occasional vexatious or persistent vandal/edit warrior. I also expect that he will continue to grow in the role, and I don't expect that he will misuse the tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Ac s 4b 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Although you are a little green for an admin as far as policy and projectspace goes, Wikipedia always needs more meat for the grinder. Make us proud. Sharkface217 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Davidruben shows good judgement, civility, patience, knowledge, responsiveness, tenure. Let's put away the arbitrary edit count requirements and evaluate the candidates themselves. AFD participation, specifically, is not that important. I'm sure Davidruben will be as careful closing non-consensual AFDs as his other contributions; his AFD "voting record" would only be needed for deletionist/inclusionist partisanship. In the past, admins have slipped through the AFD editcount filters and turned haywire once they got delete buttons. Some reasons for opposing admin candidates I've seen over time are just silly ("12 edits away from my personal minimum edit count", "not enough Template_talk: edits" - I won't embarass anyone with diffs), but these edit count requirements are just not that useful. Avoid turning Wikipedia into an RPG where anyone can game the system and "level up" by grinding! —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-07 08:27Z
Support Competent and experienced.--Holdenhurst 13:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nomination statement. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Even though he does not need the tools badly I will trust him with them. Rettetast 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Significant experience, no indication of problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No hesitation support very competent, composed, civil, and communicative editor. I don't care what the edit count is in various areas as being more than sufficiently civil and productive is much better than racking up points. MLA 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support: I don't see evidence that he'll misuse the tools. TimBentley (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support: David is a very reasoned editor who does take time to explain what he has done. No admin started out as perfect or totally experienced and as long as they build up their usage of the tools as they gain that experience, then I don't see how David couldn't be an admin. We are all newbies once. Regan123 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support We certainly need more diligent wikipedians to take bigger roles. This guy can help. TonyTheTiger 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Has been around the block a few times, and seems very level-headed. Would make a good admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Yes. The Mirror of the Sea 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Good editor, can use the tools, no indication that he would abuse them. --Daniel Olsen 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Nominator Support. (I forgot to add my !vote as nominator, so a bit late. Apologies :-) --Ligulem 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Good editor, will not abuse admin tools. Nishkid 64 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - good editor. Sandy (Talk) 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support John254 03:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Everything checks out well. I don't agree with the opp, especially given his understanding of of policies as expressed in these AFDs. Besides, every statement he's made in this nomination indicates he will delve into the backlogs cautiously.--Kchase T 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Has made excellent contributions to some contentious articles. Andrew73 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, given his profession, I think we can assume that he will do no harm Bucketsofg 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Support We know he's a good editor and won't abuse the tools. The question is, is he well-rounded enough? Maybe a group of well-rounded admins are needed, but there's nothing wrong with admins who specialise in certain parts of Wikipedia. In fact, they're needed, especially ones with technical know-how to go with the civil manner etc. Ruben is absolutely the type of person needed to be an admin. If he's unclear on the rules, he reads the fine manual (unlike some people who currently are admins, for truth!) and co-operates with both other editors and admins. It's like telling someone they shouldn't be a Congressman because he hasn't run a law office. Good Congressmen can read the rules, are smart enough to use them, and are civil enough to use them correctly. SUPPORT. Gaviidae 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per Quarl and Regan and inasmuch as I think it reasonable to conclude with a good degree of certainty that the candidate is possessed of judgment sufficiently fine that he should neither abuse nor misuse, even avolitionally (e.g., in view of his acting in areas of policy with which he is less-than-conversant), the tools, such that, consistent with my RfA guidelines, I heartily support. Joe 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Seriously insufficient level of contribution at the projectspace (especially given your time on the project) implies insufficient familiarity with process. I am sure you're a terrific editor, but your answer to Q1 is unimpressive. All of your WP:talk edits appear to be wikiproject-related. I see zero policy discussion - which is a major strike against. I don't have enough evidence (but will be happy to review any such evidence I may have missed) on the basis of which to entrust you with either AfD or 3RR, and you're more than welcome to participate in ANI without a sysop flag. My apologies. ~~Strong Oppose~~ - crz crztalk 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Strong Oppose in furry slippers per Williamborg. - crz crztalk 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

lol... Appreciate this. First time I've ever laughed while reading an RfA! MY arguments, I see, were compelling. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation - no apology needed :-) As I mentioned above, the page specific tools would be of most immediately of use to me. Re "projectspace", I've obviously been more active at WikiProject Clinical medicine and WikiProject Drugs than the wider Wikipedia administration areas you seek. Still that gives me some insight into developing policies for article and encyclopaedia development. I think I am familiar with much of the admin areas and policies (I re-read many of them before accepting this nom), but yes I agree I've not been as active there previously (hence my explict stating of the cautious approach I would take and I note the advice to new admins to take things slowly - ? from UninvitedCompany butI can't immediately find the link). I note User:Ageo020's suggestion to visit AfD in the course of this coming 7 days, which I shall do - as to whether that will provide "enough evidence" I leave as an open question. Yours David Ruben ^Talk 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh, Alexander, pleased to see you here & a consistently hard grader for prospective admins. But a strong oppose? I’d agree that Davidruben will not be an uber-administrator, living in admin space 24/7; he’s certainly a less-than-perfect admin candidate. But as I observed for another less-than-perfect admin candidate back in early October, he gives no indication that he will abuse the powers to block\unblock\delete\undelete. And a strong contributor deserves some respect, no? Perhaps just a gentle oppose might do? Skål/Hа Здоровье/Le'Chaim - Williamborg (Bill) 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I tentatively agree with Crz. (Radiant) 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for responding but: I wonder why "policy discussion" is a prerequisite for being an admin. Isn't it sufficient to be trusted with the tools? You once said, we either trust a user to hand them over the whole toolset or we don't. I wonder in which way you don't trust David. David is one of those rare Wikipedians that have some good knowledge of a field, have been here for quite some time, do understand the principles of how to apply consensus and working collaboratively on the encyclopedia and who are not afraid to mediate disputes in their field of knowledge. Isn't that sufficient? Not everyone needs a PhD in Wiki-policy. And I'm sure he knows the relevant policies well. And being able to rollback the daily influx of vandalism crap and blocking a vandal here and there in the area he has on his watchlist is certainly to the benefit of the project. --Ligulem 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy discussion is not a prerequisite for being an admin; indeed, most admins do not want, nor need, to be involved in that. However, since most admins are, or become, involved in adjudicating process, I believe a candidate should have some experience with process, to show he knows what he may or will be dealing with. It need not be any particular process, and the user need not at all be a regular, but I expect at least some familiarity or participation. And that is what I find lacking here. (Radiant) 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, while you appear to be a great editor those reasons are not enough to earn admin tools. Your question to Q.1 was somewhat unimpressive and as of yet you have failed to show us why you would need admin tools. And of course per Crz. — Seadog 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
½ Oppose: Someone will shout at me for a half an oppose, but you've participated in 6 AfDs (if the figure quoted somewhere above is correct) and out of that, 4 were today, with your last 2 edits being to AfDs. As it appears you've followed (what I perceive to be) Ageo020s advice of participating in more AfDs this week to pass this RfA, I don't think I can support as it looks to me like gaming the system. Sorry. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Does ½ an oppose result in a mere ½ wisper of a shout back ? :-) The edit numbers are precisely as you set out in these specific areas. I am certainly not trying to game the system (the 2nd support vote was quite clear in quantifying my prior edit numbers) nor, and probably even more important for Admins, be even remotely perceived to be. Yes I took note of Ageo020s suggestion (and if I ignored such advice would it be appropriate to critise my failure to listen to other editors ?) and crz's oppose posting indicated insufficient evidence to form a basis for their deciding to entrust me with AfD or 3RR. So seems only reasonable to provide a few more contributions to those areas suggested so that those deciding on their decissions in this RfA can judge my approach (granted it is merely indicative of, I hope, a good continuing and future approach to these areas). This I so openly stated in my comment to crz before I starting poping into Afd. If you think I should not be so responding and acting to suggestions placed on this Afd, then should I merely return to solely article-space edits during this week ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through all the comments above, Heligoland has also disagreed with Ageo020's suggestion to contrribute to Afd during this week too - so I'll happily follow whatever wikiquette is appropriate now - if people contributing to this RfA would like to see me contributing to AfD during the next 6 days to help reassure on my style of likely contributions there then fine, but if it is felt to be unhelpful at this stage during a RfA then I wont :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When I commented above, I hadn't had a chance to look through your contributions and as I say, just because you've only got 6 or so AfD contributions doesn't necessarily mean that you don't know what your doing come AfD time. I'd suggest you just carry on as normal during this RfA. If you do (as in don't go chasing one particular type of edit) and if you then need one less Oppose and one more Support to reach a concensus, I'll swap. Again, likely to upset folk, but what the hell, as I've found out, being inconsistent and hypocritical is encouraged during RfA !voting. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Heligoland, I would take back the accusation of gaming the system. If Davidruben were trying to game he would have had a high AFD edit count before the RFA started. In fact I'm sad that a good candidate may fail to be promoted because he hasn't gamed the system, otherwise a lot more people would be supporting (there are many ways; I won't name them here -- WP:BEANS -- but you can ask me privately). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-07 08:37Z
Oppose - David, I do not feel you have enough experience with dispute resolution to wield the mop yet. In the future when you have more experience, I'd be happy to support you, if you've done well. Until then, I can't. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Crz said all that needs be said. Candidate should simply find some project-space area(s) to which he feels capable of contributing: not merely policy-formulation, but XfD, various noticeboards, even working a page like WP:NEG can show project-space experience, as one trims the lists. Xoloz 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough experience in XfD. Dionyseus 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose. I am opposing for the reasons stated by other above -- in short, not enough experience in tasks which the new buttons apply to. However, this oppose is reluctant, because this user contributions to mainspace look good, and with more experience will be an excellent candidate. Best of luck. --- Deville (Talk) 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Firm oppose - totally insufficient participation in XfD. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Good record, but I have to oppose given lack of experience in policy-related areas. Try again once you've gotten some good experience there, and I imagine you'll do very well. --Core desat 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now. A splendid editor, by all accounts, and if we trust doctors with our lives, I guess we can trust them with admin tools. That said... based on your reply to question one, I just don't see much of a need for them in the course of your work on Wikipedia. Vandal rollbacks, for example, can also be performed with the popups tool. I'd not hesitate to support this nomination at a later time once you've engaged more actively in some administrative tasks, because we really need more people in everything listed here. Sandstein 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As you are a newbie admin, wouldn't you say that the full admin rollback feature is a whole lot better than those ugly script rollback hacks which nearly need a programmer to install and which can't rollback a series of edits like the full featured perfect built-in rollback? We have consistenly asked to hand out rollback to more people but I was told by Radiant and others that this distinction is not needed as we either trust a user to hand him the whole toolset or not. Now we seem to have again this problem with people requesting the perfect admin in all areas in order to hand out the toolset. This contradiction is still not resolved on this project. --Ligulem 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point, in that (in my opinion) some people on RFA have standards that are unreasonably high (e.g. "must have X edits to namespace Y", "must have worked process X for Y weeks at least", etc). Editcountitis is not a good criterion, and by extension neither is any other arbitrary cutoff point. (Radiant) 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that me you're speaking of? - crz crztalk 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, just speaking in general. I concur with your assessment of this user. (Radiant) 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The featureset of the various rollbacks isn't really the point - of course, everyone's work would be easier with the admin tools. What I meant is that I'd like to see a certain (if minimal) commitment by an admin candidate to actively engage in administrative tasks beyond their usual sphere of article edits, such as in XfD, CSD, etc.pp.. We're metaphorizing the tools as a mop, after all, not as a bigger pen, or flashier edit button, or whatever. But I'm not opposing because I've no doubt that he won't abuse the tools. Sandstein 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. Pretty good user, but crz's argument is very sensible. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Neutral. A stellar contributor, but does he really need the tools? I'll take the bench on this one and let you guys answer that question. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I strongly believe that he won't abuse the tools, however I'm not sure he won't misuse them. Misuse as in accidental misuse, not malicious-ness. The lack of project-edits is my reasoning. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Great contributor, but simply not enough wikispace edits. –The Gr e at Llama^moo? 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] J.smith

Final (48/1/1) Ended 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

J.smith (talk • contribs) – I have come across J.smith when he stepped in to help a user about an article I had deleted ~ looking at his work he looks like the sort of user we should have as an Administrator Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

About Me

Well, I'm grateful for this nomination. I really appreciate it. I never thought anyone would nominate me. :) I've been editing wikipedia for a about a year now and I've enjoyed the experience. This place is truly one of the most valuable resources on the Internet and I'm proud to be part of it.

I'm not the most articulate person, so most of my work here is wikignomish/wikifae in nature. I've done a lot of Special:Random cleanup, xFD (mostly AFD) discussions, RC patrol and following though on {{helpme}} requests. In the article space, most of my significant contributions relate to paranormal topics and the occasional BLP and business article (Such as the infamous Arch Coal). ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the YouTube controversy

Much controversy has surrounded my removal of YouTube links recently... and I expect it to come up here. It seems to me that much of this controversy has stemmed from a misunderstanding of the situation. I think a lot of people think I'm removing every You-Tube link I find, but that's simply not true. I review each link within the context of the article and make a decision to remove or keep. If it's not obvious, I look at the video on YT and make a judgement call.

Every time a question is raised about either the project in general or the removal of a specific link I make an attempt to respond thoroughly. I've made changes in how I do things based on input on various talk pages.

Before I started the project I sought input on WP:AN and #Wikipedia-en and received unanimous support. A week latter I made a new thread there and received nearly unanimous support. I've tried to be as open as possible.

I hope that clears up some misunderstandings on the YouTube situation. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

A: Well, I intend to keep working in the copy-vio field. With admin tools I'll be able to take an active roll on WP:Copyright problems. I also !vote in xFD often, so closing them is something I'd participate in.... by extension, CfSD tends to generate a backlog that I'd help out with. I've been watching {{unblock}} recently... a lot of requests end up sitting there for hours. I can see a little more help is needed in that field as well. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Well, I do a lot of gnome type work so I don't have any FAs under my belt... but I do think that a few articles I've made significant contributions to look good. Roswell UFO incident was a collaborative effort, but I think it has turned out to be an excellent article. I rescued Friday the 13th from the pit of vandalism and rewrote most of the article from scratch. I'm not the most elegant of authors, so it's hard to point to just one article. Oh, I think I've done a good job in {{helpme}} patrol recently... but ya don't really need the mop for that:) ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Yes, of course. Stress is a fundamental part of life. Something that stand out? Well, there are a few situations that come to mind. The first "conflict" I was involved in was very early in my career in on wikipedia. I'm a little embarrassed now of the situation... :) It as over a online video game article. An anonymous editor had a grudge against the game and repeatedly pov-pushed. I ended up responding with comments that were less then civil. I was highly frustrated by the situation because it seemed like no-one cared about the "fight" that was going on. I actually am glad for the experience. Even tho I'm not proud of how things happened, I learned a lot about policy, dispute resolution system and community standards. (If you want to check the situation out you can see the talk page and it's two archives.) ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Optional question from Gracenotes: In what general cases should WP:IAR be applied, as the policy relates to dealing with situations you may encounter as an administrator? Also, please list several hypothetical proposals and attempted processes to which WP:SNOW could be applied. Gracenotes ^T §

A: Gasp! I'm shocked I got this question! ;) Anyway, since you asked for a general answer, I shall give you one: When it furthers the goal of building an encyclopedia, and, when following the rules shall hinder the goal. IAR would always be invoked with much forethought and only as often is as absolutely necessary.

A2: The concept behind SNOW is one that makes sense.... with the understanding that it should be invoked very infrequently. Why drag something out when the outcome is obvious, and continuing with the process is disruptive? Process is important, but continuing the flow of constructive editing is too. It's a delicate balance. You want some specific examples? Well... That's a hard one. If a AFD debate stats to degrade into a sock/meatpuppet fest and no more actual !votes are being added, then it's likely a good time to SNOW the debate. Also, perhaps an ill-conceived policy proposal (Wikipedia:Meka teh wikipadya da vote) should be snowed after a civil explanation why. A snow in that case can prevent newbie biting.

To be clear, if a snow is "contested" then it's likely a good idea to revert the SNOW and like events take there course. Basically in short, IAR should be used VERY seldomly and the admin who is SNOWing should be ready to revert it. (Maybe it's time to write WP:UNSNOW?) ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

See J.smith's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

As nominator - of course Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - looks good. Has done a great job handling the youTube situation, doing so consitantly and methodical without causing any problems --T-rex 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support His record and responses make me confident he will be a good admin. TSO1D 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Good contribs, and balanced edit count. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I see nothing wrong. Edits look balanced. — Seadog 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Just for the sake of disclosure, 500+ recent edits were using AWB. I don't know if that throws off your balance. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:What I meant was that you have a solid mainspace edits and wikipedia edits (rather than all in one area). Okay my rant stops here :) — Seadog 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Everything looks reasonable. I really like the way you handled the youTube situation.--Kchase T 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support. A very strong nominee. He's balanced himself in all aspects of Wikipedia, and I am impressed by his answers and his participation in article discussion and namespace discussion. Nishkid 64 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Seems like an ideal candidate. (I do somewhat disapprove of your use ;) of easter egg links in your answers, though it doesn't bother me as long as you don't use them in articles!) -- Renesis (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks like a reasonable candidate for the mop. (aeropagitica) 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support--SUIT 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support A very sincere and good editor. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Cleared up all the misunderstandings w before the discussions. Thats smart --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have had personal interactions with J.smith, and found him to be level-headed and helpful. He'll make a fine administrator. Dmcdevit·t 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. All checks out well, we need more people to deal with backlogs and I like his initative with regards to nonreliable sources such as YouTube videos. Sandstein 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem here. (Radiant) 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Good and trustworthy contributor. utcursch | talk 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support always very civil, sufficient experience, plus adminship isn't a big deal. Addhoc 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support someone who deals positively & constructively with YouTube has my support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I like! -- Kicking222 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I am confident he's going to be a good admin. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I've only ever seen good things from this editor, and I particularly like the description of the way that he is dealing with the Youtube question - boldly, methodically, and fairly, but with community input. --TheOther Bob 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Adminship for J.smith seems like an ideologically small change, but one that can, in practice, only bring more benefit to Wikipedia than this user already brings. Also, gets that there really is no general case for WP:IAR, and seems (by his explanation) to have the judgement to deal with specific manifestations of that policy. :) Good luck. Gracenotes ^T § 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
support per Gracenotes, who said it well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hell Yes! Support I have been extremely impressed with the calm way he has handled the youtube thing. Has dealt with editors who disagree with the exercise with curtesy and respect while still making his points in a civil way that took account of the objections raised. [Basically lots of things I'm jealous that I don't always do well]. Spartaz 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- crz crztalk 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support He's a good user and would be a better Admin. Thank You and Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Sarah Ewart 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support Never have I seen a man more qualified with your modesty and dignity. Bravo. Sharkface217 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support sounds good to me. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Must ^TC 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As much support as I can give He helped me, as I am a new user set up a talk page and user page! He also helps me with everything I need! Thank You! WikiMan53 T/C 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Rettetast 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support; definite yes on this one; I've bumped into him many times and he's always doing something right. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - excellent editor, can use the tools effectively, no issues or concerns for me. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support You deserve it. Good luck. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, J.smith has demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Hard worker. The Mirror of the Sea 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Supportper above. t e h tennis man 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, meets most of my expectations.--TBCΦtalk? 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support John254 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support passes my criteria †he Bread 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support lots of Wikipedia entries in contribs and seems to be aware of the policies quite fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support The guy's got gusto! --InShaneee 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Note: - lengthy comments by 74.116.245.181 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) moved to talk page. Note that IPs can't !vote. MER-C 07:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~. user is under qualified/inexperienced to handle copyright violations. he should have a better understanding on the subject if his main goal is to handle copyrights violations. using judgement calls is not the best answer to deleting content on a subject he is unfamiliar with.

quote from a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. "These are cases where I would generally not delete the entry unless the alleged copyright holder complains. Given Wikipedia's potential liability, after a complaint, immediate action may be necessary, although later correction is possible. But it is not Wikipedians' job to excessively "police" content for copyright infringements, especially when such may not even exist.

In general, when in doubt, do not delete. When "fairly certain", ask the author first in /Talk. The notion of "intellectual property" is dubious at best, and Wikipedia should not support it beyond the limits given by LAW. Personally, I will restore any entries which I do not see as copyright infringements, and I encourage you to do the same.

-- w:User:Eloquence"

i like to state that i hold no gurges on this user and praise most of his work with the community. however, i stumpled acrossed some of his removals and read his talk page regarding the issue with User:Tvccs. i feel a delay in adminship would only strength his request in the future. — Accouttovote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just want to be 100% clear, so that everyone is on the same page, so forgive a few quick questions. Are you 74.116.245.181 (talk • contribs • WHOIS), whose comments were moved to the talk page? Are you also User:Tvccs, who initially raised this issue a few weeks ago on J.Smith's talk page? (I don't mean to accuse you of any sock-puppetry or anything like that - I just want to make sure everything's out in the open.) Thanks, --TheOther Bob 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am that user and not I'm not User:Tvccs, Tvccs would certainly hold more weight. J.smith has stated youtube has a reputation as “a no-name blog for the most part” on his talk page. I just wanted to show that wikipedia shares the same reputation outside its community. I am not a major contributor to wikipedia. However, I am a major reader of it’s articles. Having a under qualified admin to handle this situation will lead to more problems than solutions given his “safe than sorry/judgment” approach. In order to make a fair judgment the user should be highly educated on the subject.

Oppose. Same reason stated above. user is under qualified/inexperienced to handle copyright violations. can't an opinion be valid just because its logical? why all these hassels to oppose and so few to remove contents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asdflkjqwer (talk • contribs). (This user has less then 100 edits on wikipedia, and 3 since the end of October)

Since RFA isn't a vote in the strictest sense of the word, we need to create a "bar" to keep socks from trying to influence the process. However, your objections are noted (and responded too) on the talk page where they have a chance to influence people's opinions. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral- You seem to be admin material, but you should use more edit summaries.--SUIT 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Edit summary usage for J.smith: 99% for major edits and 96% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace." [1] I assure you that the few (7) that I've missed in the last 300 were not an intentional disregard for wikipedia guidelines. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an option in preferences --> editing, at the very bottom to remind you when you don't type them. That should put you at 100 pretty quickly.--Kchase T 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes when you use the '+' button to make new sections you don't get the option of adding an edit summary. Could this account for this? Spartaz 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Naw, when you use that it uses the section name as the edit summary. ---J.S ^(T/C) 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm concerned about the user's experience and familiarity, to be frank. Edits like this one during an AFD (demonstrating unfamiliarity with history merges) and his repeated edits to {{para-stub}} to include the WikiProject link in the stub text itself worry me somewhat. However that being said, he's defined his scope of activities in Q1 in such a way that I feel he'd do little harm if he obtains the mop and bucket, would just like him to be a little more knowledgeable before I personally could support. -- nae'blis 05:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Stemonitis

Final (52/2/2) Ended 13:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stemonitis (talk • contribs) – Stemonitis has been a solid and constructive user for two years. He has contributed mainly to geographical and biological articles, with a rather impressive list of about 180 articles started by him. Also, he's not averse from work such as stub sorting and categorizing, and has touched upon a wide variety of processes, as opposed to being a regular poster on any single one. Such a diverse user is definitely a good candidate for adminship. (Radiant) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

A: On several occasions in my editing career to date, I have found it slightly frustrating that I have had to call in an admin to do my bidding. Examples include things like speedy deletions, blocking persistent vandals, deleting pages (that I) created in error, and even once protecting and later unprotecting my user page. All these activities cost the admin in question time, and are an extra load on the servers, since each involves at least one extra edit, and many extra page views. That's not to say that that's all I would do. I already often perform the menial or repetitive tasks that garner little praise, and I would expect that tendency to expand into the sphere of adminship. Depending on where the backlogs are, I will address different needs. Currently, there seems to be a backlog of proposed deletions, but all that could change before this RfA is over. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: The bulk of my writing has dealt with carcinology and geography (mostly mountains). I brought crustacean up to good article standard, and effectively wrote Carcinus maenas, which is also listed as a good article. Similarly, edible crab was unreferenced and written in a parochial, non-encyclopaedic style before I started work on it; it is still under-referenced and incomplete, but vastly better. I believe that there is a balance to be found between depth of coverage and breadth. The many short articles about significant taxa that I (and others) have started are an important addition to the encyclopaedia; featured content is not the be all and end all. I couldn't justify to myself the effort of writing 48 kB about just one species, summit or whatever when there are countless thousands that aren't even mentioned. I also have a suspicion that a lot of readers stop after the first paragraph or so anyway. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

A: I have been involved in a few disputes, mostly over a couple of small but contentious topics. The main cause of acrimony has been the question of the use of accented letters, ligatures and other characters that are considered by many not to belong to the "English alphabet". It seems unlikely that a good consensus will ever be reached on the issue, so all sides, myself included, have adopted a live-and-let-live policy, whereby neither the pro-diacritics users nor the anti-diacritics editors move articles created by the other side to a title that the creators would disaprove of. Skirmishes are rare now, and die down quickly with the restoration of the status quo. We are left with the inconsistency of having Vossstrasse (not "Voßstraße") but Wilhelmstraße (not "Wilhelmstrasse"), but it means that everybody involved has the time and the inclination to work on other things rather than getting bogged down in ill will. I was also involved in an argument about listing all Swiss municipalities via a template in a single large category. Having tried and failed to convince one user of my point, I eventually walked away from the discussion. Sometimes you just have to bite your tongue and allow things to be done "wrongly". I've also had a few misguided comments about category indexing, but in each case a calm explanation of my actions was enough. Basically, discussion and calmness seem to be the best approaches. --Stemonitis 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

See Stemonitis's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

Nominate and support. (Radiant) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Lycaon 11:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per Radiant! Doesn't indicate a strong need for the tools, but trusted and prolific editors can be trusted with tools that are no big deal. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
--dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Seems like a good candidate for the mop. (aeropagitica) 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks like a good user, who will use the tools wisely. NauticaShad e s 13:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC
Support per nom__Seadog ^♪ 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak support. Edit count isn't incredible outside of the mainspace, but it's kinda hard to ignore 28,000 edits. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (Changed to neutral, see below)
Support per nom --Tone 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support looks good to me.-- danntm ^T _C 17:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Despite lack of participation in AfD's and such, this user definitely demonstrates that he/she has the experience and knowledge to handle admin tools. Nishkid 64 17:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, looks good. Ter e nc e Ong 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, looks like a highly productive editor who would do well with the admin tools. shotwell 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak support per Amarkov. Addhoc 18:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I see no problems here. A good user. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Nice work so far. Would also like to see him involved outside the scope of the main space. Lincher 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. See no probs in this user getting the mop. Great work so far. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^ER 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
By all means...Lectonar 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Go for it! Wikiwoohoo 21:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Clear and present support. What were Radiant's words? "Solid and constructive user". Precisely. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
support. Thanks for pointing this one out, Radiant. ... aa:talk 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
(note to users who bitch at me about my votes: this is how you answer question #1)
Support He deserves the mop. Sharkface217 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Michael 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nomination and questions. This user sounds good, especially when it comes to civility which would be neccessary when you get to block people. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - 180 article creations is impressive, and with almost two years of heavy experience I see no reson why Stemonitis should not be an admin --T-rex 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - per nom. --Phenz 08:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I know how you feel, having to go and bother an Admin to do your bidding, and then they may not do what you asked them to do after fighting the vandal for hours on end. Good Luck! Book s worm Hello? Anyone home? Vote! Vote! 10:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock of banned user. `'mikkanarxi 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
--Rudjek 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support despite essentially insufficient project-space participation. I am certain that there will be little abuse of the tools. - crz crztalk 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Doesn't look like stemonitis to me! Niko Silver 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Great edit count (no, I do not have editcountitis), excellent writer of articles, and lots of experience. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Steady ... Agathoclea 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support sounds very good. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You already voted above. ;) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Ac s 4b 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, good user. Kusma (討論) 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-04 09:01Z
Support Good, good user. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support would make a good admin. --S onicChao ^talk 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. I know it's a cliché but I tought he already was one. - Darwinek 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Lupo 10:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. It'd be nice if Stemonitis would pin down at least one backlog requiring the tools that (s)he'd be willing to pitch in at consistently, but seems to be a reliable editor and unlikely to abuse the mop and bucket. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support.Must ^TC 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, seems likely to make good use of the tools (and unlikely to misuse same). Alai 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Excellent editor, I trust he will not abuse the tools. Dionyseus 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Support- XfDs are only a small part of adminship. Jorcoga^† 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - Nice long history with WP, plenty of edits, seems like a valuable editor. Why not give em a mop? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Sarah Ewart 15:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Good guy. The Mirror of the Sea 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Simply not enough participation in XfD. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose- Seems to want to use adminship for the use of evil. I do not trust this person at all with adminship, I think that if this person became an admin, Wikipedia would be destroyed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captaindansplashback (talk • contribs).

Comment account has less than 50 edits, so probably should be discounted. Addhoc 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Sorry, but I'm going to have to change my !vote to neutral. I have the same concerns as before, but this shows sporadic deletion discussion, at best. ~~No XfD for the past 5 months?~~ -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

His last AfD was on 11 November 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fillgraderstiege. Nishkid 64 14:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so there's that one, and another I found in August. I'm still seeing a lot less than I like. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
neutral Were there to be more AfD work, I'd be happy to vote support. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] MrDarcy

Final (61/0/0) Ended 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MrDarcy (talk • contribs) – Well, here is another candidate that I am just really delighted to nominate. MrDarcy, or Fitzwilliam (:P), has been with us since the start of 2005 and has made some absolutely stellar contributions. He has a great ability with language (in communication, but also translates Spanish), is extremly intelligent, civil, and dedicated to Wikipedia. The list of articles on his userpage show that he is someone that is more than willing to give themselves up to better the project. But, more importantly for an RfA, MrDarcy has deep and great knowledge of policy and is willing to put it forth. There is no doubt in my mind that MrDarcy is needed by Wikipedia and he will help progress the overall goals of the project.

Rundown from RfA/Crzrussian/Gwernol

Edit Count? 4856

Time around? First edit in start of 2005, started heavily in September of that year

Edit Summaries? Batting 100%

E-mail enabled? Yes, sir.

Mistakes? Can make them, but nothing visible, strong positive user

Userpage? Pretty simple, shows quality of contributions.

Any edit warring/blocks? No

FA participation? Perhaps MrDarcy could answer this. Look at his userpage for some of the important articles he has given us.

MrDarcy is a great asset to Wikipedia, and he will benefit with the tools for the betterment of Wikipedia. Yanksox 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept and am grateful to Yanksox for the nomination. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things that voters may wish to know about me: I changed my username March of 2006 when a vandal whose edits I'd been reverting tried to connect the Wikipedia me to the real-world me. You will also see a slowdown in my editing in the summer of 2006, a period which started when I became a father for the first time.

Questions for the candidate

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

A: I've become much more of a wikignome lately, and would certainly like to help more with vandal-blocking and page protections/unprotections. I've been rolling with VandalProof lately, so while rollback would be nice, I think I have 90% of the functionality I need (and just as much accountability too, since I presume my approval to use VP could be revoked at any time). I've also noticed backlogs over at copyvio and sometimes at AfD, and have wished I could help close them out.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: It's tough for me to single anything out, because so much of what I do now is gnome-work or anti-vandalism work. I responded to an RfC a while back on Moldovan language and tried to help craft a more neutral and more concise version of the article; I know it's a never-ending battle there, but I think I helped. I really enjoyed working on Spanish cuisine, a Spanish translation of the week, and one I'd like to get back to and clean up so that it can go for good-article status. I also responded to a request for sourcing in Notorious B.I.G. and was able to provide a number of citations and to clean up the content there as well. In general, if I can use a {{cite}} template when adding content, I'm pleased with the contribution, and if I can't provide a cite, I nearly always decide not to add, only to edit or remove.

Addendum: I had to think for a moment, but I remembered one more example: African literature, this diff in particular. It was a request for expansion, and I was able to help.

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

A: I think my approach to Wiki-conflict is always changing, but at this point, I try to work under two guiding principles: Follow the policies and guidelines, and walk away if it gets hot. I might add a third principle to those - solicit an outside opinion, something I've found helpful in a few content disputes. I don't think anyone benefits when emotions start to run high. I ended up leading the charge against User:Mykungfu and his various socks after he tried to tag me as a sockpuppet and to have me blocked for 3RR violations (where I'd reverted his edits to my user page repeatedly), and I think that's an example of an extended conflict where I handled things well, incorporating lessons I'd learned along the way about keeping cool. Perhaps this isn't entirely relevant, but I do think parenthood has given me a good bit of perspective on Wikipedia - I'm a big believer in the project, but getting stressed or angry over conflicts here just seems silly to me now.

4. Question from Centrx: What is Wikipedia policy and how is it formed?

5. Question from Centrx: A user is blocked because "3RR" and requests to be unblocked because he did not ever revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. He was making formatting changes across several articles and reverting them severally despite many users disagreeing with his changes. The admin who blocked him is gone for the week. What do you do?

There's a good description of how to handle unblock requests on the blocking policy page. The situation you describe appears to fall under the primary exception; after posting to AN/I and trying to determine if the user in question is just forum-shopping, here's what I'd do. (BTW, I’m not sure what you mean by “reverting them severally,” but I’ll try to answer the question as best I can.) The first step is to investigate the actual charge of 3RR. If I determine that he didn’t actually violate the rule – e.g., he made many reverts to many articles, but never reverted any single article three times in a 24-hour span – then I’d unblock him, perhaps with a note asking him to consider voluntarily following WP:1RR on the controversial pages and working through the articles’ talk pages. I’d also put a note on the blocking admin’s talk page, asking him to review his block and my unblock when he returns. If he did violate the rule, and is adamant that he didn’t, or is trying to wikilawyer his way out of the violation, then I wouldn’t unblock him at all. If he did violate the rule, but is apologetic and offers to stop his frequent reverts and work through talk pages, then I’d try to get a discussion rolling on AN/I on whether and when to unblock the user in question (since the block in question would almost certainly expire before the blocking admin returns), and I'd go with the consensus from that discussion, leaning towards no unblock if we can't reach a consensus.

6. Optional Question from T-rex: Why did you feel that it was nessicary to change your username? (But if you feel this is a privacy issue for yourself I'll understnad if you choose not to answer, or to address the issue only vaguely...) --T-rex

A vandal whose nonsense edits I'd been reverting decided to Google me and discovered that there is a notable person with my name. He left a note on my talk page with heavy references to where that person works, which I considered a vague threat (why else would he be Googling me or trying to find out where I work?). So I went for the name change. I'm still email-accessible, and a few Wikipedians do know my real name; I just wanted to remain anonymous to vandals and other troublemakers. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Question from Avriette: Ordinarily, I am not especially pleased when users come to RFA and ask for adminship so that they may better combat vandalism through blocking users and reverting. However, in your case, you seem to be more interested in contributing than regulating. As an example, a new user defaced the content of an article on my watchlist. The user then emailed a rather hostile message. Can you walk through the process you'd respond with here?

It's hard to answer that question without more details - user's first edit? vandalism-only account with several contribs? what was the nature of the defacement? As angry as you might get from one bad edit and a nastygram, I think you have to assume good faith for a little while, as long as the user isn't disrupting Wikipedia (e.g., with a vandalism spree, or with nastygrams to many editors). Many vandals here are just kids goofing off, and I think sometimes you can get a vandal like that to cool it without just slapping a punitive block on him. As I said, I'd be ready to block if there was a question of a wider disruption, but if it's contained, I'd make at least one effort to settle it without a block.

8. Question from Avriette: Can you estimate how much time you do now, and would as an administrator, spend on Main, Usertalk, and Wikipedia: articles, as well as on administrative actions?

The absolute amount of time I spend on Wikipedia each week is quite variable, and I don't think I can give a meaningful answer as a result. I participate in all three spaces, and would not expect administrator status to decrease my participation anywhere.

General comments

See MrDarcy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

Support As nominator. Yanksox 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support As someone who was waiting for this one. riana_dzasta 04:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am now furious that I was so excited to see this pop up on my watchlist, I neglected to make a Pride and Prejudice joke. But in vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I support and endorse you. riana_dzasta 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Everything seems to be in order. JoshuaZ 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Notwithstanding that this user's answer to question two does not evidence a level of pride commensurate with his contributions, I think it quite plain that he is possessed of the deliberative disposition and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin are rather auspicious and is well-acquainted with policy, such that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will surely be positive (the latter is my overarching RfA guideline; after all, success in adminship is not entirely a matter of chance); I should, then, be quite pleased to support, even were I not categorically prejudiced in favor of those candidates nominated by Yanksox. Joe 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well played, my friend, well played. Yanksox 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single editor in possession of ability must be in want of the admin tools. Any more cliches for support votes? (aeropagitica) 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. (aeropagitica) summed it all up. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support looks good. Strong editor -- Samir धर्म 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no problems here. Go for it. (Radiant) 10:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support good candidate with a good history and valuable contributions. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
--Dario vet 12:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. Perfick. yandman 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. As everyone else has said, he's knowledgable, civil, dedicated, and a good vandal fighter. As a side note, congratulations on your fatherhood. :) Srose (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Great user. Nishkid 64 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support, excellent indeed.__Seadog ^♪ 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support - much as I would like to oppose based on my loathing of Jane Austen, that's not really on, and no matter how hard I search for a pretext there doesn't seem to be one. So here I am in the support column. Damn! Moreschi 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support great candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support--Hús ö nd 20:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support per above Doc ♬ talk 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Will make a fine admin. Hello32020 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- crz crztalk 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support, though I would recommend stepping back when angry and waiting for the anger to pass before responding under stress. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support per all of above, and on the assumption that the candidate is not this Mr. Darcy. Newyorkbrad 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support John254 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Great candidate. Give-em-the-mop^TM JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"Of course" support :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Khoikhoi 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, user seems to like fighting vandalism, and isn't a grumpy old sod, so he's okay by me! Lankiveil 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
Support. Seems responsible and willing to fight vandalism. - Darwinek 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support purely on the grounds that anyone who chooses such a great user name must be in want of promotion - and because I enjoyed the jokes above. Deb 12:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Ter e nc e Ong 14:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I love me some wiki-gnomes. IronDuke 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support a father-image for fighting vandalism.qualifications is impressive. - RebSkii 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support No problem here. Rettetast 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Suport. Looks good. NauticaShad e s 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support There is no major concerns here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per all of the above. Make us proud with your use of the mop! Sharkface217 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, but nothing original to say at this point, so..."per all of the above". Doc Tropics 05:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. utcursch | talk 11:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per above. There doesn't seem any reason not to. He's good, too good. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Ter e nc e Ong 18:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You already supported this candidate. =P —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks like a great candidate. Dina 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, looks good. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
--Rudjek 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support—Observed MrDarcy's work for some time. Absolutely comfortable with both the skill and the maturity. Tools are in safe hands here. Do us proud - Williamborg (Bill) 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Ac s 4b 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-04 09:01Z
Not that this RFA needs any more support, heh, but I'll throw my two cents in. User looks like a rational, intelligent individual with a level head. Set 'im up! ♠PMC♠ 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support No evidence this nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Sarah Ewart 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. DarthVad e r 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - per consensus.Baka man 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, Close to 5000 edits and participation in many Wikiprojects - Go Futurama! Us e r:Sp3000 07:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support MrDarcy will be a great addition to the administrator community. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support =) -Advanced 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support a prolific and valuable editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Nice candidate - no comment really needed. --PaxEquilibrium 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per quality of user. Jorcoga^† 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Amalas

Final (46/1/2) Ended 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Amalas (talk • contribs) – It's my pleasure to nominate this user for adminship. Amalas has been contributing since the begining of April this year, has made over 18,000 edits, and in addition to the proverbial metric truckload of stub-sorting work, has helped out immensely on the 'janitorial' side of Wikipedia:Wikiproject stub sorting and Wikipedia:stub types for deletion, doing non-admin closures, and an enormous amount of archiving and general cleaning up after other people's messes. WP:SFD doesn't have a lot of admins active in closing discussions, and what's more, those that are, are often also those arguing on one or other side of the debate: so further such assistance is very welcome. Furthermore, I've noticed on a couple of occasions discussions closed by Amalas (on a perfectly reasonable basis) but awaiting admin completion, have been reverted by users unhappy with the outcome; so I think it would make simply sense for someone already doing the work, to have the tools to complete the task. (In some cases such actions also needlessly clog the job queue if repeatedly done and undone.) Let me confess to a degree of unoriginality here: Crzrussian offered to nominate, but as he's now on wikibreak, I thought it was better not to leave the (pre-)nominee hanging; and besides which, it prompted me to recall my own intentions to do so. At the risk of straying into "beans" territory, I imagine that this user's profile may be a little 'low key' for the taste of some, but I submit that by the criterion of risk:benefit, this user's enmopment ought to be a sure thing: it would be useful to the functioning of at least one small corner of Wikipedia (and likely to grow over time), and Amalas' exemplary record of helpful and uncontentious behaviour argues for extreme unlikelihood of misuse of the tools. Alai 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Crzrussian was going to co-nominate with me (hence the cryptic messages we've been sending back and forth), and was going to let me know when this was up and running - which he didn't, because in the end, he didn't do the nominating. I even had some comments written out ready. So therefore: Amalas has done a considerable amount of work on the stub-sorting wikiproject and has shown herself to be a conscientious, diligent, and above all friendly Wikipedian. Many of the tasks she has performed would have been eased by the admin tools. She interacts well with other editors as a glance at her talk page shows, and those of you with editcountitis might like to note that her 18000 edits include around 1000 spread between article talk and user talk spaces. I am very happy to co-nominate her for adminship. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 02:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I would like to go ahead and say this ahead of time, but I do not have the so-called requirement of 1 FA. In fact, I don't even have a GA. I will admit that I do not contribute much written material to the encyclopedia, but I feel that I improve the overall experience by cleaning up existing articles and make processes easier for other Wikipedians.

Questions for the candidate

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

A: Like Alai said, I will mainly be doing a lot of SFD closures. I would also like to get involved more in the AFD process, since it is very similar to SFD. When I first started on Wikipedia, I put a lot of {{prod}} tags on articles, so I have a fairly good idea of what should stay and what should go.

I have been closing discussions on SFD for a few months now, and I would like to take those skills over to AFD as well to assist in any backlogs that can and will occur there. Most of the time it is very obvious whether a stub (or an article) needs to be kept or deleted, and I would like to be able to deal with the "delete" closures as quickly as possible to reduce backlog.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am most please with the templates I have created to aid in the closure process of the Stub Sorting Proposals and Discoveries pages: {{sfp create}}, {{sfp nocreate}}, {{sfdisc sfd}}, {{sfdisc list}}, etc. I dislike large backlogs on these pages and I felt that by creating color coded templates, it would make things easier for people to know what to do with a discussion once it had been completed.

As I said in my statement, I don't contribute a lot of material, but I feel that my process improvements have really benefited others. I've cleared out a ton of backlog from the discoveries page, but I have balked on clearing out more, because most of it needs to be sent to SFD. I am hesitant to put a ton of things on SFD, knowing that they will sit there, waiting for someone to delete them. Having the tools to do this myself would reduce the time things sit on SFD in addition to clearing out more backlog from the Discoveries page.

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

A: In my early days, before I found WP:WSS, I dabbled a bit in the Mediation Cabal and 3rd Opinion. I ended up getting too drawn into the cases and I didn't end up helping that much. Now, I try to stay away from controversial debates and instead focus my energies on things that are simple, but just aren't getting done.

I think what I am trying to say here is that mediation is not one of my stronger skills. When closing SFDs, I will always try to determine consensus (most of the time it's a clear runaway), and if I can't determine consensus, I will usually leave the SFD alone. I'd rather deal with a clear-cut consensus quickly, getting it out of the way and taken care of. I don't feel that any users have caused me stress lately, but if it happens, I usually step away from WP for a couple hours and come back to the situation with a clear head.

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. Can you state specifically how you will use the sysop tools? In other words: Can you elaborate on what tools you will mainly use? Can you also expand on how and why you would use them, also taking into account your understanding of the tools. Sorry if the question is wrapped up in itself.

A: The tool I would use most often is simply the ability to delete pages. I will spend most of my time cleaning up after WP:SFD, but I will probably also branch out to WP:AFD, WP:TFD, WP:MFD, etc. Right now, I already close SFD discussions that have clear consensus, so as an admin, I will be able to go that extra step to actually delete the things that were decided to be deleted.

Questions from Avriette:

5. Could you elaborate on how you would have been a more effective stub-sorter, archivist, etc.?

A: Like I said before, I already close almost all the discussions on SFD. I also orphan stubs that will need to be deleted. The next step before archiving the discussion is to actually deleting the template/category. That's the only thing I can't do. Instead of bugging an admin to do it for me and waiting for them to do it, I could complete the process (of which I am already doing most of) by myself.

6. You said

I would like to be able to deal with the "delete" closures as quickly as possible to reduce backlog

Do you feel that administrative processes need to move as quickly as possible? If so, why? If not, why?

A: I personally do not like large amounts of items left in the "old business" section of a page. If it's old, then deal with it. I feel that once a decision has been made, the solution should be executed right away, not the next day or the next week, etc.

7a. What are your largest areas of interest in the main namespace?

A: My interests are kind of over the place: Buffy/Angel, sociology, gaming, movies.

7b. If you were to instantiate a featured article today, what do you suppose it might be?

A: I would probably finally kick the Killobyte article into decent shape. It's been on the back burner for a long time, but I haven't gotten around to it.

General comments

See Amalas's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

Support Per nom, but could you please expand your answers a little bit more --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded my answers a bit. Let me know if you need any more information about something in particular. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please, with a cherry on top. I missed my chance - but Alai is a better nominator, anyway. Excellent candidate. Thoughtful and uncontroversial. She has a wealth of experience and a narrow but well-defined needs for admin tools. No exposure to vandal-fighting etc. carries zero concern with this person because she is know for her good demeanor and there is no risk of misuse of tools whatsoever. - crz crztalk 02:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong support as nominator. Alai 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Amalas has done great work on WP:WSS, where she has always been both a competent and friendly editor. It has also seemed "unnatural" to me that she couldn't close debates completely which is a real problem since the admins normally closing debates also participate in many of them. The workload at WP:WSS is often pretty big and more active admins there will be very welcome. I see no reason at all not to trust her with the mop. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Hard worker and friendly, per nom. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Have seen this candidate around and am always impressed. Clearly defined need for tools. Good luck! riana_dzasta 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support rawr.--Hús ö nd 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support --Ter e nc e Ong 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong support as eventual co-nominator. The problems when someone goes on wikibreak half-way through these things... Grutness...wha? 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Very industrious editor. I don't see the process-oriented admin tasks as too much of a challenge. (aeropagitica) 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support per others. No concerns here, and I particularly like the process improvement work! -- Renesis (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hard work on stub sorting is appreciated. Good luck with the mop. (Radiant) 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OMG, this user definitely has a great WP experience, and 18K+ of useful edits is no less valuable contribution than 1FA. MaxSem 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
SupportDolive21 10:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support - plenty of experience, a good Wikipedian and hard worker. Amalas was actually one of the first Wikipedians I saw at work; she kind of cleaned up after me by sorting the first stubs I made! --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. "She" ;) ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support - Looks like this editor would make a great administrator. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I'm not particullary wild about the response to my question, but I believe there will be no harm done by this. Yanksox 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support She is a hard worker and the tools will only help her in benefiting this project. ← ANAS ^Talk? 14:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support good contributor.-- danntm ^T _C 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support - dedicated user, doing work that needs to be done but most of us wouldn't get around to, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad 19:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support seems to be an excellent contributor who could use the mop. Canadian-Bacon 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Bucketsofg 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks like a quality, process-focused candidate. Not all admins need to interact with users on a constant basis and leave messages all over talk pages. She has a knack for doing (in my view) some pretty tedious stuff; let's give her some tools to help her out. Kafziel ^Talk 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support - I don't normally do these and I hope I'm in good enough standing to comment, but I've seen her work at WP:WSS and she's one of the people I always assumed *was* an administrator already. Plenty of good contributions - in particular, it may seem small but the color-coded templates are great, helped clean up a very cumbersome page. Crystallina 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Your stub sorting work is much appreciated. cøøki ə Ξ _(talk) 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. Axl 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I love editors who do boring stuff. IronDuke 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support per same reason as IronDuke. -Angelbo 18:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Defintely meets requirments to beoome an administrator, and I think this user would make a terrific one. Hello32020
Support We need more admis willing to focus on specific areas. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support John254 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Great work! yandman 11:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. I've seen her around at WP:WSS, and she's always making useful edits. I'm sure she will be a good admin, too. NauticaShad e s 23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support A very hard-working contributor to this project. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per above. Sharkface217 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support sounds like a good contributer and it would be useful to allow her to delete things rather than just closing XfD's and needing someone else to do the dirty work, especially since she is willing to do the work. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 07:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
good luck ;)) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Bucketsofg 01:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

One per customer por favor. - crz crztalk 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support We need more admins. And everything looks A-OK. With > 18k edits, Give-er-the-mop^TM JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support.--Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
--Rudjek 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support — Williamborg (Bill) 15:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
troppuS. thank you for answering my questions. it's my feeling that you're much more useful doing what you've been doing, rather than the too-common admin descent into LARTing users. but, i of course can't compel you to do anything. i look forward to seeing more work from you. ... aa:talk 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support could always use more qualified help with AfD closings... but it is a tad different than SFD in that different policies are important and you might catch a bit more flak. You don't exactly see SFD closings on DRV every day :-) But nevertheless, candidate seems fine and if this nominator trusts him, that's a good sign. --W.marsh 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the pronoun you are looking for is "her". ;) ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, my bad. Further evidence that the devs need to hurry up and impliment the "Requests for CheckGender" feature we came up with on IRC. --18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely a bad idea... =) I do mention my gender on my user page under "Amalas the person". I don't usually care about such things, but often people react differently and have different preconceived ideas depending on gender, so I try to make things as clear as possible. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Michael 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Oops

Uhh, you were already the first support position. One !vote per person, please. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Great user with high-quality edits. — Seadog (Talk) 13:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

oppose - lack of experience with images[2] [3] --T-rex 05:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And experience in working with images is absolutely essential because...? Alai 14:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

...because I believe that admins should have a good understanding of the second most important namespace. --T-rex 16:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And "understanding of" means "lots of edits in"? The only real reasons to accumulate a large number of such edits are either doing lots of image uploads, or dealing with image copyright issues; which while important, are hardly vital things for every admin to be involved in. Alai 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. Besides edits, how else is heshe to show that the has an understanding? --T-rex 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"She" ;) Also, I don't see how knowledge in the Image namespace is relevant to what I would mostly be doing as an admin. As I've said, I'm most interested in the *fD processes (specifically SFD), so I wouldn't necessarily need high knowledge of images. If something were to come up involving images, I would ask another admin more familiar with that area to help out. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(ec)It would be more useful if you were to clarify what you meant by "a good understanding" of images, and why this should be required, since you're the person to introduce this concept into the discussion, rather than me trying to second-guess you. Personally, I don't think it's required that admins have any involvement with images, because I think it's pretty much inherently unhelpful to write a "profile" for the sort of work people "ought" to be doing, if they're in fact doing useful work of some other sort. The majority of most editors' interaction with the image namespace will be using same, not editing images directly; similarly it's pretty fundamental that editors have some idea of how to use categories, but it's hardly required the admin candidates have some magic number of category namespace edits. Are you planning to oppose every RFA where the nom has less than N image edits? Have you a value in mind for N? Alai 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my standards are that hard to meet. If it makes you feel any better this is nowhere near the first RfA I've opposed because of image experience --T-rex 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's hard to verify, as you haven't said what your standards are. More than 10 image edits? More than 100? More than 1000? And on the contrary, it makes me feel much worse: one oppose probably won't do Amalas any harm (touch wood), but the more diverent criteria we get on RFAs in general (opposition on the basis of lack of FA, of lack of total edits, of lack of talk pages edits, or whatever else a particular editor decides on), the more spuriously difficult it becomes to get good candidates passed who're evidently doing good work in other areas. Eventually, we end up with the net effect of "all admins have to be exhausted generalist saints" (until there's a corresponding backlash and things get easier again for a while). Alai 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alai (and others), please forgive me for saying this so bluntly, but I have a bad feeling you risk losing that war (although I hope to God I'm wrong). I've never been interested much in RfA debates but I followed some of them a few months back and I did get a few impressions from them (just for the record, I'm not trying to refer to any user(s) in particular here, it is just a few general impressions I got watching a few of these debates). To begin with the conclusion: uniform standards do not seem to apply, with the effect that a potential candidate has next to no chance of actually guessing what yardstick he or she will be measured by. Some editors demand a FA, others demand deep knowledge about a specialized field of policy, others demand posts on the Pump / talk space / project space. Some argue that "Adminship is no big deal" and cite WP:AGF while others argue for saint-like properties plus X,000 edits and/or Y months on the project. Some argue that Adminship is not a "reward" or similar and that an RfA is not a popularity contest. However, sometimes debates did remind me too much of the latter. Feel free to call me old-fashioned, but given that we are actually talking about people using many hours of their spare time doing unpaid volunteer donkey work, isn't the qualifications for adminship approaching a rather tall order? For what it is worth; whenever I feel a need to vote on somebody's nomination, I stick to three questions 1) "do I trust that this person would act fairly if he / she becomes involved in the capacity of admin in a dispute against me?" If I can answer "yes" here (remembering AGF), the same is likely to apply towards other users. 2) "do I believe that the person in question does this project a lot more good than bad?" and 3) "do I think there is a danger in giving this person access to these tools or not?" (again: AGF applies). If I can answer "yes" to the first two questions and "no" to the third then I'm happy. As I see it, the fundamental weakness of the current system is that admin powers are tough to remove since they are not open to automatic recall or renewal. In all other walks of life, if people don't live up to a job, they are removed or replaced. This is very difficult under the current system. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Great editor, but I am worried about how she will handle dispute resolution or mediating disputes in the article namespace. Most of her edits are made using AWB or stub-sorting and I don't see that this user has had much discussion regarding articles and such. I was looking at her contributions, and I found that 99.7% (marked by VoA script) of her last 2500 edits have been marked as minor edits, and 1339 of them have been made using AWB. It's just a bit of a pet peeve when I see an excellent user who hasn't dabbed into the wonderful art of article-building. Nishkid 64 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the minor edits: I am part of WikiProject Stub Sorting, and a lot of the tasks involved hundreds of tedious edits. Most of my recent edits have been updating stub templates after a decision to rename. I could probably get Alaibot to do most of that work for me, but Alai's not always around, so I take it upon myself to get that work done so that the SFD discussion can be closed quickly. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I'm neutral for this one too. Basically per Nishkid64, I kind of wonders if this user will be capable of interacting with users on constant basis. 251 User talk edits (41 in own page) is way too low for a admin candidate. The article talk page edit count is not that impressive either. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Over 1000 of Amalas's edits are on various types of talk page - user talk, project talk, article talk - only a small proportion of admins would have that many talk page edits. I don't see any reason she should have problems relating to interaction with other users. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

She has over 850 talk page edits, with the last one being made on August 30, 2006 (3 months ago). Also, almost all of her talk page edits are as a result of tagging {{WikiProject Missouri}} on the page. Just look at [4]. Nishkid 64 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that it makes much difference, but 858 article talk + 263 user talk + 4 template talk + 59 Wikispace talk + 50 image talk + 23 category talk = 1257 edits on the various types of talk page, as I said. She has 21 user talk edits within the last week. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Gray Porpoise

Final (70/3/1) Ended 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gray Porpoise (talk • contribs) – There has been one user who has helped me out since the time I joined wikipedia...It is of course the user who I am nominating. Gray Porpoise has displayed excellent civility and has never lost his cool. He is a common visitor to the Wiki-space by having 916 wikipedia space edits (that is - WP:MOTTO). Also a very good contributer to the mainspace. Other than that I have nothing else to say about this generally great wikipedian and I am honored to nominate him. Seadog ^♪ 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

A: A frequent newpage patroller, I have an interest in helping with deletions, particularly speedy deletions and user categories for discussion. I will also perform regular editing on protected pages that need proofreading, and check deletion history to make sure pages have not been unfairly deleted. In addition to this, adminship will increase my regular editing activities in pursuit of bureaucrat status.

Not to mention, I won't have to bother anyone when I want to fix a copyright violation or clean up my user subpages.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: My apologies to those who think this is important, but I have not expanded an article to featured status. However, I have started new pages, including a couple (such as Melanie Martinez) that have expanded beyond stubs, and some (such as Pandanus spiralis) that could quickly do so if they had more contributors. I have also completely rewritten Ahmed Faseeh, Cloak of invisibility, Oobi, and Quizilla, the former two of which were copyright violations and the latter two of which were just of poor quality. Though at first my focus was on creating as many articles as possible, I have come to pay more attention to writing more extensive and well-referenced articles. (Tickling is the fact that they still turn out short, but I guess writing an encyclopedia isn't just one organism's work!) Rewriting and starting articles is enjoyable for me, and I find it pleasing as my way of adding to our growing database of knowledge. (Sorry if that sounded awkward.)

I also contribute to Portal:Cetaceans, which was recently featured. Although I haven't changed its design or scheduled selected content for it, I've done behind-the-scenes work on it such as adding news and discussing the selected content.

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

A: No major conflicts have arisen during my editing in the past. I try to stay out of arguments, and when minor debates occur, I keep them at civilized debates, not edit or flame wars. Even then, I find Wikipedia to be a hobby, not a stress-causer. I plan to remain this way in the future.

Optional questions from Avriette (talk • contribs):

4. Specifically how will administrative privileges increase your editing throughput, rather than decrease? (given a fixed amount of time, any time spent on administrative actions necessarily reduces the time editing)

A: *rejoices at addition of questions* Though I'll actively participate in admin chores, I'll also keep up my non-administrative editing to remain a well-rounded contributor.

So you intend to spend more time on the project overall?

That is correct. I used to sometimes feel like I had nothing to do... but then I discovered the backlogs.

5. You mention you've had no "major" conflicts with other users. Can you show me a few of your "minor" conflicts?

A: I've never been right in the middle of an argument. I don't start arguments or edit wars, and other Wikipedians don't start conflicts against me. There are conflicts that could be considered major (e.g. Esperanza's deletion discussion and Minun's request for arbitration) that I have participated in, but I myself did not play a major role in them, just adding my outside opinion.

6. How are you like to react to a user who is not "civilized"?

A: I try to be more civil to uncivilized people than they are to me. If given the ability to perform blocks, I would try hard to calm down trolls before resorting to the ability.

I guess this is what I was getting at. How do you propose to 'calm down trolls' before blocking them? The general consensus seems to be that there is no negotiating with trolls.

When I say that, I mean that I'll give them a good deal of advance warning, and try to compromise. Of course, there are those who never give up, and those trolls will likely end up on the wrong end of the banhammer after awhile.

7. At what level of activity or amount of time do you estimate you would be fit for bureaucratship? (this question asked because the user mentioned "pursuit of bureaucrat status")

A: Since RfBs are not nearly as common as RfAs, I haven't had many opportunities to observe that kind of request, and so I'm not as familiar with it. I will probably try for at least another year of editing experience before requesting bureaucratship. My main interest in bureaucratship is helping with Wikipedia:Changing username. Thank you for asking these questions. I'll be glad to answer more.

You'll want to look here, here, and here. Good luck.

Optional questions from Serpent's Choice (talk • contribs)
I know I'm a little late to the party with these questions. Nevertheless, they are based on the concerns raised below, and I hope that a response might be valuable for many of the commenters. Fair warning, these are more complex that often-asked admin questions. Like many questions involving consensus-based issues, there may or may not even be "right" answers.

8. What is your view on the proper use of secondary accounts/sockpuppets? When, if ever is it appropriate for a user to employ multiple accounts? How does an admin determine when such use is "absusive"? Are any of these answers different for someone who is an admin on (presumably only) one of their accounts?

9. How does an admin determine the dividing line between prohibited "social networking" and beneficial "community building"? How, if at all, does that division influence wikigames, especially taken in light of recent activity at MFD? Are there different answers to these questions for User-space content versus Wikipedia-space content?

General comments

See Gray Porpoise's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Feel free to leave optional questions. I'll be happy to answer as many as you provide. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Support as nominator.__Seadog ^♪ 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. My only real interaction was during the Esperanza MfD discussion. This user was civil and reasoned, and that's enough for me. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
<sigh>Changed to oppose per undisclosed secondary account mentioned by Moreschi. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I haven't really had much interaction with you, but I have seen your edits on Seadog.M.S's talk page, and some of your contribs. A very high and balanced edit count, and a good job on the articles you created. On most users, I would make an oppose or neutral vote (that's the only word I can think of, even though this technically isn't voting) for no GA or FAs, but you've just done too many other great things! —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 21:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. G.H e 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A fine user - crz crztalk 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support Uber awesome editor! He/she is a valued contributor on Wikipedia. Nishkid 64 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Kimchi.sg 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I have seen Gray Porpoise contribute to many community discussions and I believe that GP will make a fine administrator.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Good user, knows what he's doing. --Majorly 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
3x edit conflicted Support!! yesisupportbeforeigeteditconflictedagain.--Hús ö nd 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Looks like a good editor, no reason to think that they wouldn't make a good admin too. (aeropagitica) 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support clearly a good contributor.-- danntm ^T _C 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Mop him! Sharkface217 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. I've lost track of how many times I've seen you in seperate places, which is a very good sign. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Cetacean support! (Radiant) 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support - fit for the porpoise Bubba hot ep 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I have seen this user in action, though never interacted. He seems to know what the guidelines for deletion are, and seeing as that would be his main area of admin-contributions, I think he deserves a support. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. Fun, friendly user :) AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Friendly, easy going. Simply south 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support John254 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Good user Tyson Moore es 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I have seen Gray Porpoise around, always up to something good. Dar-Ape 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Helps with maintenience and articles. Nice guy. Need no other reason. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - Mailer Diablo 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm this message and I approve Mailer Diablo! - this message 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support, yep. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-29 04:58Z
Support Great editor with great edits! You will do well! Jam 01 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Supoort What do you think I'm going to do? Jorcogα 08:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Good, hard worker. And a nice guy to boot :) riana_dzasta 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support - Great wikipedian in my opinion. Would make a great admin. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I've seen this user a couple of times around. He is a great candidate for adminship. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. --Ars Scriptor 15:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support - Welcoming and helpful; I have encountered his useful contribs a number of times in my editing sessions. Katalaveno 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom and comments. Good contributor, good welcomer, no concern candidate will misuse tools. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Responsible and dedicated. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . 3} 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support You have beat me to reverting vandalism many times. Keep up the good work.Grayson d. k. 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. Accuse the "crazy funlovers", but this guy just makes Wikipedia a nice place to be. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. I was originally going to support based on my experience of Gray's edits, then I saw the comments about the alternate account and wondered whether I'd still be able to support. I've read all the comments and GP's explanations are more than sufficient for me to support. Thryduulf 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Nice vandal fighter, responsible. IronDuke 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. No explanation is necessary, an extremely familiar name. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Good, responsible user, ready to have the tools. Hello32020 21:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've read this user's talk page, and I Support this RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. My familiarity with this user's attitude and demeanor, as well the fact that I've yet to see questionable behavior on this user's part, begs of me a definite support. - Che Nuevara 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support I don't see any reason to oppose here - the games are out of place, but I'm not that bothered by them. Otherwise this seems like a good editor who would do good things as an administrator - it seems like he will only help the encyclopedia. --TheOther Bob 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Not only have you had only freindly interactions with me (or maybe I was just reading what you recorded) but also your edits have been very good and helpful to the community. I'm Randfan, and I approve of this message! By the way the 2nd Porpoise account is very thoughtful, and I think an Admin should be creative and smart that way. —¡Rand fan ! 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support User:Michaelas10 mentions the extremely familiar name. I, too, know that the Porpoise is everywhere and haven't seen anything that should prevent it from passing this RfA. WODUP ^talk/_contribs 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support passes my criteria †he Bread 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Would be a great admin. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. :) Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I've never had any trouble with this user, and he is a contributer of the finest quality. If he had some FAs, my vote would be "Strong Support". Good work GP! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support: Per nom. ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ ^(Ŧ) 17:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support excellent user. Hut 8.5 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - User:Gray Porpoise has always been very tactful and understanding in the edits that I have seen him make, and he has had good support for his positions. I believe that he would be an excellent admin. —Cswrye 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Looks good. NauticaShad e s 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. I can't see any chance for abuse here, and really can't see how a second account (which has been clearly labeled as such since the very day it was created) will effect this user's abilities as an admin. -- AuburnPilot^talk 02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - A good contributor who will be a good admin. Doc Tropics 05:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
good work!!!! I belive in you ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Bucketsofg 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Michael 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - duh. Great user and vandal fighter; I'm surprised xe isn't an admin already. - SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
support, per answers. I want to let you know that I'm still a little iffy. I really hope you do continue in the manner suggested by your answers. If you do, we really need users like that. Please don't hesitate to ask for help if you're even a little uncertain if a certain action is the right one to take. It's far better to ask somebody else than to risk being the tinder for a larger fire. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. They are not intended to be a reflection of you. ... aa:talk 08:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
--Rudjek 12:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
ABITW support — Do well by us - Williamborg (Bill) 15:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support - ~~in my admittedly limited contact with the nominee and the answers above,~~ I have had repeated contacts with the above editor and have never seen any reason to have a negative thing about him. I have every reason to believe that he will be as effective as an admin as he has already demonstrated himself to be as an editor. Note:only after starting the response did I note how often I have in fact encountered the nominee. I guess, because I never saw anything to question, the name didn't register as quickly as it should have. My apologies for my incompetent editing on the fly.Badbilltucker 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nominator and comments above. Sarah Ewart 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. Just H 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Support -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Support Think he should have disclosed other accounts without having users search for them, but he's still a great user. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign in)} 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I believe this candidate will do a fine job serving Wikipedia's porpoise. Dionyseus 06:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Great candidate and a fine editor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

A whole alternate account for Games? Games like this stuff? That will help the encyclopaedia how? Just doesn't feel right. Not that I suppose it will make any difference. Moreschi 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he uses it for welcoming users and test purposes.__Seadog ^♪ 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He may do. As the subpage shows, it is also used for other purposes! Ones which I find objectionable. Moreschi 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording on that page was intended to be humourous. I created it with RfAs in mind - I didn't want to make you guys/gals think that the majority of my edits are taken up by testing, etc. when you looked at my contributions, because they aren't. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, your comment here does not help your cause. Stating that the purpose (or is that porpoise?) of the alternate account was to segment off a portion of you edits for the purpose of creating a more favorable impression for this RfA makes it unlikely now that I will change my oppose below. I think you should consider why this comment of yours here is damaging, as this also reflects on your judgement. I truly am sorry to be opposing at this point as I have had only favorable interactions with you, so I hope if this RfA is successful that you will reflect on my comments here as you carry out your admin duties. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Doug: (1) You stole my pun, see below. (2) I think what GP meant was that not that he wanted to hide the "welcoming" edits from scrutiny on RfA, but that GP didn't want to be suspected of making them for the purpose of favorably influencing an RfA, nor get a reaction that "it's hard to see your substantive edits amidst all the welcomes and such" (the way vandal-fighters with lots of AWB edits sometimes hear "how can we see what else you're doing amidst all those reverts and warnings?"). Newyorkbrad 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the pun theft, I didn't do it on porpoise. :-) What you say may very well be true, but concealing the edits is not the way to approach it. The candidate is given ample opportunity to point people to whatever they think is relevant and to discuss the points you say. I am, however, not at all fond of resumé grooming for an RfA, and that is essentially what GrayPorpoise is admitting to above. That combined with the lack of disclosure pushes this over the line in terms of judgement for me. I seriously doubt if my oppose or Moreschi's oppose are going to derail this RfA, so the purpose (I restrained myself) of this oppose is to impress upon the nominee the importance of full disclosure and exercising good judgement. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much the undisclosed account that I minded - though it isn't clever - but basically what cheesed me off where those Games in the subpage link that I provided. We are not here to play Games - we are here to write an encyclopaedia. The task of Wikipedians is to write that encyclopaedia. Everything else is secondary. Games are evil enough without the game edits disappearing onto an undisclosed secondary account. Moreschi 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You said that with real purpoise. Perhaps the nominee thought it was an all-purpoise encyclopaedia. :) Bubba hot ep 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) that's it from me!

I am getting sick to my back teeth of these "purpose/porpoise" puns. It's just not funny and is starting to annoy. And no, it isn't an all-purpose encyclopaedia. It's just an encyclopaedia.

To respond to Gray Porpoise below - well, you didn't exactly bring the existence of that account to our attention - AGF and all that. What is more, why not show a little faith and trust??? RFA voters are not, as a rule, stupid. Nor do they make snap judgements based on edit counts and nothing else. Moreschi 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I forgot about the account when filling out the RfA questions. I am assuming good faith- no, the best faith possible- out of you, but I just believe there may be some misunderstanding. Your opposition is well thought out, and this confusion is my fault. Further explanation: That "Games" page was created before the recent deletion discussions concerning "games" on Wikipedia, and I now have a thorough understanding of it. My opinion on this matter is here, and I hope to propose a guideline based on it. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Reluctantly oppose per Moreschi (changed from first non-nom support<sigh>). It's much more because the nominee failed to disclose the use of alternate accounts, but also partly because of the content of the account. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain? --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing it, I don't see any mention of the alternate account you use mentioned on either your user page, nor on this RfA. I think that users need to disclose information about any other accounts they may use, and that especially applies in an RfA. In an RfA people need to be able to evaluate the user's contributions, and this would include all contributions regardless of account. The lack of disclosure is, I'm sorry to say, a significant lapse in judgement. Since the three cornerstones of admin qualification for me are maturity, civility and judgement, I'm afraid I have to oppose based on your judgement in failing to disclose. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a link, albeit not a prominent one, to this account from Gray Porpoise's userpage under the heading "My Doubles", which has been present since September 21. (The other "doubles" are non-controversial impersonation-prevention accounts.) While Doug Bell's comment is correct in theory, in this instance I see no motive to conceal the existence of a "welcoming" account that could only have strengthened the candidate's record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did miss that link because of the confusing formatting of the page. That does significantly reduce my concern. However, for the moment at least, I'm going to remain as an oppose because I think this should have been prominently disclosed on this RfA instead of being something people had to search for. It isn't simply a matter of motivation, and I assumed no ill motivation, but primarily regards judgement. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I also meant to point out that while I assume no ill intent, obviously the existence of the account did not strengthen the record in the eyes of Moreschi. That's why full and open disclosure is important. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not try to "hide" or "conceal" anything from RfA participants. What I meant was... How do I word this... Metaphor time! Imagine someone putting on a pretty mask to hide their ugly face. That is a representation of what some of these comments suggest. What I really mean, metaphorically, is that I made the account so that the ugly face could be seen, but the mask would not go unnoticed. Do you get the gist of it? I wanted to avoid inexperienced RfA participants taking one look at my contributions and saying, "Gray Porpoise fools around and never helps the encyclopedia." I did not want to throw you off. If you wish, and if this RfA is successful, I shall indefinitely block my alternate account and not mess around with the "games" on Wikipedia. As for welcoming, I didn't want to make it appear that I spent more time chatting with people than improving articles, which I don't. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A few afterthoughts:

1) I don't prioritize "games" above normal editing.

2) I may or may not be male. You may refer to me by any pronoun you wish.

3) I'm not "hiding" edits in the sense that I don't wish for you to see them. I'm:

3.1) separating them so they are not misleading

3.2) a very forgetful being

3.3) one who reads and tries to obey guidelines and policies, but may interpret them differently from others --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Whether or not the alternate account is appropriate, I can't by any stretch of the imagination see it as "undisclosed". I, for one, knew about it already, but I think it's quite prominently displayed on the userpage -- most people with sockpuppets don't admit to them at all. - Che Nuevara 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should rename the subpage, so others can easily notice it. If you support of or object to that idea, please say so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gray Porpoise (talk • contribs) .

To be clear, I never used the term "sockpuppet", because I in no way am trying to make any implication that sockpuppetry was the purpose of the alternate account. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply either that I had made that claim, nor that GrayPorpoise had that intent, but it pays to be careful with your choice of words. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, and I'm sorry for any potential misunderstanding. I don't actually consider "sockpuppetry" a negative term; I simply use it to mean any sub-account of an editor's main account. There's a general sentiment on Wikipedia that, if someone has multiple accounts, they're doing something underhanded. I don't make that assumption. I happen to think that WP:SOCK should undergo a massive overhaul, but that's a discussion for another place. Apologies again for any implications I accidentally made. - Che Nuevara 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
oppose - per Doug Bell, I had intially stayed away from this one as being neutral, but the idea of going out of the way to look good on a RfA doesn't sit well with me --T-rex 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Something doesn't quite feel right about this user, but I don't know what. Ral315 (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment, usually neutral or oppose votes have more elaboration than "something just doesn't quite feel right." You should show valid evidence as to what you might think would be an issue.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can figure out what doesn't feel right, please let me know so I can improve on it. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This neutral comment needs to be explained a bit further, or it will serve no porpoise at all. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have the copyright on the misuse of that word (see Support #15) ;) Bubba hot ep 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the candidate should open another account just to deal with the pun-related issues. This would, of course, be a single-porpoise account. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He would have to do it on porpoise. Would you forward him the porpoisal? Bubba hot ep 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing the "something" is the temperament of this user. Humorous user may be distrusted by some people. That's just my interpretation of Ral315's comment. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, Ral's a pretty humorous guy. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see minor quibbles with alternate accounts, but this user's dedication to the project is clearly porpoiseful. IronDuke 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to earlier successful nominations

In chronological order, newest first

Daveydweeb 4 December 2006
Gogo Dodo 2 December 2006
Sandstein 30 November 2006
HighInBC 28 November 2006
Renesis13 28 November 2006
Nae'blis 28 November 2006
Viridae 28 November 2006
Gnangarra 26 November 2006
Doug Bell 24 November 2006
Metros232 20 November 2006
Tango 19 November 2006
Mike Selinker 18 November 2006
ReyBrujo 18 November 2006
Martinp23 18 November 2006
Tariqabjotu 17 November 2006
Rama's Arrow 17 November 2006
Opabinia regalis 16 November 2006
Dalbury 13 November 2006
Femto 12 November 2006
Cholmes75 11 November 2006
Trialsanderrors 11 November 2006
Husond 11 November 2006
Shyam Bihari 10 November 2006
Rockpocket 10 November 2006
AnonEMouse 8 November 2006
EVula 7 November 2006
Lostintherush 7 November 2006
Future Perfect at Sunrise 6 November 2006
Daniel Olsen 6 November 2006
Art LaPella 6 November 2006
J Di 4 November 2006

Saxifrage 4 November 2006
Youngamerican 3 November 2006
GeeJo 2 November 2006
Osgoodelawyer 1 November 2006
Alex9891 28 October 2006
Olessi 28 October 2006
Jusjih 26 October 2006
MCB 25 October 2006
Aksi great 24 October 2006
Betacommand 22 October 2006
Deepujoseph 21 October 2006
Khoikhoi 21 October 2006
Plange 20 October 2006
Trödel 20 October 2006
TKD 20 October 2006
Melchoir 19 October 2006
Ginkgo100 18 October 2006
Atlant 18 October 2006
Durova 17 October 2006
Coredesat 17 October 2006
Physicq210 17 October 2006
ChrisGriswold 16 October 2006
Yomangani 12 October 2006
Crzrussian 2 11 October 2006
StuffOfInterest 9 October 2006
Adambiswanger1 9 October 2006
Johan Elisson 8 October 2006
NCurse 7 October 2006
Irongargoyle 7 October 2006
Merope 6 October 2006
Duja 2 October 2006
Nishkid64 26 September 2006
W.marsh 2 26 September 2006
Pengo 26 September 2006
Ligulem 25 September 2006
Mr. Lefty 24 September 2006
Thatcher131 22 September 2006
Sarah Ewart 19 September 2006
Mike 7 17 September 2006
Robth 14 September 2006
Steel359 14 September 2006
Messedrocker 14 September 2006
Konstable 13 September 2006
David Kernow 13 September 2006
Borisblue 12 September 2006
Hoopydink 11 September 2006
Oscarthecat 10 September 2006
Luna Santin 10 September 2006
JPD 5 September 2006
Carnildo 5 September 2006
Winhunter 4 September 2006
Netsnipe 3 September 2006
Xyrael 2 September 2006
Runcorn 31 August 2006
Guinnog 30 August 2006
Teke 28 August 2006
Kpjas 26 August 2006
NawlinWiki 26 August 2006
Eagle 101 26 August 2006
Deville 24 August 2006
TomTheHand 23 August 2006
Glen 23 August 2006
Zsinj 23 August 2006
Larry V 22 August 2006
Consumed Crustacean 20 August 2006
Wangi 18 August 2006
Alphachimp 18 August 2006
Andrew Levine 16 August 2006
Aguerriero 16 August 2006
Renata3 16 August 2006
Agentsoo 14 August 2006
Mets501 13 August 2006
Robdurbar 12 August 2006
Goldom 12 August 2006
Cowman109 11 August 2006
MisfitToys 7 August 2006
Crazycomputers 6 August 2006
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 4 August 2006
Phaedriel 4 August 2006
Wickethewok 31 July 2006
ERcheck July 30, 2006
WAvegetarian July 30, 2006
Yanksox July 29, 2006
Firsfron July 28, 2006
RyanGerbil10 July 26, 2006
Centrx 25 July 2006
Sean Black 23 July 2006
Grendelkhan 23 July 2006
Misza13 21 July 2006
Arthur Rubin 20 July 2006
LiquidGhoul 18 July 2006
Edgar181 18 July 2006
Kylu 18 July 2006
Srikeit 17 July 2006
Wknight94 16 July 2006
Grandmasterka 14 July 2006
Christopher Sundita 13 July 2006
Aldux 12 July 2006
Samsara 11 July 2006
JLaTondre 11 July 2006
Tyrenius 2 8 July 2006
Mangojuice 4 July 2006
Avraham 3 July 2006
Where2 2 July 2006
Jaranda 1 July 2006
theProject 30 June 2006
Extraordinary Machine 29 June 2006
Ohnoitsjamie 29 June 2006
Joshbuddy 22 June 2006
Tangotango 26 June 2006
Kimchi.sg 22 June 2006
Mtz206 22 June 2006
Herostratus 21 June 2006
Sam Vimes 20 June 2006
Pilotguy 19 June 2006
Moink 18 June 2006
Gwernol 17 June 2006
DVD R W 17 June 2006
Cuivienen 15 June 2006
IanManka 15 June 2006
Silence 14 June 2006
Samir (The Scope) 13 June 2006
Fir0002 13 June 2006
Crzrussian 13 June 2006
Gurch 12 June 2006
Ganeshk 10 June, 2006
Kukini 9 June 2006
Ben W Bell 7 June 2006
Philip Baird Shearer 6 June 2006
Richardcavell 6 June 2006
Staxringold 6 June 2006
Wwwwolf 4 June 2006
Natalya 2 June 2006
KimvdLinde 2 June 2006
AmiDaniel 29 May 2006
Blnguyen 29 May 2006
Tijuana Brass 29 May 2006
Conscious 28 May 2006
Bookofjude 27 May 2006
Tone 26 May 2006
Kcordina 25 May 2006
Buchanan-Hermit 23 May 2006
EWS23 23 May 2006
Kjkolb 21 May 2006
Bucketsofg 21 May 2006
King of Hearts 20 May 2006
Joelr31 18 May 2006
Deiz 17 May 2006
Xoloz 17 May 2006
Bastique 17 May 2006
Whouk 15 May 2006
BrownHairedgirl 15 May 2006
Sreed1234 14 May 2006
Nihonjoe 11 May 2006
Metamagician3000 9 May 2006
JoshuaZ 8 May 2006
Lar 8 May 2006
RadioKirk 6 May 2006
Saravask 5 May 2006
Snoutwood 4 May 2006
AndyZ 4 May 2006
Silsor 4 May 2006
FloNight 3 May 2006
Deskana 1 May 2006
Keenan Pepper 30 April, 2006
The JPS 29 April, 2006
Ezeu 28 April, 2006
RasputinAXP 27 April, 2006
Humus sapiens 25 April, 2006
Lord Voldemort 25 April, 2006
Rockero 23 April, 2006
Petros471 18 April, 2006
NoGuru 18 April, 2006
Pagrashtak 18 April, 2006
Lightdarkness 17 April, 2006
Kaisershatner 17 April, 2006
Master Jay 16 April 2006
Kilo-Lima 15 April 2006
BradPatrick 14 April 2006
Dijxtra 11 April 2006
Jedi6 12 April 2006
Tawker 10 April 2006
Fang Aili 10 April 200
Royboycrashfan 9 April 2006
ProhibitOnions 9 April 2006
Pschemp 9 April 2006
PS2pcGAMER 8 April 2006
Can't sleep, clown will eat me 8 April 2006
Heah 7 April 2006
Mark83 7 April 2006
Kusma 7 April 2006
Mdd4694 7 April 2006
Kungfuadam 6 April 2006
Proto 5 April 2006
Circeus 5 April 2006
Hoary 5 April 2006
TigerShark 3 April 2006
Prodego 3 April 2006
CBDunkerson 3 April 2006
Gryffindor 2 April 2006
HereToHelp 31 March 2006
Turnstep 30 March 2006
DaGizza 28 March 2006
Laurascudder 27 March 2006
Encephalon 27 March 2006
Dustimagic 27 March 2006
Pepsidrinka 26 March 2006
Scm83x 25 March 2006
Makemi 25 March 2006
Rune.welsh 23 March 2006
Redvers 22 March 2006
Samuel Blanning 22 March 2006
Smurrayinchester 19 March 2006
Gator1 17 March 2006
Gflores 17 March 2006
Cactus.man 16 March 2006
Myleslong 15 march 2006
Naconkantari 12 March 2006
Vary 11 March 2006
Flowerparty 11 March 2006
Meegs 11 March 2006
Deckiller 10 March 2006
JDoorjam 9 March 2006
Obli 9 March 2006
Cyde 9 March 2006
Stifle 7 March 2006
(aeropagitica) 6 March 2006
Bobo192 5 March 2006
Ian13 4 March 2006
R. Koot 4 March 2006
Kingboyk 4 March 2006
AYArktos 4 March 2006
DakotaKahn 2 March 2006
Rspeer 2 March 2006
Bobet 28 February 2006
Paolo Liberatore 28 February 2006
Raven4x4x 28 February 2006
Cohesion 25 February 2006
ESkog 23 February 2006
Alex Bakharev 23 February 2006
Kmf164 22 February 2006
Martyman 20 February 2006
UkPaolo 19 February 2006
SoothingR 18 February 2006
TexasAndroid 17 February 2006
Xaosflux 17 February 2006
Elf-friend 16 February 2006
Sjorford 15 February 2006
Josiah Rowe 14 February 2006
Chick Bowen 14 February 2006
Essexmutant 13 February 2006
CanadianCaesar 12 February 2006
Water Bottle 12 February 2006
Fred chessplayer 11 February 2006
Guanaco 11 February 2006
Aaron Brenneman 9 February 2006
Quarll 8 February 2006
Bbatsell 8 February 2006
Superm401 8 February 2006
Ish ishwar 7 February 2006
Joke137 7 February 2006
Cantthinkofagoodname 6 February 2006
Banes 1 February 2006
MPF 31 January 2006
Steinsky 31 January 2006
Lethe 31 January 2006
Ashibaka 30 January 2006
Ilmari Karonen 30 January 2006
Peruvianllama 29 January 2006
Vegaswikian 28 January 2006
RexNL 28 January 2006
Chairboy 27 January 2006
Wouterstomp 23 January 2006
Haukurth 22 January 2006
EurekaLott 22 January 2006
NoSeptember 22 January 2006
Interiot 21 January 2006
Yamla 19 January 2006
Ambush Commander 18 January 2006
Fropuff 17 January 2006
JzG 17 January 2006
Dsmdgold 16 January 2006
Husnock 14 January 2006
William M. Connolley 14 January 2006
KillerChihuahua 14 January 2006
Aecis 14 January 2006
Admrboltz 13 January 2006
Sceptre 12 January 2006
Mathwiz2020 12 January 2006
Rogerd 12 January 2006
Banno 12 January 2006
Wgfinley 11 January 2006
Punkmorten 10 January 2006
Sarge Baldy 9 January 2006
Pgk 8 January 2006
Wiki alf 8 January 2006
Jonathunder 8 January 2006
Anonymous editor 6 January 2006
Babajobu 6 January 2006
Tznkai 6 January 2006
Idont havaname 6 January 2006
FrancisTyers 5 January 2006
Tom harrison 4 January 2006
Nightstallion 3 January 2006
TimPope 3 January 2006
Nixdorf 2 January 2006
InShaneee 1 January 2006
Thorpe 31 December 2005
KnowledgeOfSelf 31 December 2005
Natalinasmpf 31 December 2005
Ancheta Wis 30 December 2005
Mike Rosoft 30 December 2005
Ricky81682 30 December 2005
SamuelWantman 29 December 2005
BorgQueen 28 December 2005
David Levy 28 December 2005
Howcheng 26 December 2005
Jacoplane 25 December 2005
Jonothman 25 December 2005
Izehar 24 December 2005
FayssalF 24 December 2005
Deathphoenix 23 December 2005
W.marsh 23 December 2005
Croat Canuck 22 December 2005
Eliezer 22 December 2005
EdwinHJ 22 December 2005
Deltabeignet 21 December 2005
GTBacchus 21 December 2005
Malo 21 December 2005
Joe Beaudoin Jr. 21 December 2005
BorgHunter 20 December 2005
Bogdangiusca 19 December 2005
Ianbrown 19 December 2005
Leithp 17 December 2005
Adashiel 17 December 2005
Mo0 17 December 2005
Shanel 17 December 2005
Freakofnurture 17 December 2005
Rschen7754 16 December 2005
Pablo-flores 14 December 2005
Syrthiss 14 December 2005
EvanProdromou 13 December 2005
The Land 13 December 2005
Alhutch 15 December 2005
CLW 14 December 2005
SoLando 13 December 2005
Orioane 12 December 2005
Brendanconway 12 December 2005
Lbmixpro 12 December 2005
TShilo12 11 December 2005
JWSchmidt 11 December 2005
Pathoschild 11 December 2005
NSLE 10 December 2005
SCEhardt 10 December 2005
Luigi30 9 December 2005
Awolf002 8 December 2005
Extreme Unction 8 December 2005
Thebainer 8 December 2005
WikiFanatic 8 December 2005
BD2412 8 December 2005
Andrew Norman 7 December 2005
Gurubrahma 6 December 2005
Kbh3rd 5 December 2005
Cnwb 4 December 2005
Mindmatrix 4 December 2005
SCZenz 3 December 2005
TheParanoidOne 3 December 2005
Shreshth91 3 December 2005
Ronline 2 December 2005
Bunchofgrapes 2 December 2005
Hamster Sandwich 2 December 2005
Snottygobble 2 December 2005
Enochlau 2 December 2005
Mushroom 1 December 2005
HorsePunchKid 30 November 2005
Harro5 27 November 2005
Sean Black 26 November 2005
MarkGallagher 25 November 2005
Demi 25 November 2005
Steve block 25 November 2005
Miborovsky 25 November 2005
JKelly 25 November 2005
The Tom 23 November 2005
Yelyos 23 November 2005
Musical Linguist 22 November 2005
Jareth 22 November 2005
MONGO 21 November 2005
GraemeL 21 November 2005
JoanneB 19 November 2005
Nlu 19 November 2005
Cleared as filed 19 November 2005
Sherool 19 November 2005
Ianblair23 17 November 2005
Goodoldpolonius2 14 November 2005
Johann Wolfgang 13 November 2005
BrianSmithson 12 November 2005
Psy guy 12 November 2005
Cryptic 11 November 2005
Capitalistroadster 11 November 2005
PRueda29 11 November 2005
MC MasterChef 8 November 2005
Philwelch 8 November 2005
Alkivar 8 November 2005
FireFox 8 November 2005
Ramallite 7 November 2005
DrBob 7 November 2005
Mysekurity 6 November 2005
Pamri 6 November 2005
Physchim62 6 November 2005
Alai 6 November 2005
Commander Keane 5 November 2005
Necrothesp 4 November 2005
Shimgrary 3 November 2005
Egil 3 November 2005
ScottDavis 3 November 2005
Jeffrey O. Gustafson 3 November 2005
Acetic Acid 31 October 2005
Alabamaboy 29 October 2005
Kirill Lokshin 29 October 2005
Dvyost 29 October 2005
Tomf688 29 October 2005
Reflex Reaction 29 October 2005
Sfoskett 28 October 2005
Edcolins 28 October 2005
Grenavitar 26 October 2005
Johntex 26 October 2005
Titoxd 25 October 2005
The wub 25 October 2005
GregAsche 24 October 2005
CambridgeBayWeather 23 October 2005
Voice of All(MTG) 22 October 2005
Garzo 20 October 2005
Thames 20 October 2005
Jcw69 19 October 2005
Freestylefrappe 19 October 2005
Kzollman 19 October 2005
Tregoweth 18 October 2005
Hermione1980 18 October 2005
RobyWayne 17 October 2005
Wikiacc 17 October 2005
Wayward 17 October 2005
Cyberjunkie 17 October 2005
Robchurch 17 October 2005
Nickshanks, 16 October 2005
Qaz 16 October 2005
Celestianpower 15 October 2005
Jossifresco 15 October 2005
Wikibofh 14 October 2005
Justinc 14 October 2005
Denelson83 14 October 2005
Rd232 14 October 2005
Evilphoenix 14 October 2005
LordAmeth 14 October 2005
Sebastiankessel 14 October 2005
Brighterorange 13 October 2005
Karmafist 12 October 2005
RJFJR 12 October 2005
RN 11 October 2005
Friday 10 October 2005
Fastfission 10 October 2005
BillyH 10 October 2005
RoySmith 10 October 2005
DragonflySixtyseven 10 October 2005
Mairi 8 October 2005
Brian Kendig 7 October 2005
Graft 7 October 2005
23skidoo 7 October 2005
Nabla 7 October 2005
NicholasTurnbull 7 October 2005
OwenX 7 October 2005
Kwamikagami 6 October 2005
Durin 4 October 2005
Gyrofrog 4 October 2005
Shauri 2 October 2005
Journalist 2 October 2005
A Man In Black 1 October 2005
Marudubshinki 1 October 2005
Jaxl 30 September 2005
Who 30 September 2005
Jdavidb 30 September 2005
RobertG 29 September 2005
RoyBoy 29 September 2005
DESiegel 28 September 2005
Bovlb 26 September 2005
Oleg Alexandrov 25 September 2005
Brookie 25 September 2005
IceKarma 24 September 2005
Doc glasgow 21 September 2005
Ixfd64 21 September 2005
R. fiend 20 September 2005
Bhadani 18 September 2005
Bmicomp 18 September 2005
Trevor macinnis 16 September 2005
Nandesuka 16 September 2005
Drini 14 September 2005
dave souza 13 September 2005
Katefan0 12 September 2005
Nv8200p 12 September 2005
Android79 12 September 2005
Lectonar 12 September 2005
Rx StrangeLove 12 September 2005
The Singing Badger 11 September 2005
Nickptar 10 September 2005
Cedar-Guardian 10 September 2005
Ral315 10 September 2005
Angr 10 September 2005
JIP 9 September 2005
Splash 9 September 2005
Joolz 8 September 2005
Ulayiti 8 September 2005
Phroziac 6 September 2005
Beland 3 September 2005
Asbestos 2 September 2005
Scimitar 1 September 2005
Sam Hocevar 31 August 2005
DanielCD 31 August 2005
JesseW 31 August 2005
Nufy8 30 August 2005
Marianocecowski 30 August 2005
Jtkiefer 30 August 2005
TheCoffee 26 August 2005
Lupin 23 August 2005
Phil Boswell 23 August 2005
Hall Monitor 23 August 2005
HappyCamper 23 August 2005
Rick Block 21 August 2005
Ground Zero 20 August 2005
Fernando Rizo 20 August 2005
Dragon flight 20 August 2005
Carnildo 20 August 2005
K1Bond007 19 August 2005
JItse Niesen 19 August 2005
Ngb 16 August 2005
RHaworth 15 August 2005
Changlc 15 August 2005
Darwinek 13 August 2005
Briangotts 13 August 2005
FeloniousMonk 12 August 2005
AlistairMcMillan 12 August 2005
Lacrimosus 11 August 2005
Zscout370 11 August 2005
BaronLarf 10 August 2005
Func 10 August 2005
Malathion 10 August 2005
Kaldari 10 August 2005
Lucky 6.9 9 August 2005
Flcelloguy 8 August 2005
Dan100 6 August 2005
Ragib 6 August 2005
MarkSweep 6 August 2005
Jondel 5 August 2005
Kmccoy 2 August 2005
Humblefool 2 August 2005
Longhair, 31 July 2005
Thunderbrand, 31 July 2005
Madchester, 31 July 2005
Canderson7, 30 July 2005
Redux, 28 July 2005
Sasquatch, 28 July 2005
JamesTeterenko, 27 July 2005
Sango123, 26 July 2005
Dmcdevit, 24 July 2005
Redwolf24, 22 July 2005
Master Thief Garrett, 22 July 2005
GregRobson, 20 July 2005
Hashar, 20 July 2005
Essjay, 20 July 2005
Bluemoose, 20 July 2005
Moriori, 19 July 2005
Triddle, 17 July 2005
Jredmond, 14 July 2005
Uncle G, 12 July 2005
Talrias, 9 July 2005
Feco, 6 July 2005
Starblind, 6 July 2005
Woohookitty, 6 July 2005
Vsmith, 5 July 2005
Craigy144, 4 July 2005
Spangineer, 3 July 2005
Hedley, 2 July 2005
Mzajac, 2 July 2005
R3m0t, 1 July 2005
Allen3, 1 July 2005
Bratsche, 1 July 2005
FCYTravis, 30 June 2005
Y0u, 30 June 2005
Willmcw, 28 June 2005
Ta bu shi da yu, 28 June 2005
Sn0wflake, 25 June 2005
JoJan, 24 June 2005
TenOfAllTrades, 22 June 2005
TheoClarke, 22 June 2005
Grue, 21 June 2005
Guettarda, 21 June 2005
Schissel, 20 June 2005
Grm wnr, 18 June 2005
Kbdank71, 17 June 2005
Sjakkalle, 17 June 2005
JeremyA, 16 June 2005
Kelly Martin, 15 June 2005
Zocky, 8 June 2005
Eugene van der Pijll, 7 June 2005
Radiant!, 7 June 2005
Pjacobi, 7 June 2005
Ingoolemo, 6 June 2005
Zzyzx11, 6 June 2005
Linuxbeak, 6 June 2005
Fawcett5, 6 June 2005
Mulad, 5 June 2005
JYolkowski, 5 June 2005
Seabhcan, 3 June 2005
Thryduulf, 2 June 2005
CesarB, 1 June 2005
Paul August, 31 May 2005
Marine 69-71, 31 May 2005
FreplySpang, 31 May 2005
Ugen64, 31 May 2005
Oven_Fresh, 27 May 2005
Evil Monkey, 27 May 2005
Wiglaf, 25 May 2005
Arcadian, 23 May 2005
Clarkk, 17 May 2005
Ausir, 14 May 2005
Bishonen, 8 May 2005
JRM, 7 May 2005
Rama, 5 May 2005
Evercat, 4 May 2005
Worldtraveller, 3 May 2005
El C, 1 May 2005
Cburnett, 1 May 2005
Shanes, 28 April 2005
Lommer, 27 April 2005
Trilobite, 27 April 2005
Khaosworks, 27 April 2005
furrykef, 25 April 2005
Smoddy, 24 April 2005
Phils, 21 April 2005
Wilfried Derksen, 20 April 2005
Burgundavia, 19 April 2005
Ellsworth, 18 April 2005
Xezbeth, 18 April 2005
Mindspillage, 18 April 2005
Biekko, 16 April 2005
Petaholmes, 13 April 2005
Wwoods, 13 April 2005
Jinian, 13 April 2005
Gdr, 13 April 2005
Antandrus, 8 April 2005
Henrygb2, 7 April 2005
Sundar|, 7 April 2005
Mel Etitis, 6 April 2005
Rlquall, 4 April 2005
BanyanTree, 3 April 2005
ABCD, 1 April 2005
Sesel, 1 April 2005
Inter, 31 March 2005
Mailer diablo, 31 March 2005
Slambo, 30 March 2005
Scott Burley, 29 March 2005
Bumm13, 25 March 2005
SlimVirgin, 22 March 2005
Carbonite, 19 March 2005
Pharos, 18 March 2005
Mark Dingemanse, 15 March 2005
cacycle, 15 March 2005
Knowledge Seeker, 15 March 2005
Josh Grosse, 14 March 2005
Tony Sidaway, 10 March 2005
Cdc, 8 March 2005
Vaoverland, 6 March 2005
Brian0918, 5 March 2005
Timrollpickering, 25 February 2005
Utcursch, 21 February 2005
Improv, 19 February 2005
Rje, 16 Feb 2005
Grutness, 15 Feb 2005
Dbenbenn, 13 Feb 2005
refdoc, 11 Feb 2005
Rich Farmbrough, 9 Feb 2005
Icairns, 3 Feb 2005
Omegatron, 28 Jan 2005
Piotrus, 25 Jan 2005
Curps, 24 Jan 2005
Alteripse, 24 Jan 2005
Jni, 21 Jan 2005
Gabbe, 21 Jan 2005
Dbiv, 20 Jan 2005
Vague Rant, 20 Jan 2005
Fvw, 12 Jan 2005
BrokenSegue, 9 Jan 2005
Watpohl, 9 Jan 2005
Edward, 9 Jan 2005
Sortior, 8 Jan 2005
Rholton, 7 Jan 2005
Tim Ivorson, 7 Jan 2005
Urhixidur, 30 Dec 2004
Predmediated Chaos, 28 Dec 2004
Mackeriv, 25 Dec 2004
Duk, 24 Dec 2004
Geni, 22 Dec 2004
AllyUnion, 18 Dec 2004
PedanticallySpeaking, 16 Dec 2004
Brockert, 16 Dec 2004
Solipsist, 14 Dec 2004
Tkinias, 13 Dec 2004
PZFUN, 12 Dec 2004
JonMoore, 12 Dec 2004
Gadfium, 11 Dec 2004
Ferkelparade, 10 Dec 2004
Rfl, 10 Dec 2004
Taxman, 10 Dec 2004
GeneralPatton, 9 Dec 2004
Malcolm Farmer, 8 Dec 2004
Wernher, 8 Dec 2004
RedWordSmith, 3 Dec 2004
Mustafaa, 3 Dec 2004
Woggly, 2 Dec 2004
Dino, 2 Dec 2004
MacGyverMagic, 1 Dec 2004
Jpgordon, 26 Nov 2004
Dmn, 26 NovDec 2004
Timc, 24 Nov 2004
Zoicon, 24 Nov 2004
CSTAR, 23 Nov 2004
KF, 23 Nov 2004
Maury Markowitz, 22 Nov 2004
Gamaliel, 21 Nov 2004
ClockworkSoul, 20 Nov 2004
Jeronimo, 19 Nov 2004
Aris_Katsaris, 18 Nov 2004
Karada, 16 Nov 2004
Wapcaplet, 16 Nov 2004
Derek Ross, 16 Nov 2004
DanKeshet, 15 Nov 2004
Ortolan88, 15 Nov 2004
Joy Stovall, 15 Nov 2004
DF08, 15 Nov 2004
Hyacinth, 15 Nov 2004
Ran, 14 Nov 2004
COgden, 12 Nov 2004
Dbachmann, 11 Nov 2004
Lachatdelarue, 11 Nov 2004
duncharris, 10 Nov 2004
Violetriga, 7 Nov 2004
Aranel, 4 Nov 2004
SWAdair, 2 Nov 2004
Ludraman, 28 Oct 2004
Spencer195, 28 Oct 2004
Cool Hand Luke, 25 Oct 2004
Ffirehorse, 24 Oct 2004
Rhobite, 23 Oct 2004
CyborgTosser, 23 Oct 2004
Ta bu shi da yu, 19 Oct 2004
Hawstom, 18 Oct 2004
Gwalla, 17 Oct 2004
Neutrality, 13 Oct 2004
Slowking Man, 12 Oct 2004
Jallan, 12 Oct 2004
Fire Star, 12 Oct 2004
ALoan, 11 Oct 2004
Matt Crypto, 7 Oct 2004
Rdsmith4, 2 Oct 2004
CryptoDerk, 30 Sep 2004
Mackensen, 30 Sep 2004
Postdlf, 29 Sep 2004
Golbez, 29 Sep 2004
Chuq, 29 Sep 2004
Benc, 28 Sep 2004
Nichalp, 27 Sep 2004
Proteus, 24 Sep 2004
Chmod007, 23 Sep 2004

For earlier successful nominations, see Archives below

[edit] Candidacies not promoted

These are now on their own page, in alphabetical order, at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies

[edit] Archives

Older nominations are not archived, but can be found in the page history:

27 Jul 2003 - 3 Sep 2003
- jlk7e, Paul A, Modemac, Nanobug (Wikiquote), Jwrosenzweig, Dysprosia, Patrick, Dgrant, Noel, Viajero, Alex756, Marshman, Adam Bishop, Heron, Nanobug, Llywrch, Vancouverguy, Schneelocke, Ahoerstemeier, Pcb21, J.J., Cyan, Tompagenet, Stevertigo, Chadloder, Mintguy, RickK, Zippy, Fantasy
Sep 17, 2003 - 13 Nov 2003
- Ihcoyc, Morwen, Dori, Pratyeka, DavidLevinson, Christopher Mahan, Secretlondon, Tristanb, Muriel Gottrop, Daniel Quinlan, Evil saltine, Arwel Parry, Snoyes, Jakenelson, sugarfish, Stan Shebs, Ark30inf, Efghij, Fuzheado, John Kenney aka jlk7e, Paul A, Modemac, Nanobug (Wikiquote), Jwrosenzweig, Dysprosia, Patrick
3 Oct 2003 - Dec 10, 2003
- Andres, Bcorr, Timwi, Raul654, Evercat, Ugen64, Pakaran, Dieter Simon, WhisperToMe, 168..., Michael Hardy, Khym Chanur, Ihcoyc, Morwen, Dori, Pratyeka, DavidLevinson, Christopher Mahan, Secretlondon, Tristanb, Muriel Gottrop, Daniel Quinlan, Evil saltine, Arwel Parry, Snoyes, Jakenelson, sugarfish, Stan Shebs, Ark30inf
2 Dec 2003 - 4 Feb 2004
- RobLa, Noldoaran, Hemanshu, CatherineMunro, ike9898, Roadrunner, Meelar, Sarge Baldy, Seglea, Kaihsu, Jamesday, Danny, Morven, Imran, LouI, Lord Emsworth, Silsor, Caltrop, Silsor, Salsa Shark, Optim, Bmills, Maximus Rex, Docu, Finlay McWalter, SimonP, Andres, Bcorr, Timwi, Raul654, Evercat, Ugen64, Pakaran, Dieter Simon, WhisperToMe, 168..., Michael Hardy, Khym Chanur
3 Feb 2004 - 10 Mar 2004
- Pollinator, Hajor, Chris Roy, Moncrief, Dale Arnett, Mic, moink, Seth Ilys, Gaz, Fabiform, Flockmeal, Alex S, Merovingian, Jay, Lexor, Visorstuff, Wesley, pfortuny, Isomorphic, Yacht, Mkmcconn, Texture, David Newton, Arvindn, RadicalBender, Hadal, Francs2000, Tillwe, RedWolf, ChrisO, DavidWBrooks, Jengod, RobLa, Noldoaran, Hemanshu, CatherineMunro, ike9898, Roadrunner, Meelar, Sarge Baldy, Seglea, Kaihsu
10 March - 6 Apr
- UtherSRG, Cecropia, Exploding Boy, Sj, Sverdrup, Decumanus, Fennec, Andrewa, Mkweise, DJ Clayworth, Bearcat, Pollinator, Hajor, Chris Roy, Moncrief, Dale Arnett, Mic, moink, Seth Ilys, Gaz, Fabiform
Apr 10 - 20 Apr 2004
- Mark Richards, Rbrwr, Chancemill, Dcoetzee, SD6-Agent, Catbar, Hcheney, XJamRastafire, Michael Snow, Earl Andrew, Gentgeen, UninvitedCompany, Nohat, Zero0000, Roozbeh, Ww, Stevenj, Dpbsmith
20 April 2004 - 31 May 2004
- Dwindrim (Denni), VampWillow, Davodd, OldakQuill, Johnleemk, JCarriker, AndyL, Oberiko, Diberri, David Gerard, PMA, Elf, Jrdioko, Niteowlneils, Mirv, Bkonrad, Tom-, Jerzy, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Lowellian, Nunh-huh, Wile E. Heresiarch, Guanaco, Andrew Yong, Jfdwolff, Everyking, Jmabel, David.Monniaux, Cyrius, AlainV, MykReeve, Chris 73, Mark Richards, Rbrwr, Chancemill, Dcoetzee, SD6-Agent, Catbar, Hcheney, XJamRastafire
2 June - 22 July 2004
- Stormie, DropDeadGorgias, Kim Bruning, Robin Patterson, Lupo, Snowspinner, Andris, Ed g2s, Thue, Hypernovean, Ssd, Quadell, Ambivalenthysteria, Mark, Markalexander100, Cutler, Blankfaze, Rmhermen, Davidcannon, Fredrik, Dwindrim (Denni), VampWillow, Davodd, OldakQuill, Johnleemk, JCarriker, AndyL, Oberiko, Diberri, David Gerard, PMA, Elf
23 July - 28 Aug 2004
- Jayjg, Academic Challenger, Kate, Gtrmp, TheCustomOfLife, Frazzydee, Siroxo, Rossami, PFHLai, Grunt, Ezhiki, Sewing, Rhymeless, ContiE, Geogre, Shallot (Joy), Topbanana, Rlandmann, Stormie, DropDeadGorgias, Kim Bruning, Robin Patterson, Lupo, Snowspinner
29 Aug - 29 Sept 2004
- Postdlf, Golbez, Chuq, Benc, Nichalp, Proteus, David Remahl, CJCurrie, Zoney, Gerald Farinas, Andrevan, Arminius, Jayjg, Academic Challenger, Kate, Gtrmp, TheCustomOfLife

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/c/Wikipedia%7ERecently_created_admins_768f.html"

Categories: Successful requests for adminship | Wikipedia logs

Wikipedia:Recently created admins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Most recent successful nominations

[edit] Davidruben

[edit] J.smith

[edit] Stemonitis

[edit] MrDarcy

[edit] Amalas

[edit] Gray Porpoise

[edit] Links to earlier successful nominations

[edit] Candidacies not promoted

[edit] Archives

Views

Navigation

Search

In other languages