User:Redwolf24/Nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Essjay 2 Who 3 Zscout370 4 Carnildo 5 Acetic Acid 6 Who 7 Marudubshinki 8 Durin 9 RN 10 Celestianpower 11 NickBush24 12 Acetic Acid 13 Tony1 14 Mysekurity 15 Psy guy 16 Sean Black

[edit] Essjay

Final (68/1/1) ended 12:52 July 20 (UTC) Essjay has been very valuable in RC Patrol. Is a very kind user and a member of WP:WC. Trolls have attacked him. Always uses the preview button. Has over 2,000 edits. Sorry, Kate's tool is broken but you can do it the long way here: Contributions. Redwolf24 12:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I gladly accept Redwolf24’s nomination, and I look forward to the day I can nominate him. I’m excited by the prospect of being able to serve the community more.

I have one request: If someone votes oppose without comment, or you don’t agree with their reasons, please don’t jump on them. I hope my RfA will be able to proudly proclaim no editors were harmed in the production of this RfA. Thanks all, -- Essjay · Talk 13:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Can a nominating person vote? Ah well its just one vote :) Redwolf24 13:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Yes, the first "free" vote of support is a customary bonus for being nominated by someone (the ego boost doesn't harm either :)) Thryduulf 11:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. He does a good job doing RC patrol from what I've seen. NickBush24 13:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
3. Support, good job with RC patrol, and the admin tools will only help out. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - looks like a good candidate. Guettarda 13:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Good contributions, and clearly has the sort of diplomacy skills that I consider important in an admin. – Seancdaug 14:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Showed a good grasp of both Wikiquette and policy when dealing with an anon IP (he reverted the removal of talk page comments). --Scimitar 15:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Regular contributor to article space as well as enthusiastic RC patroller. The mop and bucket should be 'no big deal' for this editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Michael Snow 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
9. --Kbdank71 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Triddle 16:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Sango123 17:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
12. Gladly support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
13. From my observations, a hard-working and friendly editor who will be a fine admin. Jwrosenzweig 17:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
14. Support the admin tools will be useful for Essjay's RC patrolling and he (or she?) looks pretty dedicated to wikipedia to me! Stewart Adcock 18:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC) I'm a he ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk
15. Support would use admin tools wisely. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 18:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
16. Support — would make a great admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Support he's helped me out before now. Hiding 19:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
18. Support - from what I've seen, he's patient, friendly and diligent. Mopperiffic! FreplySpang (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
19. Support - the little that I have personally seen, Esjay has been very polite and helpful to new comers, and doesnt mind helping other users. Great work with the RC Patrol and rv'n vandalism. Would be a very helpful and useful admin. ∞Who?¿? 22:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
20. Unequivocally. El_C 23:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
21. Support 1001% - - he will be a super administrator who will continue to do good things for the community; a fair and friendly editor and an all around good egg. KHM03 00:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. Helped me out very nicely at the Help Desk just a few days ago. :) TheCoffee 01:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
23. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
24. Support; excellent candidate, apt to be a fine admin. Antandrus (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
25. Support!! He's a member of the welcoming committe, is friendly to others (espetially the newbies), and has made valuable contributions. Exir Kamalabadi(Talk)(contribs) 02:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
26. Support S.J. is the first theologist I ever get to know. He is not dull, and he is friendly to newcomers. He taught me how to sign my talk. Alas, I must've been so daft. MarkBeer 03:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, seems like a good user and would make a great admin. Columbia 04:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Though I'm unfamiliar with Essjay's work, any potential trollslayer backed by some top editors is good enough for me. - Lucky 6.9 06:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
29. Support I'm sure he'll be agood admin. To Essjay:I should probably be named Essjay too. I was named after St. Jean Baptiste De La Salle.--Jondel 07:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Brilliant RC patroller. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
31. support, a conscientious Wikipedian. Thryduulf 11:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, Has helped me when asked and even welcomed me 5 minutes after I registered! Will make a good admin. Nick_C · Talk 14:20, July 14, 2005 (BST)
33. Support, positive contributor. Bluemoose 13:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
34. Support, a good person when it comes to resolving POV disputes. Flex 13:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
35. Support: diligent, intelligent, and helpful; evident sense of humor a nice bonus. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
36. Support, no question. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
37. Support - all the best, in advance. --Bhadani 18:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
38. Support happily. --Dmcdevit·t 20:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
39. Support --Phroziac (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
40. Support!! Deryck C. 05:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
41. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
42. Made some excellent contributions and does RC patrol. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
43. As an anonymous troll, Essjay is damn good at what he does, I keep vandalizing Quadell's page and he's quick to revert!64.12.116.133 13:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
44. Support! MicahMN | Talk 18:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
45. Support - doing an excellent job welcoming new users, a dedicated Wikipedian :) --Dave ^(talk) 19:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
46. Support NoSeptember^{- 21:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)}
47. Yes, yes, yes! Will be a good admin. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 00:21, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. Doing a fine job. -- DS1953 03:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
49. Cool.JuntungWu 04:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
50. Support 50 to 1? Sounds fair :-) Karmafist 04:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
51. Support --Tagishsimon (talk)
52. Support. I haven't been around very long, but all of my experiences with Essjay have been positive. Great candidate for adminship. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 11:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)}
53. Support -- the wub "?/!" 11:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
54. Support -- Paul E 11:58, 2005 July 16 (UTC)
55. smoddy 12:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
56. Support EdwinHJ | Talk 00:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
57. Support I've decided after a lot of thought, that Essjay is good enough for adminship, and I support this because I think Essjay deserves it now, before I really had no true reason to not I was just angry at myself. Iamzodyourzodeveryzod 02:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
58. Support older≠wiser 21:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
59. Support. Greets a lot of new users and works hard on the RC patrol. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
60. support, obviously. dab (ᛏ) 22:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
61. Support Very active doing RC patrol and would benefit with the admin tools. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
62. Support Good active user...Why not? ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
63. Support completely - a positive contribution to the admin community JoJan 08:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
64. Support I hope Essjay will continue to support newbies in general - and me in particular. I much appreciate his tolerant, easy-going clarity and dedication. Jeffrey Newman 17:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
65. Support He's a good guy to have on our side! Apwoolrich 19:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
66. Support Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
67. Support HappyCamper 10:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
68. Support. From what I've seen, a trustworthy editor. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

   --I am a troll so I must say 'NO! 152.163.100.133 20:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. In actually looking through his contributions, Essjay seems like a very enthusiastic person, so I will not oppose his candidacy. But since he is below my personal threshold of nine months of contributions, I cannot give him a support vote at this time either. Denelson83 19:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (Comment from Redwolf24- I just would like to say that how long you've been contributing to Wikipedia shouldn't be a factor, because I could of signed up in 2002 and not done a thing til now, now couldn't I have?)

   You don't need to make your text small -- you can be as open in your thoughts as you wish. As for why I have this personal policy, there is a comment on my user page that explains why I devised it. Also, I prefer being consistent. Denelson83 00:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Kate's tool is broken at the moment, but Redwolf24 counted my edits and informs me they are 2001 as of his nomination. -Essjay
• Essjay has been a logged-in contributor since February 2005, and a frequent editor since early May. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Kate's Tool is running again! Click here to see the full summary; approximately 1500 edits. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, it's still broken; 1515 was my total on Sunday afternoon, about 2:00 EDT. (I know because Redwolf24 & I were celebrating his 1000th and my 1500th) I'm at 2146 now. (Check Special:Contributions/Essjay and have it list by 500; you'll get four pages of 500 (2000) plus one page of 100 (2100) plus two pages of twenty (2140) plus one page with six edits (2146) by my count.) -- Essjay · Talk 20:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! I was wondering why my edit count was at the same number... what's wrong with the tool? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I hunted down an email addy for "Kate" (from the Kate's tool site) and emailed her him earlier in the week, but I haven't heard back. -- Essjay · Talk 23:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kate is a he, I believe. El_C 11:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I won't be getting his vote then... : - ) -- Essjay · Talk 11:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Anyways, I think it's running now! (I hope this time I'm correct, he he) See here; approximately 2400 edits. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, 2387 sounds right to me; Jesus, I put in 400 edits yesterday, perhaps I need to consider a 12 step program! -- Essjay · Talk 03:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not a registered user on Wikipedia; however, I do use the site as a research tool. I am generally shy about contributed to things online, but I really wanted to contribute to this request for adminship. I have read several of Essjay's article on Catholicism and I am very impressed with how thorough and clear they are. Many scholars try to be "thick" in their language, but not Dr. Essjay. As a practicing Catholic, I try to study all that I can on the Church. Essjay's contributions have been very helpful. Also, I identify well with Essjay, for I too am from the Campbell-Stone tradition (I am a convert!). I find it interesting to find a fellow CS with a passion for Catholicism. I just wanted to take this opportunity to tell the Wiki community what I think of the individual. nd

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

I do a fair bit of RC Patrol, particularly in the early morning hours (Eastern US); the rollback and block functions would be especially helpful, as it’s sometimes difficult to find admins at 3:00 AM EDT. Page protection could also be useful, as there have been some recent bouts of vandals targeting specific articles repeatedly (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney come to mind); I believe that if you can stop them from vandalizing for long enough (even if it’s just an hour) they’ll get bored and move on to some other site. I’m not particularly interested in becoming one of the VfD closers, but having the delete power would be good for CSD articles, as I run across a good number of those doing RC patrol. (I mean ones that have already been tagged as speedies, or are obvious vandalism; I wouldn’t speedy an article that wasn’t already tagged or obvious vandalism.)

Also, I tend to be around a lot, so I would be easily available to the larger community. (It’s sometimes difficult to find an admin who is around when you are.)

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

Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all. I’ve added a good bit of material to articles, particularly material related to Roman Catholicism. The only two articles I’ve created from scratch are Cathedral of the Assumption (Louisville) of which I’m rather proud, and Archdiocese of Louisville.

For the most part, I prefer to do peer review and/or add RC sections to existing articles. I’ve de-stubbed a few, expanded a lot, and created a pair; I feel well rounded. A list of my significant contributions is here. Also, I use the preview function extensively and I maintain several sandboxes where I prepare large edits; my article space edits are deflated (and my userspace edits are inflated) dramatically by this practice. I would estimate that if I didn't do revisions in my sandboxes or use the preview button, I'd have somewhere over 750 articlespace edits.

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?

I’ve never been in a revert war, although I’ve been accused of it once (I thought I was reverting vandalism; darn those tricky vandals!) That particular situation upset me quite a bit, as I’d never been accused of any such thing in over 1300 edits. I’ve challenged a few anons to cite their sources, and I’m more than happy to provide mine. When I’ve been wrong, I’ve said so. I have a pretty tough skin when it comes to vandals and hostile editors; what upsets me is when an established user is uncivil or downright mean. I think that sometimes the long-established editors forget that there are newbies underfoot. My personal mantra is Don’t bite newbies, ever! and I am very protective when it comes to new editors.

I love being at Wikipedia; I’d like to be of more use to the community. I would never use admin powers in any situation where I wasn’t sure of what I was doing. I’m continually learning about the site, and I look forward to doing more in the future.

---

[edit] Who

final (19/9/2) ending 03:07 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Who has been a wiki user for a while and has over 7,000 edits. I can't think of anyone else who would be an admin better than this user. Who has reverted a LOT of vandalism, cast a LOT of valid VfD votes, helped out many users, and made over 5000 edits in the article space. This user DEFINITELY deserves a spot on the AdminShip. Redwolf24 03:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am gracious for the opportunity to work on Wiki as an admin. I accept this nomination from Redwolf24, as he was courteous enough to nominate me, even after I voted neutral on his current RFA. no prob! I thought you were an admin already, much like everyone else whos voted as of 04:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC). Haha, Redwolf24 04:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. I'll be the first :) Redwolf24 03:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong support - Second! :) Sango123 03:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
3. Support I was sure he was an admin. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support I thought he was one already. (And no, I am not part of some kind of RfA nominating scheme!) -- Essjay · Talk 03:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Good user all-around. !!!!

   Whoops, those !'s should be my own ~'s .Signing my vote: Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 04:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

6. Support. Does a lot of good work, especially in CfD and TfD, and having the ability to finish it off makes natural sense. With an apparently natural like of grunt-work, the final link in the chain makes all good sense. -Splash 05:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Who's an admin? What's a bureaucrat? And I don't know about developers... Radiant_>|< 13:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Who will make a great admin and always greets new users warmly. He has also done a great job here on Wikipedia. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Support There is not enough reason to belive that this user would not make a good admin. While I am mildly concerned about behavior regarding Template:Reqimage, this is not sufficent to lose my support. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
10. Strong support. Helps out tremendously on Cfd. Not concerned enough about the Template:Reqimage situation brought up below to not support: You can't not engage in conflict when dealing with certain people. --Kbdank71 00:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
11. Weak support. I still have concerns over the Template:Reqimage fiasco, but other than that, Who does a bunch of scut-work that I doubt anyone else wants to do (mass recats, for instance) and contributes usefully in the article namespace. Microtonal ^{(Put your head on my shoulder)} 06:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Exactly the kind of person Wikipedia needs most to keep at least some quality. Pavel Vozenilek 19:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. He would make an excellent admin. Hall Monitor 20:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
14. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. I have seen him do some excellent work around the Wiki and think he would benefit from admin priveleges. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
16. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Most certainly. Have seen much good work. smoddy 22:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Support--Jondel 06:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Who is a great editor and will make an even better admin. - Thatdog 03:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too easily engages in conflict, particularly on Template:Reqimage, where he created an awful "box" format version of it and has been holding up people from improving it. Ownership is not a good admin quality, neither are 3RR violations. -- Netoholic @ 08:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
2. Evidently, Who feels empowered to invent exceptions to the three-revert rule and apply them to himself. He reverted the template cited above four times in less than seven hours, but claims that he "was not in violation," for a variety of nonsensical reasons. I don't mean to discount Who's contributions (which hopefully will continue, irrespective of this discussion's outcome), but someone who attempts to unilaterally override official policy isn't cut out to be an admin. Also, I'm rather troubled by his belief that revert warring is an appropriate way to "avoid a RV war" and his sense of entitlement to three reverts per page, per day. ("The actual edit war was the last 3 edits . . . ") —Lifeisunfair 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. --Mrfixter 12:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Admins shouldn't do things that would get them blocked in any other circumstance. Páll 17:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose Dmn / Դմն 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose Behavior on Template:Reqimage does not augur well for this user having the keys to the janitorial closet. Bkonrad 21:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) -- addendum, I haven't had a lot of interaction with Who, and, apart from some possible indiscretion dealing with reqimage, Who seems to be a solid contributor. I well know that interacting with certain other users can be extremely aggravating and may sometimes result in less than optimal actions. If this is vote is not successful, and if Who continues to show improved judgement, I could easily support for adminship the next time around. older≠wiser 22:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I wanted to support him, as he has for the most part been a good editor, but just the facts that, for one thing, the Template:Reqimage situation landed him a 3RR violation, and for another, he's taken his conflict with User:Lifeisunfair and shifted it over to his RfA, where they appear to be continuing to fight, make me somewhat suspicious to support his adminship candidacy. --Idont Havaname 21:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose Although I find the user to be polite and approachable, I'm rather concerned at how he was bold with a particular contentious subject (the directors TFD) without asking for a consensus first. Although being bold is usually encouraged, it was, in this instance, poor judgement that could bias the decision of the closing admin on the TFD. More experience and I'm sure he would be OK. Too soon. The JPS 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Might I comment to that? It was me who closed that TFD discussion, simply because it had been listed for the required period of seven days - just like I do with all discussions there. So if an error has been made, it was by me and not by Who. Specifically, I forgot to remove the discussion from the TFD page even if I had already copied it to the Log folder. Radiant_>|< 07:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
9. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Only three months contributing. In my opinion, this user is not experienced enough to be an admin. If he waits another six months, I could support him. Denelson83 21:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

   I know you stand by this criterion steadfastly, but he has over 7,000 edits, thus averaging more than 2,000 edits per month of contributions. I voted oppose, but the longevity argument is not nearly as relevant here as it is in cases of more sporadic editors. 7,000 edits definitely clears the experience hurdle. --Idont Havaname 21:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral at present. Although though personal experience with Who I find him to be extremely polite and helpful, the issues surrounding 3RR and certain actions prevent me from voting support at this stage. Also, I wouldn't usually support Adminship for an editor who has been a member for so short a period (although, as pointed out above, his edit count does somewhat mitigate this position). I may well vote support after further consideration.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 18:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Mildly concerned at the fact that Redwolf24 and Essjay are currently responsible for 60% of the prevailing nominations, and Redwolf24 has two concurrently. -Splash 05:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm only responsible for one RfA; it isn't my fault that there aren't that many RfA's up at the moment. (I count 9, and he & I together are responsible for 3, which is more like 33% than 60%.) My RfA was first, and resulted from a discussion between Redwolf24 & I that I thought he should be an admin and he thought I should be one; the agreement, based on our existing desire to nominate one another was to wait for 2000 edits then nominate. Each of us had existing offers from other users (including a bureacrat who was willing to nominate Red) when the nomination was made; we wanted it to be the other because we are friends, not because we're running a scam. User:Who was Redwolf24 by himself, I wasn't aware that he wasn't already an admin. I'm mildy offended at the implication that any of the three weren't perfectly valid, good faith nominations.
    • My 60% was from the non self-noms since that's the only sensible way to count what I was counting. And there was no implication of any sort of invalidity; I've voted on two of the three! I just think it would have been cleaner for you to have waited until the end of your RfA to nominate Redwolf24, and failing that, for Redwolf24 to wait until the end of his/hers before nominating Who - it only takes a week. If you want to reply (and feel free), please do use my talk page since I don't want to disrupt Who's RfA with this. -Splash 05:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Whoa there. Im the one nominating extra, not essjay. Don't bring him into this. And I told you about this whole thing anyways Splash what are you doing >.< Redwolf24 05:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I know, I said you (Redwolf24) had two noms, and was slightly confused by Essjay's comment. -Splash 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I spoke with Redwolf24 about wanting to nominate me, as I fealt it would not look good, mainly for himself. He had already made the nomination before I asked him not to. I would have preferred to be nominated by someone than a self-nom. I considered how it would look with the nomination and declining the nomination, and decided to accept anyhow. I feel that I would be judged finally by my merit, rather than the nomination, the same for Redwolf24's RFA. However, if there are any other concerns pertaining to this, I will gladly recind my acceptance, and wait till another time. ∞Who?¿? 05:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • You were right to accept. If I thought it wrong in any way, I'd have voted to oppose, rather than to decisively support! -Splash 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this whole discussion has been the result of a series of mistakes, and in my opinion, we should all say "I'm sorry if I misjudged you" and go back to writing an encyclopedia. To that end, "I'm sorry if I misjudged any of you." -- Essjay · Talk 06:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Reply to User:Netoholic . I took the time to leave comments on the change of {{Reqimage}} at User_talk:Netoholic#Template:Reqimage, he would not reply, and I was being very polite. I do not have "ownership" issues, as I clearly stated on Wikipedia:Template locations and Wikipedia_talk:Template_locations#Design_and_layout_issues. I was waiting for other Wikipedians discussion and consensus before drastically changing or moving the template. This was the whole purpose of the Template Locations discussion. Netoholic took it upon himself to change the template without so much of a discussion. I made a kind note here and on edits after. I even stated on the notes and his talk page, the reasoning. But he would not respond. Agian I have no ownership issues, but feel that the community should have a say in the design, as I proposed originally AND during the reverts. ∞Who?¿? 08:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  This edit summary is laughable. If you don't want to get in revert wars, don't revert. And I am well aware of those discussions. As an outside observer, I see you taking this discussion to any number of pages you can find, and engaging in delaying tactics. Noone likes your weird box version, yet we've been stuck with it for a month. When one discussion starts turning badly for you, you post somewhere else. It's a distraction and a delaying tactic. I don't care about my version, but the messagebox format has consensus based on my review of discussions. -- Netoholic @ 08:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• I will no longer reply to this on this page. I have not tried to delay anything, I made it very clear that the template should be changed, but left it up to the community to do so. With each of my RV's I gave specific reasoning, and invited Ntoholic to discussion, he refused by not participating. I did not post in several places, I posted in the relevant discussion areas pertaining to this template. The messagebox format that you used does not confomr to Wikipedia:Template standardisation, and my last revert was to ALoans version which is standardized. ∞Who?¿? 08:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read the 3RR page carefully, as you can plainly see that the first RV was not an RV but a fix to make the link work properly on other pages. ∞Who?¿? 09:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, in regards to adminship, it is even worse to not know what a revert is, than to engage in revert wars. You undid good faith changes made to that page four times in just a few hours, restoring previous versions. -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments made by Netoholic why accept big and ugly when there is consensus that it's trash. tweak it later & zero people like this version, except Who, who created the monstrosity. I explained my edits, and was not rude, I invited you to discuss this, and you ignored. I was polite, and did not violate 3RR, and wasn't even concerned about it, only becaue the first edit you listed, was only to fix a link, that was non-functioning, and was in good faith. I would not call the comments you made, and ignoring the discussions good faith edits. ∞Who?¿? 09:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why you reverted, to which versions you reverted, or how politely and thoroughly you explained your reverts. You made four reverts to a single page in less than seven hours (none of which were self-reverts or dealt with simple vandalism), and that's a violation. —Lifeisunfair 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, the intent of 3RR is clearly stated. It is meant to stop revert wars. The first edit was not part of any revert war, it was simply fixing the mistake of another user. This is not to say anything about the legitimacy of the reverts, but rather to say that the accusation of violation of 3RR was not due. Jimbobsween 11:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reply to Lifeisunfair. I do not feel that anyone is immune to 3RR or any other Wiki policies. I mentioned I was trying to avoid an edit war in my comments, but they left out that I also included links in those same edit comments, to discuss the topic further, as well as the user talk page, and relevant template discussion pages. The only reason I am defending my 3RR, is that the first edit today, was to fix a bad link, rather than cut/paste to a new edit, I chose a previous version. This way before the "edit war", and was a minor fix, than a revert. I was not trying to even violate the 3RR spirit with 3 rv's, but since I could not discuss the topic futher, the last rv was to a comprised solution that had already been discussed on the ignored proposal pages. I would have not edited the template further, and realize I should have asked for a third opinion after the 2nd revert. ∞Who?¿? 10:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but you don't seem to understand the fact that it doesn't matter what you "mentioned" or "included" in your edit summaries. You could have complimented Netoholic on his charming personality and minty fresh breath, and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference. You were reverting.

In this context, the term "revert" simply refers to the restoration of an earlier version (even if it is via copy-and-paste means). The 3RR applies to any such revert, no matter what the reason (excluding self-reverts and correction of simple vandalism); the fact that your first revert was to repair a broken link is irrelevant. But even setting that instance aside, you deliberately engaged in an edit war, purportedly for the purpose of "trying to avoid an edit war" (which you've reiterated above). Does that seem remotely logical to you? —Lifeisunfair 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reply to Idont Havaname: I originally approached Lifeisunfair during the edit war, to invite him to view the discussions and communication attempts with Netoholic. As far as continuing to fight with Lifeisunfair, I have only responded, politely, to his continued comments on my tak page. Which I asked for him not to continue stated to him that I fealt he was "hounding" me on the issue. as I fealt he only kept re-itterating his feelings about the 3RR situation, which he had already made very clear, and solved nothing by continuing to reply replying to other users another user on my discussion page. If you notice, it was he that was monitoring originally responded to my discussion page, and responded when he saw "RFA" as an edit summary. I did not discuss/argue any further on any other discussion pages such as 3RR, nor have I commented on our discussions with any other user. Although other users have commented on my talk page on this matter, I have not responded to them, for I feal the matter should not be added to with continued argumentive discussion, in favor or against my point of view. ∞Who?¿? 22:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC) clarify comments sig ∞Who?¿? 02:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"I originally approached Lifeisunfair during the edit war, to invite him to view the discussions and communication attempts with Netoholic."

As I explained to you at the time, I learned of the edit war via Netoholic's talk page, so I was fully aware of the discussions. As I also explained, I reverted to his version purely because you violated the three-revert rule (which your "communication attempts" don't excuse, despite your repeated claims to the contrary). I've had several prior conflicts with Netoholic (and none with you), but I don't allow my personal biases to override the facts of a situation. Netoholic was wrong too, but he didn't violate a policy.

"As far as continuing to fight with Lifeisunfair, I have only responded, politely, to his continued comments on my tak page."

You incorporated various pleasantries, but I don't agree that your hasty accusations were polite.

"Which I asked for him not to continue to 'hound' me on the issue, as he only kept re-itterating his feelings about the 3RR situation, which he had already made very clear, and solved nothing by continuing to reply to other users on my discussion page."

In addition to direct replies to comments that you've addressed to me, I've posted precisely one other message on your discussion page — addressed to Splash, in reply to a message addressed to you. (I also posted a pointer on Splash's talk page.)

You then accused me of "constantly hound[ing] [you] on an issue that is past" (referring to the less than one-day-old 3RR violation, which remains highly relevant to your RfA) and requested that I not reply to other users on your talk page. I explained my reasoning (which included a belief that it would have been rude for me to have replied to Splash behind your back), and agreed not to do so again. I've kept my word, so your claim that I have been "continuing to reply to other users on [your] discussion page" is flagrantly false and defamatory.

A short time later, Kbdank71 posted a reply to me in the same section of your talk page, but you never complained to him about this egregious infraction. Instead, you thanked him for voting for you. This illustrates the true source of your combativeness toward me: I oppose your RfA.

"If you notice, it was he that was monitoring my discussion page, and responded when he saw 'RFA' as an edit summary."

You make it seem as though I've been stalking you. As I explained, I always check the "Watch this page" box when posting to a talk page, in case I receive a reply there. I didn't single you out in any way. —Lifeisunfair 02:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reply to The JPS: I am not sure what the confusion is about. I skipped directly to TFD Holding Cell to see if there was any maintenance to be done. There were templates listed for categorization, and I started maintenance. I skipped the Kubrick, as someone had mentioned a prior category, and I wanted to furhter read up on that. I started maintenance on the other templates listed. After this comment, I noticed that the Tfd had not yet been closed (with code), as the actuall discussion must have ended yesterday the 17th, as the updated proposal was made on the 10th. I have no bias towards the subject, was only performing maintenance on the templates listed under "Holding Cell : to delete, categorify, etc.." Any other wikipedian could have started moving these templates, I just happened to check what needed maintenance. I am confused by the negative comments. ∞Who?¿? 00:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I currently do extensive work on WP:CFD, and recently joined WikiProject Categories, so that I could be of more assistance in this area. I frequent WP:TFD, and occasionally work on WP:VFD. I routinely help with Wikipedia:RC patrol with vandalism rv's, and fixing up newly created needy articles. I routinely monitor WP:ANI, and try to contribute and respond to areas I feel I can be helpful. All of this can be done by anyone, not necessarily an admin, but having the admin tools, would just greatly enchance my ability to do these tasks.

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

A. To be quite honest, I am a better at copy editing, research and back-end tasks (categories, templates, etc.). I have created a few articles, mostly all listed on my page, I try to update all the "forgotten" actor articles, by adding the relevant information, I have a very long todo list on these. One article I created to significantly would be Jennifer Hale previous version.

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.

Stress I usually do not get Wiki-stress, I remember one time I moved my Wikistress meter up, but that I believe was over a long day of recategorizing the cross-wired Category:Superheroes and Category:Supervillains and children. I took a break, got a pen & paper, wrote down what needed to be done, and went back at it.

Conflicts Other than reverting vandalism, in what may have seemed like a revert war, I can only think of one instance of an edit conflict. Reqimage revert. Yes the highly recently disputed {{reqimage}}, however this was resolved with a friendly discussion. Wasn't really a conflict, I just pointed out that I took the time to propose the change. Even now as it is being disputed, I have no conflict with its change or location. I had a very long discussion, 1 & 2, about GNAA's VFD, but I do not see this as a conflict, but a very useful discussion on the matter. I haven't had the opportunity to discuss it further with Ta bu shi da yu, since the last VFD.

Conflicts 2:Unfortunately I was recently involved in an edit war with Netoholic, on {{reqimage}}. I was reported to 3RR for this, but was not blocked. Although I violated the spirit of 3RR, I did not violate the rule with an edit war. I appologize to the community for this, as I was attempting to communicate with him to explain that the template was part of a larger discussion, and probably should not be drastically changed until the discussion had finalized. I should have referred to another administrator before making any more edits, but instead, in a compromise, Rv'd to a version that was prior accepted by the community before my proposal to change the template. I can honestly say, this is not my typical behaviour, and can almost guarantee with certainty, that this type of scenario will never happen again. I will be happy to answer any more specific questions on this matter, to anyone that was not already involved, you may do so here or on my talk page. (Note: I provided history links to the discussions, and they may have been updated or removed by the time you read them) ∞Who?¿? 21:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Future acts I am a fairly calm individual, I have learned when to take breaks, and try to be as polite as possible concerning any matter. Even if I am personally involved in an article, its actual presence has no bearing on my state of mind. I feel anything can be quickly resolved with communiction.

---

[edit] Zscout370

final (98/2/0) ending 03:57 11 August 2005 (UTC) Zscout370 (talk · contribs) Kate's Tool - Zscout has shown himself to be VERY familiar with Wikipolicy and has been a familiar face at WP:CFD, WP:VfD, WP:IFD, and he has also helped out newbies several times. He has done loads of work on RC Patrol and has been attacked by trolls, without losing his cool. This user DEFINATELY deserves the tools. He has declined to be nominated before but has now gave in. --Redwolf24 03:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I had many users ask me to take this job, but I hesitated. Now, I see that other admins ask me, especially, Ta bu shi da yu, I will go ahead and accept this nomination. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Hey I'm an admin too! Redwolf24 04:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What the? Gah! I wanted to do this! Argh! I might just point out that this editor is one of our best: if anyone wants to know just how good, have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America. You can't actually get much more controversial than this article, and he has done some amazing work in getting it up to scratch! For this alone I would highly recommend him, but he is good with vandalism, diplomatic and a great editor anyway - see Hero of Belarus. Personally, I hope they break the support vote record. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

...and he turned it down when I suggested nominating him. Twice. :P Grutness...wha? 05:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

well I beat you both on the time that mattered. Redwolf24 05:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Won't repeat things already said. Also, Zscout has shown exemplary character. He never lost temper even with the hardest to deal with editors. He kindly always helped when he was asked for help on any matters. He shows broad interest in several underrepresanted topic (e.g. East Europe), created the Russia portal (especially amazing for a stranger), which also inspired a Ukraine portal that soon followed. For these and many other reasons, I am happy to co-sign. --Irpen 07:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support! (Yay obnoxious attention seeking habits!) Redwolf24 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Very active in janitorial tasks, including RC patrol. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. I've seen good work with this one, and I definately support. Give him the mop! -- Essjay · Talk 04:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support; mopworthy indeed. Good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. I've worked with Zach on a couple of articles. He shows a lot of commonsense, is enthusiastic, works hard, and explains what he's doing on talk pages. He's a good editor and he'll make a responsible admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
6. Strongest support possible, by which I mean support. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. siafu 04:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
8. SUPPORT! About time he accepted nom. Grutness...wha? 05:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
9. Everyking 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
10. As a co-nominator, I of course support. --Irpen 07:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
11. я соглашаюсь - Very good editor, cool headed. I also admire him for being; Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent, and trust most who have walked this path. ∞Who?¿? 07:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
12. Certainly. Radiant_>|< 09:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. A very good user who has done plenty of very good work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
14. Ofcourse User:Nichalp/sg 09:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
15. Absolutely. After all of five and a half hours I'm number 15, how did that happen? :) --Dmcdevit·t 09:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Everyking supports this nomination? Wow. -- Viajero | Talk 10:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

    I actually find this a bit offensive. Everyking 10:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

17. Support, definitely. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
18. Definitely, yes -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
19. Total Support. --Canderson7 12:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
20. Support.  Grue  13:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
21. Yes, please. Joyous (talk) 13:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
22. Unconditional Support - There are no questions about Zscout370's qualities as a contributor and a person. He is always proactive, polite and insightful, not to mention a great graphic designer. If there was ever an user who deserved Adminship, it is Zscout! Redux 13:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
23. Strong Support. Does excellent work. Thunderbrand 14:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
24. Strong support. Nothing more needs to be said. --Deathphoenix 14:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
25. Support 120% - An ideal contributor who would make an great admin. Sango123 14:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. As much as I hate the idea of joining a bandwagon, this editor deserves a bandwagon. --Scimitar ^parley 15:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
27. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. 'Nuff said above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
29. Strong support Glad to see he's finally accepted a nomination; I would have nominated myself a few months ago had I not seen that he had declined a nominaton in the past. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Sensible editor, good grasp of policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. I've seen him around the Wikipedia and he strikes me as a good editor. 'Though my vote seems unnecessary at this point, you have it anyway. --Jen Moakler 18:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
32. Support! --Jiang 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
33.  BRIAN0918  20:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
34. Support Astrotrain 20:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. No doubts. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
36. Strong support. I actually thought that Zscout370 would make an excellent admin, I had once even thought about nominating him for admin. Now that Redwolf24 has put him on the RfA, I will give my support. Excellent user, does a lot of work on Wikipedia. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Never seen you before, but I've seen GNAA, and well... :) Only article I've ever seen go directly from VfD to Featured Article nomination. Good work. And, I guess it's a good thing when admins fight over who got to nominate you. :P Ryan 22:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
38. Emphatic Support. Great overall contributor, and a nice guy. android79 22:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
39. Support, SqueakBox 22:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
40. Support, especially as per SlimVirgin and Ta bu's comments. Func( t, c ) 23:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
41. Support, we need more like this one. —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 23:38 Z
42. Support, long overdue. Flowerparty ^talk 23:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
43. Support, wholeheartedly. Dan100 (Talk) 23:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
44. Support Sure. SchmuckyTheCat 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
45. Support Harrumph! MicahMN | Talk 00:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
46. Strong Support I had assumed he was an admin already.... -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
47. Definitely totally unconditional strong absolute support (did I miss any adverbs, adjectives or adjuncts in there?). Very level-headed user. One more for the cabal! Tomer ^TALK 01:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
48. Strong support, would make a great fellow Cabalist (if there's such a word). Craigy (talk) 01:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
49. Strongest possible support If everyone was like Zscout, Wikipedia would probably be the absolute best site on the web. Welcome to the cabal-club! Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 02:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
50. Wow, first time I get to exercise my democratic Wiki right and vote, for someone whose work I am, admittedly, not very familiar with, but I'm familiar with him on other non-Wiki projects. He has the attitude of a good Wiki admin on there, so I think he'd make one hell of an admin where his attitude is actually good for something. Zscout370, you got my support--Canuckguy 04:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
51. Merovingian (t) (c) 04:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
52. David Gerard 06:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. the wub "?/!" 12:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
54. Support - better late than never: I am sure, I am not the last to support. --Bhadani 14:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
55. Support. Constructive, courteous, does good work all over the place. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
56. Support. I don't know him to well, but I see his name everywhere and every time he is doing something usefull. •Zhatt• 18:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. I don't think there's anything left to say that hasn't already been said. Carbonite | Talk 21:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. I thought he was an admin already. --cesarb 02:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
59. Support. Are you sure you weren't already an admin, and were too busy doing good things to notice? NatusRoma 04:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
60. Support. -Mysidia 04:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
61. Support. Exceptionally courteous and patient, takes time to help everybody and respond even to the obvious comments...hmm...this comment supposed to be obvious. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
62. 'Support!!!!, Yet another WTH ? He is not an adm. already ?!This shouldn't be an issue, make him an adm now! D. J. Bracey (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
63. Support. Without a doubt. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
64. Cool. JuntungWu 09:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
65. Splash 16:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
66. Very strong support. One of the best Wikipedians I've come across. Courteous, conscientious, responsible. Will make a great admin. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
67. Support. Fine editor. -Willmcw 19:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
68. Support --malathion ^talk 02:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
69. Gee, I thought I had registered my vote on this application already... Oh well, support.  Denelson83  09:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
70. Making it an even (3)70 :-PKarmafist 19:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
71. Support Great editor, strong admin material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
72. Support. HKT ^talk 23:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
73. EXTERMINATE! Cat ^chi? 01:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
74. Ding. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
75. Support. "I thought $user already was an admin." – ABCD✉ 01:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
76. Support. I run across his edits all the time, great editor, will make a fine admin. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
77. Never heard of him, therefore, I support! El_C 03:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
78. Support. Sashazlv 23:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
79. Support - Introvert ^talk 01:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
80. Support as this person never tramped me although we intervene each other regularly. Deryck C. 05:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
81. I Support. This guy's definitely fit for the job, and I want to see him break the record for the most votes supporting someone going for adminship. Zero1328 06:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
82. Support not that it makes much of a difference at this point. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
83. Support. DS1953 13:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
84. Support. I'm a bit late to the party, but better late than never. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
85. Support. From his obvious talent and level-headedness, I had assumed he already was an admin. --Habap 17:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
86. Support How come nobody tells me when there's a party? - Tεxτurε 18:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
87. Support Pardon my being so late. :P --Gaurav Arora ^Talk 20:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
88. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
89. Support support support support . . . Of course Zachary should be an admin. I always presumed he was. If we had the option of speedy admin creation to match our speedy deletion options, Zach would be top of the list. Oh, have I said that I support his nomination? lol FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 22:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)}
90. Support—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 00:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
91. Support. Guettarda 02:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
92. Strong support! - Lucky 6.9 07:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

    Hey, you got a vote from Lucky! A rare privilege indeed :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

93. Support It appears Zscout needs a little nudge to put him over the top, so here it is. NoSeptember 08:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
94. Support. --NormanEinstein 19:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
95. Support. ral315 01:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
96. Support. Must....follow...crowd. (does seem like he'll make a good admin though). →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 02:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
97. Support -- A worthy editor who has established trust. For sure. Longhair | Talk 03:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
98. Support - it's about time he accepted. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 04:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Well, I would support, but since everyone else is going to, I suppose SOMEONE should oppose. Plus, it seems like the evil thing to do. Looks set in stone now, so congrats. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Crossed out as its not really a serious vote. should not have an effect on the tally. Redwolf24 04:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments That's obviously devil's advocate~ :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment It's Jason Jr. :o Ryan 22:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

While I don't really care if you cross out my vote (since it doesn't really matter what one vote does), I don't think you should cross out votes. People can vote however they see fit. You shouldn't cross one out because you think it's "not really a serious vote." Perhaps that's how someone really wants to vote. It is their perogative. If someone want to not vote seriously, why stop them? It's not vandalism, it's not disrupting WP to make a point, it's just how they vote. Maybe a person has a real problem with someone, but just would rather not bring it up. Not that I do, I just think we shouldn't get into the habit of just crossing out votes at will. I respectfully withdraw my own oppose vote. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It is up to the bureaucrat who closes the RfA to accept votes or disregard them. Votes should not be crossed out by other users. --Canderson7 17:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The crossing out the vote made by Lord Voldemort was not my idea, and if I had a choice in the matter, it would have let it stand. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just felt it useless opposing just cause it was against the majority (see below...) Sorry Voldemort. Redwolf24 04:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I open saying that what I'm about to say does not reflect any current policy or guideline, it is my opinion. Voldemort, I must strongly disagree with your opinion in regards to not voting seriously not being a problem. RfAs are important in the "wikiverse", it is through them that Admins get "elected". They also usually mean something to the candidate. So, if you're (meaning: anyone) going to oppose a candidate, do it for a proper reason. It doesn't even needs to be an objective one, it could be completely subjective (e.g., I don't like what this guy writes), but a valid reason nonetheless (even if you are not required to divulge your reasons for opposing a candidate). Opposing someone's nomination "just for the heck of it" is not in keeping with the community spirit, and, IMHO, it does disrupt Wikipedia (Admins are an important part of the project). Sure, in this particular RfA it will make no difference, given the substantial support the candidate has received, but there are cases in which every vote can make a difference in reaching the necessary consensus to adminify a user. It is true, however, that there's nothing in the present rules that expressly prohibit voting "for fun". Doesn't mean that it should be done though. Regards, Redux 05:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose, user has exposed templates with section headers to breakage by not substituting them. At present lacks the technical knowledge required to be an effective admin. Will support provided he goes and substitutes them all... Alphax ^τεχ 01:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• My personal advise is: don't edit Dalek. Didn't work out for me... :-) Ta bu shi da yu 01:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am currently working on Michaëlle Jean now, but I still intend to work on Belarusian articles and the GNAA article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean don't vandalize it. If you don't vandalize it everything should go smoothly. Everyking 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not being vandalized, me and Ta bu managed to keep it under strict control and ready for FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Deal with WP:IFD, other images issues and stomp vandalism here and there.

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

A. Most likely Hero of Belarus my first WP:FA. It is a gem, since I took a topic few would even touch and made it into something great.

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. Been involved in the styles debate, the GNAA article, was a party to an RFAr. Of course, things like that happen after you been here a while. I have been asked to provide edit summaries, which I admit I did not do that much in the past. However, I am getting better at that. Overall, I enjoyed my experience here, and it can only get better with time, just like great wine.

---

See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

[edit] Carnildo

Vote here (40/4/2) ending 01:33 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo (talk · contribs) - Carnildo is a very courteous and friendly user who has helped out newbies. He has about 5,000 edits which is much more than most of us, including myself. He's been here for... 19 months (since January 2004). He has been seen at featured articles, such as Autism. There is no reason this person should not be an admin. Abduct him onto the adminShip! --Redwolf24 01:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I accept. --Carnildo 07:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. SUPPORT! Redwolf24 01:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Excellent editor, strong adminship candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong Support He can be a bit confrentational, but I've found him to be friendly. Does an insane amount of work at VfD and is probably the major person making sure the copyright status on images in the featured articles checks out. Also, I thought he already was one... --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Support! Support! Support!  Denelson83  06:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
6. Has strong views on picture use policy (often seen on FAC) which can seem confrontational, but which ultimately benefit the project by encouraging people to find acceptable images. Support. David | Talk 08:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Martin (Bluemoose) 08:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
8. Support! more image policing! dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
9. Strong Support Darn, I have to use that phrase again: "He's not one already‽‽ Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 14:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
10. Mild mannered support. Too much yelling in here. :-) Dragons flight 14:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support -Vsmith 23:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
12. RFA cliche #1. Radiant_>|< 23:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. -Splash 01:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
14. Strong Support He helped me, so I figured i'd return the favor. I look forward to his contributions as an admin. Karmafist 06:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. --Kbdank71 14:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, we need more people willing to take a stand on image use. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:47, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
17. BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 16:07
18. Robert McClenon 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Fire Star 03:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. He's got his head screwed on. We seldom see eye to eye but I don't think sysops should be an army of chums. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Friendly, level-headed user with strong knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. --Deathphoenix 06:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
22. Support – does great work in FAC, FLC. User:Nichalp/sg 07:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
23. David Gerard 11:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. VfD record speaks for itself. --Scimitar ^parley 13:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
25. How did this fellow get passed over? Ingoolemo ^talk 22:36, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
26. Support - obviously. --Celestianpower ^hab 23:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
28. Support this fine candidate. Antandrus (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Jonathunder 01:28, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
30. Support Great editor. D. J. Bracey (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
31. Support, good work. feydey 08:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Thryduulf 12:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Proto t c 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. Very good candidate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
35. Support, ITHWOA. FreplySpang (talk) 18:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. -- Norvy (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
37. Enthusiastic support <crowd cheering>YEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!</crowd cheering>  ALKIVAR™ 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
38. Support. Always a welcome addition to any debate at VfD, where he participates frequently. Although I can understand the POV of some editors that he is confrontational, I see it more as straightforwardness. I have yet to see an action on Carnildo's part that I feel is over the line. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
40. Support - he does a good job in keeping me in check at every single FAC I submit. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
41. Support, long overdue. --fvw* 19:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Aggressive and confrontational. My dealings with him have been filled with animosity. Everyking 02:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

   Let me also note the disturbing quote he has on his user page: "Perfection is achieved not when there is no more to add, but when there is no more to take away". Is this a good philosophy for a Wikipedia editor to have, let alone an admin? Everyking 10:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

   Everyking, personally I'm kind of glad you're involved in the edits of the Ashlee article since you obviously have a different POV than the mold of wikipedians on the article, and coming from my edits on Microsoft I realize how frustrating this can be. However, I think you really should take a couple days off and reconsider this. For one thing, the quote you mention is actually pretty good, as at least for me it means "Perfection is achieved when no one wants to remove any more blantantly POV stuff from an article", although I'm sure some take it differently. Also, I really don't think carnildo would use his tools to abuse a situation, such as the Ashlee Simpson wars. For one thing, as an outsider to the ashlee simpson thing it seems there's a lot of contention on all sides and very few seem "innocent" in that case. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

   I take it to mean that articles should be "short and sweet". If I'm wrong he can correct me. And as for the content dispute, I actually I don't think I have an particularly unusual POV there, but that doesn't have much to do with his nomination anyway. Everyking 11:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

   And note that after several days there has been no correction. What does that tell you? Everyking 08:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose too confrontational, too power hungry. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 02:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
3. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

   Boothy has been identified as using multiple vandal sockpuppets and has been temporarily blocked. It's safe to say his votes no longer count. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 15:50

   Do not strike out any non-anon's votes. It is up to the bureaucrats to consider the validity of votes at promotion time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

   Socks, but not vandals. Everyking 18:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I don't mind confrontational editors but I do mind those who make a fetish of deletionism and those who have personal definitions of "vandalism". Given that you are asking to be empowered with the tools to delete articles and block vandals, these are important issues. Grace Note 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My only encounters with this user have been his blunt objections to nearly all FACs over image copyright status. While this is all well and good, he tends to angrily defend his position when people who don't know this is usual argue about fair use. I am interested to see what else he has to contribute to Wikipedia, and how he deals with users first-hand. Harro5 03:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
   • A somewhat confrontational approach doesn't bother me; he's been around a while and probably merits the mop and bucket. One part of his response puzzles me and I'd like clarification before voting: in the phrase an actual conflict going on, as opposed to a drive-by editing, what does the term "drive-by editing" refer to? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

     By a "drive-by editing", I mean someone, usually an anon, who makes a controversial/highly POV/factually incorrect edit to an article, then vanishes from Wikipedia. It's usually pointless to try to get a discussion going in such a case. A recent example of this would be this edit to M1 Abrams --Carnildo 05:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

     Thanks. Changing my vote. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

2. Voting neutral for the same reasons as Harro5. I don't expect him to misuse admin power in this regard, but stubbornness is troubling. --malathion ^talk 07:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• In regards to objecting to FAC articles: I've checked, and I'm objecting to just under half of them for image copyright problems. I'm trying to deal with the copyright status issues in less-confrontational environments like Peer Review, but it's hard when the first I see of the article is a FAC posting. --Carnildo 07:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I disagreed with Carnhildo over the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hatshepsut and while I found his postion frustrating, I found him neither rude nor aggressive. Persistent, stubborn; maybe. The Hatshepsut nomination failed by the way, and it should not have because it supasses the criteria of many existing feautured articles; but its not Carnildo's fault he was the only person who bothered to vote. The voter turn out at FAC is deplorable for most nominations. None of his actions, in my experience with him, consitute reasons for opposing the nomination. -JCarriker 09:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you can see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Autism to see how I handled the issue. Anyway, I kind of agree with everything he said on the page (not his opinions that we shouldn't use fair use but that you could probably find quite a few). (the rest is OT) Also, I actually looked at Hatshepsut quite a few times during its nomination process... it has some issues that are difficult to describe, besides the fact that I think its too short for the subject, plus you had a good comment of the FAC. "She is regarded variously" this doesn't make sense, what do you mean by "variously"? Things like that which make it flow erratically at times. Anyway, its late but I will say that a lot of people like me probably looked at the article and didn't have time to describe what it needed, so they didn't bother to vote. Hope that helps. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear that the theme of my post is: that Carnhildo postions on FACs may step on a few toes, including mine, but that is not a legitmate reason for opposing him—which seems to be the primary reason for oppostion to his nomination—when he is only trying to make Wikipedia a better place. I'd vote, but I have little experience with his edits. If the vote gets close, I will vote support though. - JCarriker 11:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I decided to withdraw my opposition. It occurred to me I hate the politics in Wikipedia and the more politics this place encounters, the worse it becomes. Plus, in fairness to Carnildo, my objection was only a minor one. I stand by my assertion that rules and regulations are going to do more harm than good unless we can foster a co-operative spirit based on understanding. Cedars 10:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Vandalism rollback, mostly. I'd also do some work on the less-controversial deletion pages: IFD and copyright problems.

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

A. List of Medal of Honor recipients: I turned it from a short, mostly-unorganized list into its current form: a list of links to nearly all the articles on Medal of Honor recipients. M1 Abrams: I expanded it from an infobox and a brief history to something closely resembling the current form. Sometime in the next week or two, I'm going to try to get it up to featured status. Battle of the Windmill: I felt it sad that we had an article on a fictional battle by that name, but not on the battle that was part of the Upper Canada Rebellion, so I fixed the problem.

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. As Everyking alludes to, I was involved in the Ashlee Simpson wars. More recently, I've been involved in conflicts over Matrix scheme and Charles Taze Russell.

Once it becomes obvious that there's an actual conflict going on, as opposed to a drive-by editing, I try to take the conflict to the appropriate talk page. This isn't always possible: if the other person isn't willing to use the talk page, or if they are unwilling to explain their point beyond repetitions of "You're wrong", there's not much you can do beyond requesting page protection or waiting for a 3RR violation.

(For the record, I still believe that an unexplained revert of a good-faith edit constitutes vandalism.)

---

Doh. Withdrawing nomination, I didn't realize he hasn't been here even two months. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acetic Acid

Vote here (5/5/2) ending 02:29 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Acetic Acid (talk · contribs) - Acetic Acid has been awarded exceptional newcomer awards and several barnstars. He is a very friendly and funny guy. I'm sure most of you recognize him as he can be found in the mainnamespace, wikipedia namespace, he interacts with other users a lot (7 Archives, not too shabby.), and many other reasons. I believe he has proved himself responsible, and an asset to the Wikipedian community. And for those with Edit Countitus, he has over 2,000 edits, which is the amount Essjay and I had when we won our RfA's --Redwolf24 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm honored that Redwolf24 would nominate me, but I'm afraid I don't meet my own standards. :) Thank you to all who voted. I'll try again at the end of October. Acetic'^Acid 20:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Support

1. 1337ness!!! Redwolf24 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme lesbian support --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
3. Despite the dispute we had on my RfB, or perhaps because of it, I feel I can confidently support Acetic Acid. Good luck. Andre (talk) 02:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. My watchlist tells me he's very in the community and policy related pages. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Hmm thought you were one. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose. While he is a notable candidate, he has only been here since July 23. That, according to the standards that others have been judged on, is much, much too short. Secondly, only about 200 edits in article namespace; his edits count is high mainly because he welcomes others; no sysop powers are needed for that. All in all, he still needs about a month more experience.

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

   July 23 is over a month ago ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

   Ive heard it through the grapevine that the standard is atleast 3 months :). To oppose others, but support him on that ground would be unfair

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

   Most people I know make exceptions for people they personally know. And now I am gonna stop disrupting this RfA ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Ambi 03:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
3. A good dude, but not enough article edits. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:02, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
4. A month and a half isn't enough experience even if you have ten thousand edits. —Cryptic (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose, like the others said, not enough experience. Acetic Acid, please answer the candidate questions below. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for four reasons: 1. Not enough time. 2. I remember when he first came here, on RFA, and made some rather hostile comments toward others being nominated (eg ThomasK), considering his complete lack of experience at the time. He had the ripe smell of a sockpuppet. 3. Not nearly enough article contributions, either. This is an encyclopedia foremost. Can Acetic Acid live up to his requirements as he laid out to Jtkiefer:

   "You just haven't been here long enough to get the full Wiki experience. Your answers to the questions below prove that you are not quite ready. You haven't been in any major conflicts. I believe it is important to experience them at some point so we can see how you handle it. You also said most of your edits were minor. That sells my vote right away. Take the plunge and write a few articles. I'm sure you would do an amazing job."

   Oh, and 4. I've vowed never to vote Oppose, so I'm stuck with Neutral. It is up to others to decide if my comments merit consideration, and to vote accordingly. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 04:30

   Please note that he didn't nominate himself, I nominated him, and without his permission, he has yet to even accept the nom. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

   I concur with Brian

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

2. Neutral. Too soon, too soon. Everything else says "yes", but not yet. If this fails, try again after October 23, and things will be different. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A.

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

A.

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

A.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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

[edit] Acetic Acid

Final (92/9/3) ended 00:07 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Acetic Acid (talk · contribs) – Ryan has been around for 3 months and he's already amassed over 2600 edits. He's a funny guy and a nice guy who interacts with most users well. I have seen him attacked by trolls, and he's never lost his cool. He's part of WP:WC, always helping out newbies. In my opinion, the most important quality an admin should have is interacting well, so they'll be able to know about consensus. Ryan fulfills this. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

This time, I accept. :) Thank you both so much! Acetic'^Acid 0:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Extreme Random Support 2 Vote out of 80+ Support Votes --JAranda | watz sup 00:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Extreme I'm Going To Disney World in 2.5 Days Support! Good contributor, I wanted to nominate him but I didn't think he'd accept. (I thought he had been around longer, too... O_O) --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 19:12, 23 October 2005 (CDT)}
4. Acid burn support. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
5. <3 --Phroziac^(talk) 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Major support -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Yes! Linuxbeak | Talk 00:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support — mendel ☎ 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Sprt, no pun intended. -feydey 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Extreme I-had-two-edit-conflicts-while-voting support. ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Full, 100% Acidic Support. A.A is first on my 'list of users I hold in high regard'. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
13. SUPPORT - had to be obnoxious. V/M
    00:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Ground floor support -Greg Asche (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Strong support from Andre (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Thought he was one. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Always seen good stuff from this one. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Strong Support, and let Func beware, this nomination is going to trump his record because of Vinegar's level of activity and good faith in Wikipedia! Titoxd^(?!?) 01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Dude! Sasquatcht|c 01:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Depressed "my cat is missing" support. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    replacing with Very happy "my cat came back" support! :)) Grutness...wha? 12:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

21. Support Duh. Even Boothy wouldn't oppose the Acid. Karmafist 01:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Be careful.  :) Acetic'^Acid 02:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

22. Support. Ah yes, almost a formality now.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support. Sounds like a decent editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Full, unconditional support. -- Essjay · Talk 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support --Rogerd 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support Without reservation. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 05:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Extreme jumping on the bandwagon support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support Strong, extreme. I've been waiting for this. Banes 05:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support We need more "Cool" headed people like me:-) Tony the Marine 06:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. The Minister of War 06:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. Excellent contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. I've been waiting for this one and finally I can vote support of such a wonerful candidate and person. You'll surely get the record. (preceding unsigned comment by Celestianpower (talk · contribs) 08:47, October 24, 2005)
35. Support. He welcomed me, I guess I've always been fond of 'im. Good man, and good luck. --Blackcap | talk 09:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. We're going to see (100/1/1) before the week is over! (Yes, Boothy will oppose this, since three months is his absolute minimum, if I remember correctly). Owen× ☎ 11:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Dlyons493 Talk 13:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
39. FireFox 13:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
40. Support × . Arrgh!!! I was going to nominate him as soon as mine was over! (mmmmmmm... edit conflicts) the wub "?!" 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Martin 14:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Hey! I said the same thing in my RfA and I got booed off the stage! Support, obviously :P gkhan 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support - there's no compelling reason not to.--Scimitar ^parley 15:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, Just keep him away from User:Sodium bicarbonate! --TantalumTelluride 17:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support I am shocked! Appalled! Outraged!! I thought he was an administrator already! of course support, no doubt about it. Gryffindor 18:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Delete, gamecruft. Er, what? Wait, he's not an admin already? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
47. Of course. Very good one. encephalon 19:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support! Where have I been? Riding out the hurricane.  BD2412 ^talk 20:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
50. Support -- Francs2000 20:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. El_C 21:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support = very yes ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 22:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support Seen him around Wikipedia doing good work and he was the first user to welcome me when I was an anon. He will be a good one. Buena suerte!--Dakota 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. Yes, yes please. I can think of a whole list of articles that can be written, by the way. -Splash^talk 01:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support I don't think there's a whole lot more to say, other than I believe that Acetic Acid could be an excellent admin. That is, if the community approves him ;) – Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Support. Robert 04:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support, he is a positive contributor. Bahn Mi 04:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support Feel like I'm piling on, in a good way though. Good editor. Rx StrangeLove 04:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support, sure. The editor has been quite helpful to the project ever since his joining and I have no doubt that he will find good use for sysop rights. Despite the reduced amount of time he has been active, he certainly appears to have a good grasp of the inner workings of the Wikipedia, so I won't complain about that, despite the fact that I think it wouldn't have hurt to wait a few more months. --Sn0wflake 06:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Support --Kefalonia 08:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
61. C₂H₄O₂ Support. User:Nichalp/sg 11:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
62. Support levelheaded and reasonable. Friday (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
63. Support I thought Acetic already was an admin! A good Wiki-enabler, as I like to say..:)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
64. Support. Easy call. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
65. Strong Support. Fries wouldn't be the same without you. - Pureblade | ^☼ 17:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. I think he'll do well as an admin, I trust him. JoanneB 21:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
67. Support. KHM03 22:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
68. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
69. Support. Thryduulf 08:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
70. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
71. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
72. C₆H₈O₆ Support Good user, good person, goodgasell. Ral315 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
73. Sheep vote Tintin 20:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
74. Support, I thought I had voted already! Shauri smile! 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
75. Extremely redundant Support. /me likes bandwagons. So musical. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
76. Support. If I remember correctly, this is my first vote on an RfA, so that should say something. :) --Jacqui ^{★ 00:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)}
77. Support. utcursch | talk 05:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
78. Support. Now that people are actually opposing I can't be the token guy who opposes. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
79. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
80. Support - excellent editor, from what I had seen. --Ixfd64 04:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
81. Support (the non-ridiculous variety). Alphax ^τεχ 10:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
82. support, good editor, excellent interaction. Bishonen | talk 14:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
83. Throw another support vote in the pile. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 00:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
84. Support jumping on the bandwagon of support for this very capable candidate --anetode¹ ² ³ 02:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
85. Support I tend to see this editors name every where I go, and It's been nothing but positive. Plus answers to questions were good enough to make me support without me seeing him everywhere :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
86. My Support and hope i won't be the last one to. --Saluyot 12:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
87. Clearly Redundant Support! Always seeing good work from this editor. --Dvyost 15:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
88. Support — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 20:03
89. Support - administrator CH₃COOH "in da house". Or something. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
90. Support! (This page is now 31 KB long!!!) Go gett'em tiger! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)}
91. Support. Can't think how I missed voting on this one earlier. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
92. Support per above.  Grue  18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very Dilute Oppose only because I think Acetic Acid needs some more ageing. This vote is not intended to reflect any personal opposistion to the candidacy. I support AA's adminship, and would otherwise vote support I just think that wiki admins ought to be normal users for at least a year. Klonimus 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Needs more time. Come back when you have written a real article, even if it is short. I dont think its a good idea having admins who havent gone through this. Either that or a lot more time. Justinc 10:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Editing a large number of User talk pages may gain votes at RfA, but the project is about substantive content. That I don't see. I'd oppose anyone as admin who doesn't have a track record on content. Charles Matthews 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I am puzzled by the widespread support of an editor who has been here for only three months. I consider duration of participation more important then edit counts, and six months has long been a customary minimum, albeit one that has been disregarded at times. I agree that Acetic Acid is personable and helpful, but three months is not long enough to learn how Wikipedia works. Further, I have reviewed the user's article contributions and am not impressed. I don't see any writing of a paragraph or more. Maybe I'm missing it, but all I see are categorization edits and some very simple mechanical changes. Even these are in pop culture areas rather than subjects where we face a more pressing need for editorial attention. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I think you'll find that the arbitory figure is 3 months actually, Uninvited. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Currently, most — if not almost all — nominations are made when the user has around three months of experience, which is, I agree, a very low amount of time, since it's still within the "hype range", in which an editor starts off with a lot of steam but soon disappears from the project, losing interest completely. Voters also get less and less serious with time, and these little support jokes are getting quite tiring. They always were. But what are we to do, right. I support Acetic because I think he's got what it takes. --Sn0wflake 19:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   When RfAs are dull and one-sided as this one is, people are forced to look for other forms of entertainment. If all RfAs were as interesting as the AE one was, there would be no need for these lame jokes. Tintin 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Possibly the problem lies on the fact that RfAs are not really supposed to be entertaining. At all. --Sn0wflake 20:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. He is not ready yet. Maybe in the future. Carioca 19:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Extremely XTREMELY weak oppose, just hasn't been here long enough, (this coming from the editor who nominated himself foolishly the day when he was here for 3 months, when he assumed it was 4). Still have to oppose though, sorry. Private Butcher 20:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Like UninvitedCompany, I place more weight on duration than edit count. It's not that AA has done anything wrong, but I'd like to see 6 months on the project before supporting. Carbonite | Talk 23:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
8. As above. — Dan | Talk 00:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Less than 500 edits in the article namespace is a knockout criterion for me. --Pjacobi 20:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Answer to question 2 makes me a bit shaky, considering this is an encyclopedia. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I understand. I originally joined Wikipedia for that sole purpose, but I soon realized that it wasn't for me. There are hundreds of editors that are far more intelligent than I'll ever be. But I can still contribute by utilizing the other skills I have. Plus, there aren't many articles I can think of that don't already exist. That's the only reason I wrote the vitaminwater article. I was surprised there wasn't one already. :P Acetic'^Acid 03:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   The vitaminwater article doesnt even have any links in it; I am tempted to AfD it myself. If you cant write a good article how can I trust you to recognise one? Justinc 10:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Simple. As an AFD closer, I don't go by my personal opinion of the article. I go by the consensus that was reached. Administrators don't run around, saying, "I think this is a bad article. DELETE." If they did, they'd face the wrath of the stewards. And for what it's worth, I'd add some interwiki links to vitaminwater right away. Acetic'^Acid 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   OK, slightly better. How about moving it to Glacéau which it is mostly about anyway, and seems more interesting? What else would you do to improve this article? Justinc 15:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   All right, I'll move it and leave vitaminwater as a redirect. Next step toward improvement would probably be a picture or two. Acetic'^Acid 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   A picture would be nice, but there are huge holes. We have a 'what' what is this thing, but we are missing a 'where': where is the company based, where are the products available and a 'when': when was the company founded and the products launched. Then there is the only little interesting nugget that sits there in the article, what is now the second sentence, about advertising. Which asks a big 'why'. Whats going on here. The soft drink market is usually full of advertising. Something different here needs writing about. Justinc 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'll do some research to include more about the company. As for the lack of advertisement, I don't know. I read that right off one of the bottles, which is why I quoted it. It lost some validity with the whole Formula 50/50 Cent endorsement. Anyway, I'll see what I can do. Acetic'^Acid 19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   So now you are coming up with the interesting stuff. You dont mention 50 Cent in the article. Was it a real endorsement or a fake one (as it doesnt mention the name)? There is some history at [2] I see. Justinc 19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I believe it was real. The Formula 50 bottle is platinum-colored (as a parody of 50's platinum success). Will be included as well. Acetic'^Acid 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral Although it looks like there is a lot of support for Acetic Acid, I still would be more comfortable with a few more months of experience. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral; I will not vote due to prior RFC filed by Acetic Acid, just comment to say that I am not concerned about him gaining admin powers, I do not think he will abuse his new position. Erwin 11:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Previous nomination

  I have a feeling that this RFA is gonna be big Oran e (t) (c) (@) 00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Very Big indeed --JAranda | watz sup 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If the RFA ended now, it would already go into the Wikipedia Book of Nomination Records as one of the most supported RFAs. I have a feeling this is going to be huge. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Does anyone think it's interesting that Acetic Acid was 76/0/0, and after Klominus made the first oppose vote, three more quickly followed? Piling-on at a lesser scale, perhaps? (I know it doesn't matter unless another 15 people or so oppose, but it's interesting to note...) Ral315 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I noticed that as well, though I think it started with AngryParsley's fake oppose vote (see talk page). The same thing happened with NickBush24's nomination. Acetic'^Acid 19:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I plan on tackling vandalism via rollback and blocking. I haven't gone on RC Patrol or Newpage Patrol in a while, but I have caught a lot of vandalism on my watchlist (both user pages and articles). Also, since I welcome new users frequently, I'm familar with the New users log. I'll check for inappropriate usernames, imposters, etc. AfD closing won't be my biggest prioriety, but I will sort out the backlog if it becomes too congested. (By the way, I consider consensus to be 67% or higher on AfDs. Just over the 2/3 majority.)

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

A. Unfortunately, article writing is not my fortè. But I have tried my hand at it. I've written a stub or two (see Twisted Desire) and what I like to call, glorified stubs (see vitaminwater). Most of my article edits have been vandalism reverts or minor edits.

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. My biggest cause of stress was the RfC I filed against Erwin Walsh. When I was more active on AfD, I noticed Erwin making rude comments during his AfD nominations. After noticing other users were having problems with him, I decided to take my chances and file a Request for Comment. It stayed open for two months or so. I asked to have it closed and archived after noticing a decline in Erwin's activity. I also saw his behavior improving, so I didn't think it was necessary anymore. (See the RfC and its corresponding talk page for more information). I noticed Erwin about closing the RfC. I think it's safe to say that we're both happy this is over. (See our comments on his talk page).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

---

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

[edit] Tony1

Final (39/25/7) ending 23:16 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk • contribs • count) – Tony1 has been here since July 14, 2005. Three month threshold? Check. He has 2100 edits, so you editcountitus sufferers should be happy. He has 842 article edits, making him an asset to the wiki. He has 433 Talk: and 230 User talk: edits, so we know he interacts a lot, and he has 430 Wikipedia edits, so he's on the admin side of things too. He's always friendly and asks for help when he needs it, and will be bold when he knows what he's doing. I'll bet my reputation he'll make a great admin :) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I accept. Tony 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme How-Dare-You vote before the nominator support. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Super strong omgwtfbbq lollergazm support. Absolutely. Linuxbeak | Talk 02:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support: Genuinely attempts to improve WP articles, and I like his attitude of attaining "featured article" status as his goal. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support! Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support -- Essjay · Talk 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Support, he is a professional editor, and his contributions on FAC are indispensable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

7. Support --Kefalonia 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Though it seems a bit more edit summaries would be nice. The Minister of War 10:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Not fair! Not fair! Redwolf... arrrgh!!! I wanted to nominate Tony myself. User:Nichalp/sg 10:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry, I welcomed him, and I knew I was gonna nominate him around the time he got his 1000th edit :P So I saw him first =P Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

10. Support -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 11:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. I have been impressed by Tony's handling of a dispute at United States. I think he would make a fine admin. android79 12:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support A good lad, he'll go far--Xiphon 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support. Impressive contributions, and one of the most capable copyeditors on the site. He's likely to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC) No longer support. Oh well, I was wrong. 23:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

13. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. FAC work indicates a commitment to the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole. Chick Bowen 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support. Impressed with work at WP:FAC. Jkelly 19:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

15. Support, I have no reservations. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support, without a doubt. Tony´s a hard working and talented user, well rounded and serious. I'm positive we will all benefit by handing him the mop. Shauri smile! 09:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC) I'm truly sorry, but I must change my vote in the light of the latest events (see below)

17. Support Wiki needs more comma's. Dlyons493 Talk 10:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support Although I wouldn't usually support a candidate with less than 6 months on the Wiki, I know Tony to be a trustworthy contributor. And I must say, I am very impressed with his efforts to improve article quality, and, in particular, his work at FAC. I had been intending to commend him privately, but I'll take the opportunity to do so now. So, good work! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Now neutral.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

18. Most certainly yes. Tony1 truly deserves being called an 'editor'; I've been impressed ever since he helped the wikidocs get Asthma featured. Does fabulous work—this guy is one of Wp's best copyeditors, and I think he saves a lot of our work from being painful embarrassments. Very good manner, good dispute resolution skills; X factor. Furthermore, in David Gerard's immortal words, "is not stupid or insane"; I'm sure that he'll take the trouble to learn up on those areas he's not currently familiar with before using any special buttons. Gets my strong support. encephalon 14:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Johann Wolfgang 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Support Molotov (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
21. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Sounds like a guy who does fabulous work :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Strong support for the Featured Guy! -- Svest 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

    Support, always seems very helpful about the place. I would like to know: when you replied to jossi below, you were smiling, right? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (Changed to neutral --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

    Strong Support. Tony's absolutely invaluable at FAC, and therefore (in my opinion at least) to Wikipedia as a whole. He has also shown real calm-headedness in the face of some ugly disagreements. Updated 03:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC): Still support, but Tony's difficult-to-understand response to Bishonen's questions in the comments section has given me some pause. I was a participant in the Sicilian Baroque FAC debate, and agreed 100% with Tony regarding what he said there, so that didn't worry me, but I expected a clearer response in the face of the question. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)I have to oppose now. I wish I didn't. See Comments in oppose section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Support. El_C 03:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC) — Withdrawn until I can review a response to the concerns voiced by the opposition El_C 05:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

24. Just Came Back from Hurricane Wilma Support Sure --JAranda | watz sup 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Support of course. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Good contrib's across namespaces, as nominator notes. No problems with this user. Marskell 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support--nixie 23:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support --Allen3 ^talk 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Musician?? Well, support of course! :) Really, everything looks good for this editor. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) No vote. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 15:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

30. Support. The more prose-watchers we have on pedestals, the better WP becomes. PacknCanes | say something! 04:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Support — Wackymacs 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support -- Tony has been helpful and courteous, and has a valuable contribution to make --dave souza 13:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. On articles I've worked at the same time as Tony, he has always explained his changes in edit comments and consulted on talk pages before making significant changes. Both important aspects many editors seem to ignore. (voting late to redress an earlier deliberate abstain - Tony doesn't deserve the dumping he's getting further down this page). --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. No brainer. His work on FAC has been indispensable, and I really like the fact that he explains even minor copy edits, often without being asked. We can all learn something from this user. Give the man those admin buttons. --BrianSmithson 14:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 20:00
36. Support; Tony is excellent at what he does, and therefore asserts himself with confidence, which others can construe as impertinence or aggresion. A little more forebearance on his part might be beneficial, but this is a good editor with the project's best interests in mind. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Seems like a nice & capable editor... So I'll support. Spawn Man 01:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Strong Support, and through this support express my STRONG OPPOSITION to the Trial by ordeal the Rfa process seems to be degenerating into. This is how we lose so many excellent, talented and thoughtful contributors. Are none of us entitled to express our strong opinions without running the risk of incurring a personal, political pile on?! Do we not have the right to defend ourselves when we feel we are under unfair attack?! Can we not even be bothered to FORGIVE some percieved slight?! Or to extend to our colleagues the benefit of the doubt rather than to doubt their benefits?! If one of my dear friends were to nominate me today, I would DECLINE rather than face running such a disgraceful gauntlet as that which unfolds below. I wonder how many of YOU would fare facing such a barrage of negativity. Would you be able to sit quietly and smile, while your honor, your integrity, your personal charachter is being smeared in the mud? I think those who would DO NOT deserve to be admins. Those are the very ones who merely want some small crumb of status/reward/power/influence. Who will use their position as a personal TOY rather than a TOOL to make our encycleopedia and community better. Tony, you may not win the vote this time, but you've kept your honor though you may have lost your temper, and you have my respect, Sir!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Unfortunetely, it is very easy to troll around RfA's giving no votes with slanderous/innacurate statements/no explaination expecting the candidate to get irritated and defend him/herself and then get more oppose votes for his/her response. Still though, it a test of maturity.

    Speaking of "slanderous/innacurate statements/no explaination", on my RfA, one user said that I only made minor edits to a few article, even though I made major edits to (and created a few) dozens of articles, and other notable edits to another 230, and random minor edits(spelling/syntax to more articles). I made a very civil, neutral reponse, and he off course did not respond, but at least I didn't get angry. I did get 2 oppose votes for talking about Boothy443 on two user pages, so apparently I was not calm enough about that though.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 19:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, it's a medieval trial without any of the basic protection that all participants would receive in a modern court of law. I knew nothing about this process of personal attack beforehand, and Jimbo's 'no big deal' now looks plain wrong. It's turned me from loyal and hard-working to hating. And it's made me so ill that I can't work. It's SO at odds with the NPOV policy. Tony 20:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

39. Support. Tony is a great copyeditor who has helped me with several articles that I have been working on. From my personal experience, I have not had any unpleasant interactions with him. Pentawing 20:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeak Oppose, just doesn't seem right to me. I don't know, I just feel as though this person isn't ready, more time I feel is needed. Atleast another month or so. Private Butcher 20:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Weee...eeak Oppose II. Try again in a few months and you'll pass by a landslide. (vote by User:Kookykman)

   Thanks for the thought, but I think it's very plain from what I've written elsewhere here that I'm not at all interested. Tony 21:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Can be quite difficult to work with on occasion and shows a general unfamiliarity with some elements of policy. I can see him making a good admin in the future, but he's just not ready yet; see below for some reasons why. Ambi 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose. At first I couched my doubts about Tony's readiness for adminship as a comment rather than an oppose, see below, to give him a chance to modify or distance himself from the tantrum I linked to, [3] but he emphasizes that he stands by every word. OK. Other things too about his response make me dubious about adminship at the present time. I'm sorry, I've never opposed an RFA before (that I can remember), but the way Tony dismisses my concern and refuses the information I ask for makes me wonder how he'll treat people who challenge him when/if he's an admin. I may well support at a later date, but I'd just like to see a little more absorption of the best sides of wikiculture first. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   You have opposed adminship at least twice before, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harro5 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   You actually went through and researched her oppose votes? What's the interest? Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Not really, I just remember some of the failed RFAs which I supported, and some of the people who opposed them. Apart from me disagreeing with the two opposes, I don't think there was anything wrong with either of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose: Possibly by Tony's supporters I am seen as the villain of the piece, which is why I have hesitated before voting. Let it be quite clear I do not oppose because his wild threats here [4] have been acted on anonymously here [5] I'm sure he would not be so stupid as to act anonymously, even if his behaviour inspires such actions in others. However, his behaviour does concern me. I was not too lazy, as he suggests, to integrate his changes, I had just spent nearly a full day attempting to do so, before deciding I just didn't like them. This is the crux of my objection oppose his views and see what happens. At best, it seems to me, his behaviour generally borders on the bombastic. Doubtless he has talents, but at the moment I feel it would not be wise for him to have powers, which could possibly be misused if he is crossed. Besides which he seems to attempt to run the FA page quite well without them. Giano | talk 09:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Does his "bombastic" behaviour extend beyond just this one situation in which grudges were formed? If so, I would reconsider my own vote. I've had my own quibbles with Tony in the past over style, but I am very confident that he would never misuse admin capabilities.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   I only speak of my own experience and that which is on the FAC page. In his reply to question 3 he lists two cases both unresolved which seem to have similarities to my experience, an editor walks out (I did that), and another accuses him of introducing inaccuracies, but that was medical, so architecture is less important, no one is going to die from confusing a staircase with a wall (well I suppose the could), but I felt he wanted to alter the balance, quality, and emphasis,of the page so perhaps there are similarities there. You must decide that for yourself. I have not stalked his edits, so really you'll have to form your own opinion, as to if he is bombastic, I certainly felt he was. Giano | talk 10:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   I hope you didn't feel I was attacking your vote. I respect your opinion. I was just hoping you might have been able to offer more information on the behaviour you think is inappropriate for an admin. I know Tony is fairly adament in his views on style (as am I, I suppose), but I haven't personally witnessed anything that might be described as "bombastic". I asked only because the objections have made me feel uncomfortable with my support, and I'm now leaning more towards neutrality - even though I congratulate Tony's efforts. I wanted to know, basically, if you think he is persistently "bombastic". Thank you anyway, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Side note: the FARC in question has been speedy-removed. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Yeah, I can't say I'm so confident that he won't throw a tantrum again while the editing is hot. Can't trust the admin powers to him; sorry. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Errrr. This really doesn't feel good - my gut says to vote yes, because he's a good editor, but my brain says to vote oppose, because he has a bit too much trouble with other editors. And my brain is the one that votes. Maybe if he can get through another three months without substantial conflict? DS 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I am not happy with what I see here. Editors who cannot handle conflict well are not admin candidates, and I am not even pleased with the way that Tony has handled the conflict of this RfA itself, let alone the conflicts he's been in over on FAC/FARC. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose without prejudice. Tony1 is a good editor and a valuable part of FAC, but I'm concerned about 1) time on project and edits in multiple spots so that we can see how he handles those who disagree, 2) a passion for correcting things that might override the need to be courteous and considerate. Much of the time, Tony1's criticisms of mistakes are legitimate, and some of the time they are preferences; such is the case with all of us. What worries me is that he doesn't allow enough for differences of opinion, for the legitimacy of others' views. None of this is to cast any doubts whatever about Tony1's value to the project. He's a first class contributor and editor, but I'm concerned that we don't yet know enough to assess what he'd do in a case of belligerant edits and serious differences of opinion. Geogre 18:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
10. I realize that both this and the featured article process can be stressful, but tantrums are not acceptable. With some more time and an opportunity to cool off, I trust that Tony1 will be able to earn my trust in the future. --Michael Snow 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    Response: My response to Kelly Martin and others is that I do handle conflict well (and more broadly, personal politics), and avoid bothas far as possible. However, when I come under sustained attack that I think is unfair, by numerous people, I will defend myself.

    This process is the first time that has happened to me on WP, and I haven't been able to withdraw, as would be my first instinctive reaction elsewhere; here, I've had to stay and either endure attacks silently or respond to them; I've chosen the latter. Again, I must emphasise that, apart from the three instances that I originally listed below, I'm not known for being combative on WP; there doesn't seem to be any point to that stance in the normal run of things. So, Michael, it's not a matter of 'cooling off', although I'll be very grateful when this process has finished.

    I note that on this page, the strong personal language has emanated from other people, not from me, although I have asked once for the abusive language to stop. I'm only interested in critiquing articles and raising standards. I'm sorry if Kelly Martin regards my critiqueing on the FAC and FARC pages as tantrums; it's a surprising word to choose, which might have been picked up from an earlier critic here. I wonder how else the standard of FACs might be improved; some kind of oh-so-polite, passive technique, or the short, unsupported, laudatory statements I see continually on the FAC page will not do that. If putting my own case, and if delivering a strong critique of an article, are 'outbursts of petulance', then the cause of WP is utterly lost - it will languish in mediocrity, and we're kidding ourselves. I ask reviewers themselves to see the issue in the cold light of day, and consider the comments of the supporters above with respect to my handling of tension on WP. They saw me function in situations where I was not under sustained group attack. (I note at least one instance in which Giano has been issuing congratulations on the talk page of an oppose vote: 'brilliant', I think the word was. He is clearly very upset at having his writing criticised. I'm sorry about that; I was trying to make his writing good, and the benefit would have been his. As it is, the FA is an embarrassment.) Tony 00:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Tony1, you're not helping yourself with this. You may not be the only one at fault here, but you are the only one up for adminship. As for strong personal language, calling Giano lazy and now making comments about "huge egos" and "character assassination" might well qualify. -- Michael Snow 02:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    I'd like to point out that I did not use the word "tantrum" in my opposition. I don't know who that was, but I would consider the use of such language an inappropriate personal attack. I would encourage Tony1 to be more careful about the accusation he bandies about; this "error" reinforces my opposition to his candidacy. Admins should be careful and slow to act, and should avoid careless errors whenever possible. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Dear Kelly:

    (1) please accept my apologies - my mistake;

    (2) Sorry to be brusque, but I just don't care about your opposition, not one smidgeon, nor anyone else's - the idea of banning people, deleting pages and patrolling for vandalism is most unappealling to me, and always has been. You see, I just abhor that kind of personal conflict; I only care about language. It was my unfamiliarity with the issues surrounding sysops' role and status that led to my accepting the kind nomination (and JW's 'it's no big deal' statement). Frankly, I'd be a poor sysop because I'm just not interested in that side. I couldn't care less about the vote; what concerns me now is the unfettered personal attacks and inappropriate judgements, and what I see as a flawed process. So, seeing the 'no' votes grow is kind of ... comforting, and is not the cause of my grief. OK?

    (3) Thanks for pointing out that 'tantrum', as used by quite a number of contributors here, is an 'inappropriate personal attack'.

    BTW, Redwolf probably feels awkward about this mess, but he shouldn't: he's a superb WPian, in my view, and was acting in good faith in nominating me. ... added at 04:22/04:38, 30 October 2005 by Tony1

11. Oppose. Would like to see activity in vandalfighting, dispute resolution or other admin-related areas before supporting. If Tony1 wants to stick to editing and FACs - which is certainly valuable! - he doesn't need the mop & bucket. Also, being an admin makes it more likely that one will be "attacked" in various ways, which seems like a problem. Finally, I don't understand Tony1's explanation of why he cannot provide diffs or even article names for the conflicts he mentions in Question 3. Everything in Wikipedia is public, so there is no privacy issue, but if we don't know what article we're looking for, combing through months of his contribs is pointless. FreplySpang (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Err.. Those who "edit and and help in FAC process" are doing a job as valuable as vandal fighting. Once you gain adminship, you get a whole lot of new tools. That does not mean that you have to necessarily track and hunt down vandals all the time. For instance, an editor seeking adminship can also access main page sections, a privilege that may be useless to a person on vandalism patrol. User:Nichalp/sg 10:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, that's why I said that editing and FACs are valuable. No, of course becoming an admin doesn't commit you to constant RC patrol. But in Q1, Tony basically said that he intends to keep doing the same valuable things that he has been doing without admin powers. FreplySpang (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

12. Week oppose. per many of the reasons above. Still needs a little more time and more edits. BlankVerse ∅ 03:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose and ask that you reconsider quitting the project when this RfA closes. I believe your contributions to FAC are valuable, just adminship isn't right for you right now. Borisblue 08:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Now that's a funny one: "oppose and, oh, please don't go, we need you". You've got a nerve, man, asking me to stay after this appalling process; why would I continue to be extremely generous with my time and skills in a system that puts my perceived character, maturity, and personality on trial, very publicly? This is a hopelessly flawed process that allows people to subsequently change their vote on the basis of other people's POV, and that has no guidelines on the scope and tone of comments. Tittle-tattle, POV, measured comments all in the wash, with or without justification. It's so contrary to the ethic of Wikipedia articles. All to receive a bucket and mop? It's way out of proportion, and here, has ended up being just plain destructive. Tony 09:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    "Why would I continue to be extremely generous with my time and skills....". Because, Tony, adminship is no big deal. You don't to be an admin to edit, and to leave because you don't become one would extend credence to your critics. You do great work, but you're not quite experienced enough for the responsibilities of an admin. Admittedly, there has been much un-necessary exaggeration here. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    At this stage, Cyberjunkie, changes of vote - this herd mentality in response to other POVs - are feeling like additional insults to the 'much unnecessary exaggeration'; don't you think it's just a little petty to change your vote at this stage? I'm really surprised that you'd bother. I haven't cared for some days about becoming an admin; it's become more personal than that. I've just sat back and watched this medieval trial process unfold without any mechanism for protecting me against distortion, misrepresentation and slander. And I've watched the herd instinct in action. I was totally unprepared for the character assassination, and had known that this would happen, there's no way I'd have agreed to the nomination.

    Before I leave, I'll be making a strongly worded official complaint about the RfA process. Maybe it's often OK, but here it has gone VERY wrong, and has, IMV, seriously failed to produce a balanced view. The irony is that without this trial, I'd be happily beavering away helping to improve articles and enjoying interacting with other Wikipedians, probably for the long term. But in just a few days, WP has turned from highly productive fun to utter misery for me; this process has succeeded in destroying a valuable Wikipedian. No doubt, Giano, Hoary and Bishonin, whatever she calls herself, will take delight at this; but it's very bad for WP. Having been very loyal, I now hate WP with a vengeance. It's all very sad. Tony 10:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    You have been welcome to withdraw your acceptance of this nomination at all times, and given your feelings, you should perhaps do so. I am sorry you felt insulted by my change to neutral - I did not mean to offend. I still hold you in high regard, but found your comments quite un-becoming for a potential administrator. I put this down to a general lack of experience, which is fine, given your short time here. After few more months, I would be more inclined to support. As for your disgruntlements about the RfA process, you are welcome to comment and make suggestions on the process at the talk page. I hope you don't decide to leave us, but that is a decision entirely for yourself. However, a good WikiBreak goes a long way to put things in perspective, so you might like to consider that instead. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

14. Oppose not ready quite yet, Tony please dont take everything as a personal attack. Hell i've failed 2 RFA's myself.  ALKIVAR™ 10:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, I am offended, Cyberjunkie; it would have been better not to have voted in the first place if there was any chance of your being swayed by the goings on here. Wasn't your initial judgement good enough? Under the circumstances, injecting yet more negativity when I'm clearly at the end of the line ... despite your kind words, is just another dig. Alkivar, thanks too for your supporting words, but the vote changing is not appreciated.

    These comments that include 'not quite there yet' appear to assume that I'd hang around and put myself through another round of abuse. If you care at all, in my memory, why don't you lobby to do something about this appalling process. For a start, the herd mentality needs to be eliminated: it has the advantage of being transparent, but in its current unfettered form, carries too many dangers of snowballing, distortion, and offence. I do not appreciate attacks en masse. The first vote should be properly researched and fixed for good. Second, I think there's a need for more confidentiality to safeguard the privacy of the nominee and the reviewers. Thus, a greater role is required for a bureaucrat in sifting through the confidential information. Casting all opinions into the main square is a frightful way to do it. If Alkivar has had two traumatic experiences already, that's suggesting a change is urgently needed.

    I am so traumatised by this experience that I never want to have anything to do with Wikipedia again. Now I just need to find someone who'll trash my user page and image, which I regard as private, especially now. This is proving difficult. Tony 13:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    vote changing? I had not yet decided to vote, I posted on your talk page then RE-READ the posts here before deciding where to stand on this RFA.  ALKIVAR™ 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    You are taking this waay too hard. Not being elected admin doesn't mean that the community or the project hates you. Are you sure you want to be one then, if you can't deal with the stress here? Some admins get their user pages vandalized God-knows-how-many-times by POV warriors. Borisblue 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    My god man, quit reacting and read some of the criticism posted here with an open mind. No one is saying you are incapable of becoming an admin, merely that your taking criticism of your past actions way to seriously.  ALKIVAR™ 14:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Maybe I don't quite understand the process of RfA, but what is the problem? There are 38 votes for support, and only 13 for oppose. Doesn't this mean that you will become an administrator? — Wackymacs 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Wacky it generally requires a 70% or better percentage for approval... 13/38 = ~34% oppose. If he recieves no further oppose votes he still needs to gain 5 more supports to pass the minimum. (Assuming my math is correct)  ALKIVAR™ 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    I see, thanks for clarifying that for me. I am sure he will get a lot more support votes, its already climbed to 39 since I posted my question here. The RfA also has two more days to go, I'm sure he'll make it easily. By any chance he should, Tony deserves it. — Wackymacs 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Leaving aside my own vote, and your feelings about it, I'll re-iterate what I said above: If this process is insufferable for you, then you should consider withdrawing. If you intend to leave regardless of the result, then there is no point in allowing it to continue. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

15. Reluctant oppose. From the endorsements above and what I've seen personally, Tony's clearly a great editor, and normally would be exactly the kind of person we need on the project. At the same time, I feel I have to vote oppose to anyone adds to their RfA that "I now hate WP with a vengeance." This statement's understandable; the candidate's been provoked and feels under serious pressure. At the same time, though, can we really give the admin buttons to somebody who currently hates the project? I'd join Cyberjunkie in urging Tony to withdraw his nomination until he's feeling better about things. He's clearly future admin material, just needs a little cooling off and a few cold ones. -- Dvyost 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose - in complete agreement with Dvyost. I'm also afraid that Tony's little display here does indicate that he's not ready for adminship either. "Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others"... Kel-nage 15:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, and I certainly do not want him to leave the project, but the above interactions show this user is not ready at this time. Jonathunder 16:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Strongly oppose. The outbursts in green above are thoroughly unbecoming of an admin, and the sentence somewhere below about "I hate conflict" just isn't going to make things work when the vandals and so on descend upon you. Then, when you face your first disagreement on AN/I, things will spiral out of control quickly. Anyone who threatens to leave WP over the outcome of an RfA simply isn't level-headed and cool-enough under fire to be an admin. Try again in a few more months if you can round off the rough edges. - Splash^talk 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose I am concerned with what he say in his answers in green. He sure seems to be a good contributor, but he must learn that good contribution alone(even though very important) is not the only skill that takes to be an Admin, and that those that opposes him do not put his perceived character, maturity, and personality on trial. Fadix 19:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    'Try again'? 'Not quite ready?' Dudes, did you read what I said above??

    I'll post the message that this Giano person has just put on my page:

    I've so far ignored your comments and lies about me, but when I saw this comment of yours I laughed out loud, [6], you really are just a kid in a play ground, if that's how you control your own group, I pray you never get any control here. I'm pasting this comment here so I'm not accused of trying to sway the "herd" instinct, bit unfair that term - not a ploy recommended to win them round really is it?

    On a far more important note, I'm taking with me two beautiful, full-track recordings that I'd arranged copyright release for. More were on the way. The owner of the recording company, a friend of mine, has announced that he has withdrawn permission for their use, and will sue WP unless they are removed immediately; he is serious. So I'll remove them now from the article on JS Bach that I've been putting a lot of work into. Someone else can disentangle the text in which they were nicely embedded. Tony 20:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Comment: On the general view (I'm not going into this particular sound file), but once you release something to Wikipedia, isn't it licensed under the GFDL unless stated otherwise and cannot be retracted? Once permission is given to anything, can it then be retracted? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    A release under the GFDL is irrevocable. If they have already been released, then making legal threats is pointless since the lawyers wouldn't defend them. And of course, if Tony1 continues with such legal threats, he is likely to be blocked from editing until they are resolved. -Splash^talk 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Before anybody worries too much, it may be a good idea to check with the owner of the recording company first, and check his views, presumably he has email. Giano | talk 21:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Ah, read my text properly please, Splash. You're misrepresenting me just as others have on this page all too frequently. So practise a little level-headedness and coolness yourself, and shave off some of your own rough edges. Again, these highly personal comments are offensive now.

    It's not my legal threat. The problem is that I have the original email, and the files were wrongly tagged in the first place on the basis of that text. So it's not a matter of releasing and subsequently not being able to withdraw. There's no proof of release. If you eventually work out how to contact him (pretty difficult, I'd say), you won't get a very good hearing, I'm afraid. Just remember that these are taken from commercial CDs that are currently on sale. And as for blocking me, well, do you really think I care? The nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier. Tony 23:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

20. Oppose. This is painful. If we could go back in time and never nominate Tony1, we'd all be a lot better off. If we had something else we could nominate him for, like "outstanding and important contributer", we should have. Unfortunately, this RFA still has to be dealt with. And I have to change my vote based entirely on Tony1's edits to this RFA. This isn't "petty", it's responding to new data. Tony is showing a compliete inability to deal calmly with controversy, but worse, is interpreting virtually every negative comment as a personal attack. Viewing anybody's comments here as a personal attack seems like a heck of a stretch to me. This isn't admin temperment. — Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    specifically which comment? I merely saw this side before the rest of you, or was at least the first to mention ii publicly. Giano | talk 21:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    Bunchofgrapes, yes, it's a fiasco, isn't it. I'm quite capable of taking on any demeanour that is required. But it's gone past that. At this stage, comments about my temperament are offensive to me, intrusive, and a violation of my privacy. It would have been better just to have changed your vote. A procedure that encourages unmoderated public comments of a personal nature is badly flawed.

    However, I appreciate the good intentions behind much of your statement; thank you for that. Tony 23:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

21. Oppose would have been willing to support but for Tony's behaviour on this RfA ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 23:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Oppose. A look through his list of contributions shows that Tony has been an excellent editor. Admin status is self-evidently not required for this. It is required for such matters as the dispassionate application of rules. And for that, you need to demonstrate a certain coolness (perhaps even humor) when under stress, in addition of course to a pretty good understanding of what the rules are or at least an awareness that the rules might not be obvious and might need looking up. I don't see this demonstrated in the green text above. I don't think it's necessary to show this with examples, but if Tony insists, I'll reluctantly do this. However, two things that Tony writes in one of his edits (which, as I write, still stands) merit quick and simple response. He says: But in just a few days, WP has turned from highly productive fun to utter misery for me; this process has succeeded in destroying a valuable Wikipedian. No doubt, Giano, Hoary and Bishonin, whatever she calls herself, will take delight at this; but it's very bad for WP. Having been very loyal, I now hate WP with a vengeance. (1) No, I take no delight in any aspect of this RfA or Tony's described or promised reactions to it. (2) I'm not going to entrust the administrative mop, broom and kryptonite to anybody who says he or she "hate[s] WP with a vengeance". And lastly, I second Cyberjunkie's suggestion above, and hope that Tony rereads it and reconsiders it. -- Hoary 02:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Oppose, after viewing edits here at this RfA. Frustration over Sicilian baroque seemed entirely appropriate to me. The above doesn't. Jkelly 02:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Changing again, per: "The nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier," along with the other complete overeactions exhibited. Sorry, Oppose. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    You think I care, Jeffrey? Tony 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

25. It is with regret that I oppose this nomination. I'm very sorry Tony but your comments on this very RfA are not up to admin standard. I do hope that you continue with this great project and I can support your nomination at a later stage. - Ianblair23 (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

    You are kidding if you think I'd submit to this abuse again. And try to think of a less offensive way of justifying your decision that just 'not up to standard'. I have very high standards. I find the apology patronising. Tony 09:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. I would want to know more about what sysop chores Tony1 will be inclined to contribute to. To correct prose, one does not need to be a sysop. Question: Is Tony1 willing to pick up the mop and bucket, or not? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   I answer your question with this one: Will having another potential janitor on staff harm the wiki, if he's proved he's to be trusted? I'm sure I'm not the only one who never expected to get too deeply into adminship, but proved himself wrong. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   Jossi: Did you see the last sentence in my response to the first question? :-) Tony 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral withdrawing my support, but still enough goodwill left over to prevent me voting oppose. Tony's little tantrum on that linked FAC, and his reaction to the opinions proferred by User:Bishonen and User:Giano on this very RfA, do not inspire confidence. I'm aware that Giano threw his tantrum first, but it's my understanding that admins have to deal with that sort of thing a lot, and I'm no longer sure that Tony will deal with it properly when it happens. -- fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Tony does fine work as an editor, but I can't support for adminship, on a closer look at the below comments. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral: I stand by my earlier comments, but I can no longer support. It's clear that Tony isn't quite ready for adminship - three months is too short an experience, it would seem. I would support in a few months.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral Your responses on this very RFA do not inspire confidence. Perhaps you should have a few more months of experience to redeem yourself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

   Vote changed to Neutral based on this RfA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Changed to Neutral. I am extremely sorry that it has come to this, Tony. I really apreciatte your work, and we've had the chance to collaborate in a highly constructive way in the past, which makes all this the more painful. Just like you, I had a rough time at my own RfA, so I understand the Wikistress you must be going through right now. However, this has gone too far, and I saddens me a lot to see you in this state of mind, understandable as it may be. I am very disheartened by your last phrase, "the nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier". I hope you stay with us and reapply in a while, and rest assured you'll eventually get to admin; but these outbursts and threats are more than I can take from anyone, Tony. This is truly difficult and painful, and I'm sorry, but for now, I cannot support you anymore. Shauri smile! 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, as I've said above, I couldn't care less about no votes; that was a concern at the start of this hideous process, but now the noes are comforting. Someone find Cyberjunkie and tell him to change his 'neutral' to a 'no'. Sorry that it causes you difficulty and pain. ... added at 05:00, 30 October 2005 by Tony1

7. Strong Decline. Your attitude is not up to admin standards. Unfortunately, your over-sensitivity to oppose votes is not something I would look for from someone who is looking for the power to delete pages and ban users at will. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)

Comments

1. In your answer to the first of the generic questions for the candidate, you cite a particular Guardian article as support for your view that the quality of its prose is WP's weakest aspect. The comment within that Guardian article about Bob Dylan (as it then was) does indeed support you. As a whole, however, I don't think the articles says what you appear to claim it says: the contributors seem more worried about inaccuracies, glaring omissions, etc. Are you confusing this Guardian article with another? -- Hoary 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Response: That was the intended citation. Of the six WP articles briefly reviewed, problems that clearly fall within the ambit of copyediting were at issue in five.

   Dylan (“some of the writing might piss people off”).

   Steve Reich, from which a real bomb of a sentence was quoted: “’Reich is popularly regarded as repetitive and minimalist, but in some works deviates from a purely minimalist style, which shows some connection to Minimalism and the work of Reich's visual artist friends such as Sol Lewitt and Richard Serra.' Run that past me again?”

   Haute cuisine (“inaccurate and unclear”).

   Samuel Pepys, (prominent name misspelt, and lame conclusion).

   And

   Encyclopedia, from which these years were quoted: “175 [sic] to 1772”. I've had a look at these articles, and they need from light to heavy editing.

   Thanks for raising this issue. One of our valued contributors to the Composer's Project has already volunteered to rewrite the article on Reich. Tony 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   Judgements in the Guardian article of . . . Bob Dylan: I conceded at the start that you were right about that. Steve Reich: partial and inadequate as well as poorly written. Haute couture: the lack of clarity seems to be less a matter of style than of content. Samuel Pepys: inaccuracies and omissions rather than misspellings (the misspelling is something that would only be caught by a historian or particularly diligent copyeditor). Lame ending, yes: it could be improved as a matter of style. (An interesting allegation is And it is poor on the diary itself. There is no appreciation of its literary merits. [.... The ending] is hardly a worthy summary of the literary merits of one of our great literary works. Unfortunately or otherwise, any attempt to fix that would risk the charge of inserting PoV.) But look, this is a minor issue in the article, whose very title is "Can you trust Wikipedia?" and in which -- as I read it -- reliability is the main issue. You are of course free to argue that its prose is WP's weakest aspect, and you're right to say that poor prose is discussed in the Guardian article. However, if you were suggesting that the article agreed with you that prose is WP's weakest aspect, I must disagree with you. Further, I'd say that in potential conflicts between a desire for accuracy and a desire for readability, accuracy should be given priority: near-incomprehensibility can be dealt with by a reader (if only by rejection of the article and recourse to Britannica or whatever), while well-intentioned but mistaken "correction" of rocky prose can be harder to detect. -- Hoary 03:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Sure, accuracy is more important than readability, and you're right, their title suggests that accuracy was their point of departure and main overall concern was accuracy. However, prose is a much bigger problem in the sense that it occupies more space than the inaccuracies within it; I guess that looms large to me, as someone who passionately believes that WP should be accurate and that its prose should be smooth, easy, seemless (even beautiful, sometimes) to read. It's a jungle out there on the Internet, and WP needs to have high standards with respect to both aspects if it's to be authoritative.

   I think we're basically in agreement, don't you? Tony 05:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes. I agree completely with much of your last comment, and what I don't completely agree with seems very reasonable. Thank you. -- Hoary 10:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Your snide comment utterly rejected. Tony 19:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Tony, could you please supply some diffs for the interactions you mention in your response to question 3, so we can see them more directly? (Diffs, please, as opposed to subsection links of the kind you provide elsewhere, since those don't work. If you right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location", you get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post.) In the recent Sicilian Baroque disagreement between you and Giano on FAC, you're IMO rather quick to be territorial about your stylistic edits, and to attack. In this retort—posted in installments—there's even a pre-emptive threat to list the article on FARC—Featured article removal canditates—if it should become Featured without your assistance, and several other statements that I think short on civility and forbearance. Even under some provocation, an admin should treat other contributors respectfully, and try to see their side of things. (Here's the post from Giano you were responding to). But I should disclose that I have a bias here, as the nominator of the article, so perhaps I'm blowing a single instance out of proportion; I hope others will take a look for themselves. I can tell from the Support votes above that you're a very fine editor and much appreciated by the community, especially for your FAC work; this is not about that, but a query about your demeanour in disagreement. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I think it's inappropriate to respond fully to your 'biased' query, as you put it, and yes, you may be blowing it 'out of proportion'. I stand by my reponse, linked above, unfairly I think, as 'retort'; I stand by every word I said there, and I think that you've misrepresented my stance ('without your assistance' - that's not what I said; my concern is the quality of the product, paraded as one of WP's best). With respect to 'diffing', there's a privacy issue involved with one person (the last-mentioned), and the second-mentioned is above in the list of supporters; in any case, everything I do is recoverable from my 'contributions'. If 'taking the mop' involves being taken advantage of in these circumstances, as I think you are doing, it's not worth it. I note that 'Hoary', who wrote the first query above, did not announce the fact that he cowrote the article in question. BTW, thanks for pointing out the diffing process, and the fact that the section links may be problem (they work on my computer) - I'll look into it. Tony 23:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   (Edit conflict, you sure do edit incrementally) I'm not sure I understand. You invite me to "recover" an interchange about an unnamed medical article, some time in the past three months, from your contributions? Is that it? Bishonen | talk 00:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   You say: I note that 'Hoary', who wrote the first query above, did not announce the fact that he cowrote the article in question. I'm puzzled. My query was about your answer to the first "generic" question below, and more specifically about your characterization of an article in the (London/Manchester) Guardian. I didn't write any part of either that or Bob Dylan, which I mentioned. I have been making very small contributions to Sicilian Baroque, which Bishonen refers to, but I didn't mention that article, whose relevance to my question was only tangential. -- Hoary 00:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   Fair enough Tony 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

   That was it for me, then? OK, I'm afraid I'm ready to oppose. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC

   Yep, that's it for you. Tony 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

   This series of comments and Bishonen's diff have left me somewhat non-plussed. Disagreements—strong ones, stated strongly—are regrettable; they are especially painful to see when they occur among colleagues liked and admired. My appreciation and regard for Tony are clear; no less, I've often felt that Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Filioct and some other editors who do a lot of work on literary and classical themes are, very simply, a gift to WP, so beautiful are their creations.

   Looking at the Sicilian Baroque FAC page, it appears that in the heat of the intense editing that so often accompanies FA candidacies, tempers were frayed and patience lost. Giano felt that the copy-editing had altered "the essence of the page", and reverted to the pre-FAC version. As this occured after a lot of editing by FAC page regulars, they understandably felt some frustration. However, while Giano could probably have been more constructive in pointing out which edits in particular were problematic, your reply, Tony, was not, in my very humble opinion, helpful. A more constructive approach might have been to determine what precisely were the problems, and move from there. Figure out why the other guy is upset first; don't say anything before that is understood—most especially if you're the admin. The expert is often able to see subtleties in meaning that are not immediately apparent to the non-expert; equally, the expert virtually always improves from input from those outside his field. Their collaboration improves articles, but will not occur in the face of angry remarks.

   I'm not going to change my vote, Tony, as I'm confident you'll make a sound admin—everything I've seen of you suggests this was a rare intemperance. However, I do hope you might reconsider Bishonen's question in #2. encephalon 04:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NEW STATEMENT BY TONY:

Encephalon, thanks for your support, and you're right, cool and calm is best; I hate conflict. However, since this process appears to have turned into a fiasco of snide attacks - even public character assassination - by users associated with the article Sicilian Baroque, I feel I must defend myself in relation to that article. Amazingly, it was promoted to FA status only a few days ago, with several comments about prose outstanding, among them, mine. No, I wasn’t the person to post it on FARC, since I know that can’t be done so soon, as Giano snidely acknowledges above (‘not so stupid as to’). I'd appreciate it if those people refrained from snide and insulting language, and, in the case of Bishonen, also misrepresenting what I have said.

I had written several flattering comments about the article on the FAC page, and because I wanted to see it promoted, I put considerable time and effort into fixing up what was appalling prose, inserting inline queries where I felt there were problems in the logical flow, and pointing out other problems that went beyond mere copyediting. I had worked on the first third, intending, slightly reluctantly given the size of the job at hand, to return to do the rest. Giano and I had a not unpleasant exchange on our talk pages, and it was clear that my efforts had triggered a flurry of activity on his part. The next day, I was gobsmacked to see that he had reverted my work with no specific explanation as to why, beyond that I had 'altered the essence' of the text. I seriously doubt that: almost all of my changes and comments were at the clause level. The first third IS now better than it was originally, despite the reversion, but still needs work to satisfy several FA criteria. The last two-thirds remains a significant problem.

Maybe my response was intemperate, but I was offended. I don't resile from my comment about FARC. Here are some examples of why this article should not be paraded as ‘exemplifying our very best work' (Criterion 1). Please note that they are merely a small sample, selected at random. Nearly every sentence in the article needs at least one change, and many need major surgery.

First, there’s POV (Criterion 2d). It’s clear that Giano is passionate about the subject, and a notable expert, but he gets carried away in places that diminish the authority of the article:

'However, much of the decay and ruinous state of preservation of so many palazzi must fall not just on owners unwilling to accept change, but the pollical [sic] agendas of successive socialist governments.'

The same goes for:

‘Any visiting foreigner, especially an Englishman, was regarded as a special trophy and added social prestige.’

Numerous statements are within his area of expertise, but make me a little uncomfortable for their sweeping assumptions. Here’s one:

'Church interiors, which until this date had been slightly pedestrian …'

I’m sure he can justify this, but while the statement might be OK in the context of an audio/visual presentation with supporting evidence, here it assumes too much. Another sentence exemplifying or detailing this assertion is required for the sake of credibility. As is, it's POV, and probably also fails Criterion 2c ('the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations').

Some statements are way out of line with an encyclopedic register, although they might be alright as a push in WikiTravel, e.g.,:

‘… today long shrouded salons and ballrooms are hosting corporate and public events. Some palazzi are offering a bed and breakfast service to paying guests, in this way once again providing impressive hospitality to visitors to Sicily,..’

‘The remaining members of the Sicilian aristocracy who still inhabit their ancestral palazzi have refrained from filling their gardens with wild animals to lure in the masses to view their homes (ironically unlike their English counterparts, who spurned Baroque as vulgar excess).’ Huh?

And here’s an odd mixture of hype and tourist brochure:

‘… its Corinthian columns supporting balconies of amazing wrought iron work, while supports of grotesques mock, shock or amuse the passer-by.’

The article fails miserably in terms of Criterion 2a (prose that is 'compelling, even brilliant'). There are conflicts of tense:

‘However, when a few years later the upper floor was added, the neoclassical French influence is very pronounced.’

And conflicts of number:

‘by the time they were completed Baroque has passed from fashion’

There are bumpety-bump commas that make the poor reader backtrack (I had to read it three times before I got it):

‘Revolts against the Bourbons in 1821, and 1848 divided the nobility, and liberalism was in the air.’

And no, we’re not talking about Bach’s Mass in B minor (I had provided a reasonable defining phrase for ‘Chiaroscuro’ at the top, but it now it’s mangled):

‘… providing Baroque masses of light and shade, or Chiaroscuro …’

Isn’t the style usually referred to as the Baroque, a key termin this topic?

‘As with all architectural styles, people eventually tired of Baroque. In some parts of Europe it metamorphosed into the rococo,’

Here’s a logical problem: why is an unbroken skyline unbaroque, or antithetical to the use of giant pilasters? It’s hard to work out the intended meaning:

‘The main facade, punctuated by giant pilasters, also had Baroque features, but the skyline was unbroken.’

The grammar is garbled:

‘Furniture … [was] … frequently with marble used for table tops … [and] … was transient within the house, frequently moved between rooms as required, while leaving other rooms unfurnished.

There are some long snakes that make the reader work very hard:

‘Vaccarini also exploited the local black lava stone as a decorative feature, rather than a general building material, using it intermittently with other materials, and spectacularly for an obelisk supported on the back of the Catanian heraldic elephant, for a fountain in the style of Bernini in front of the new Town hall.’

Yet amid this, the article contains just two or three beautiful sentences, such as:

‘Above the doorways and window apertures, pediments scroll and curve with a sense of freedom and movement which would have been unthinkable to those earlier architects inspired by Bernini and Borromini.’ Oh, give me more of that.

The article was unstable before, and has been since ('major chunk' I see in an edit summary today), which may touch on Criterion 2e (stability), and suggests that the promotion was hasty. I think Raul654 does a really good job, BTW, but on this occasion, I have to question his action.

Perhaps reviewers might now understand the intensity of work that I had put in, and was willing to continue investing to bring the article to FA standard, and (2) why the article should NOT have been promoted, and should eventually be listed as a FARC. I hope this puts into perspective some of the comments that have been bandied about on this page. Tony 14:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps others will now realise the weight of Tony's opinion bombing which befalls those who do not agree with it. This is the first time an article is promoted without Tony's input, whatever will happen when he has magical powers and it happens again, or will it never happen again? Even here any one who dares to express an opinion contrary to his own is making a " fiasco of snide attacks - even public character assassination" . I don't think there's much more I can say on the subject, people must form their own opinions. Giano | talk 15:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A few observations on the Sicilian Baroque debate, from someone who is also probably one of the harder nuts to crack over featured articles. Material written by experts sometimes appears superficially non-neutral, because they take for granted knowledge that the layperson lacks. In the arts especially, providing a critical perspective of various works is actually essential to understanding them and their context. Generally, asking for references is better than rewriting in such cases. And in reality, I think many of the points here should ultimately be resolved by referring the reader to other Wikipedia articles to understand where these insights come from. At present, however, those other articles are likely inadequate to the task. In any case, considerable damage to the insights in the text can result if people with insufficient knowledge try to bluntly "NPOV" everything. At some point, a little forbearance may be necessary for the fact that not all of Wikipedia is likely to be feature-quality simultaneously. --Michael Snow 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't vote often, I read this page regularly. This particular request for administraton reminds me of a couple of others which have failed in the past; I believe one of them was Private Butcher, the other a chap called Gordon Watts. In both cases the barrage of negative votes had a detrimental effect on the sum total of human happiness, although in the latter case it seemed as if the rest of us suffered more than Watts. But still. Is there a better way? I understand that adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but the process of applying for administrator status reminds me of the process of selecting the Mercury Seven; your edit history, your edit frequency, your liver, your seed, everything about you is laid bare, examined, personal grievances are brought to the fore, rection, betrayal etc. It feels bad to lose. Either there needs to be a much stronger disclaimer somewhere - "Be warned that your edit history will be subject to intense scrutiny, and rejection may cause offence - or perhaps a secret panel of trusted people could vote, in secret, behind closed doors, like a Golf club, although I understand <deadpan>that this solution may not be entirely compatible with Wikipedia's aims</deadpan>. As a postscript, I am sure that Tony1 will recover and return to Wikipedia, but all of the comments above will be used against him in the future unless he is appropriately penitent. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Durin has proposed writing a guide to warn potential nominees about the dangers of RfA, to be mandatorily read before they accept the nom. It can be found in WP:GRFA. Borisblue 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • At the end of this process, I'd like to offer just a little more evidence of how damaging it is to WP. In replying to one of the contributors here, I discovered on his/her talkpage the following two messages from antagonists on this page, who had clearly been perusing my own talkpage. It's sad to see that the bad blood over this process now reaches beyond this page to embroil third parties who are Wikifriends—yet more reason that dramatic reform of RfA is required. No one, incuding me, wants to see working relationships damaged because of RfA. I've removed references to the recipient; people can easily find who it is, if they can be bothered, but her/his identity doesn't seem to matter here. Tony 20:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

==Civility or lack thereof==

Hi. Is there any particular point where you think me lacking in civility and walking away]? Bishonen | talk 16:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

== Wikilove? ==

We've been friends since I fist came here, so I have to say I was surprised and a little hurt by your comments. I have been completely vilified by that man, and a good few people on that RFA page to, and for what, realising Tony was not quite as nice as those who recommended him for FA thought he was. He has threatened Wikipedia with legal threats, thrown another of his former supporters out of some club/group he runs, taken back copyright music he uploaded, generally been completely foul to anyone who had the guts to oppose him. And now threatens to rubbish the whole project on the internet. You talk about Wikilove and walking away, where would we all be if Bishonen and I had walked away? - on the eve of Tony becoming an administrator that's where. Perhaps the next person he would have crossed would have been less able to defend themselves than me, where would your Wikilove be then. Yes you just think on that.

I have deliberately only mentioned this business on pages I regularly go and to people who know of the subject, as yet he has wrongly accused me, and Bishonen of whipping up opposition on other people's talk pages, You go through my recent edits and find one instance; and then check his. I only mention this to you now as you seem to be familiar, if in my opinion misinformed, on the subject.

While in spite of his disgraceful behaviour he has received numerous messages of support and pleas to stay. Bishonen and I have received no support from anyone. Let us not fall out, but please do try to be a little more considerate of other feelings. Giano | talk 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) ::PS Hoary though has been very nice indeed. Giano | talk 17:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I wrote that, and I wrote it here [7] and I stand by every single word of it.

However, this page has not been Wikipedia's finest moment. I think we probably all agree on that. Would the correct decision have been determined if a few admins had met secretly in the earliest days of the application? I'm sure a different outcome would have arisen. But... would it have been the correct decision for Wikipedia?

I keep noting Tony's further and, sadly, increasingly more erratic comments. It seems now that everyone is being attacked on all quarters by him. I think the kindliest thing is for us all to keep silent from this point on. I'm sure after a period of quiet reflection Tony will come to see the wise, and well meaning advice that has been offered to him here, and on his talk page. My shoulders are broad to these attacks, as are I'm sure are those of the many others he has attacked. Many stressful things have been said here, many of them by Tony, who I'm sure is already regretting them. So for Tony's sake let us say no more. If Tony chooses to act on his threats to rubbish Wikipedia on the internet, where, incidentally, he has to find an audience that would be a pity. As the father of four children (yes four! but I've found the cause now) all of whom use the Wiki for their home-work and assignments (it's just what google flashes up, no input from me) , I know, his attacks and words will not damage us, perhaps him, but not us. We have a great project here. So lets congratulate ourselves on that, and also wish Tony well wherever his future is destined to be. Giano | talk 21:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't regret my statements one bit. I would have a huge audience on the net, if I chose that course of action. I think people are probably wishing that you would say no more, for your own sake as well as ours. Tony 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I have to admit that patrolling to identify and revert vandalism is not my strongest point—others usually get there first, although I do it whenever I encounter vandalism. I'm just too taken up with reviewing FACs and helping contributors to bring them up to standard before and during nomination. Much of this task involves improving what I think is WP's weakest aspect, the quality of its prose (see the recent review in the UK publication The Guardian ([8])—ouch); it's a bottomless pit that keeps me from working on my own articles. However, I'm not averse to performing any admin task that is required of me.

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

A. I've a list of articles that I'm trying to bring up to FAC standard, as my own projects, including those on JS Bach and iMac. I've written six shortish articles, including Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychologist), and, more importantly, I've helped numerous articles to achieve FA status. I've rewritten the criteria for FACs (User:Raul654 pulled me up on only one point) and I added a sixth point to the PR instructions to try to make the process more effective.

I'd like to see a greater use of WP's potential for lavishly and cogently illustrating musical topics with short musical excerpts; and I want composer articles to include more information on musical style, rather than being mainly biographical. To assist in these purposes, on the Wikiproject Composers page I've written guidelines for the use and copyright tagging of sound excerpts (Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts) and suggested points to be covered in the style section of composer articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Suggested points to be covered in the style section of composer articles). I've changed the wording on the copyright tag Template:Music sample so that it's easier to read, specifies an important point raised by Carmildo concerning the avoidance of multiple excerpts from the same track on WP, and now states correctly the duration of 'the track' rather than 'the work'.

I like the teamwork and community aspects of WP.

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. The main contributor to a highly technical medical article on the PR list accused me of introducing factual errors, and was overall rather aggressive towards me. I thought this was unfair and unproductive, since I'd significantly improved what had been seriously inadequate prose in the expectation that the contributors would check through for such errors, as usual. So we had a little stouch about that. I'm the one who called User:Cyberjunkie 'bossy' <blush> (see here). A contributor walked out of an article in which I'd delinked the low-value chronological items (as per WP policy). That upset me, and I tried to persuade her otherwise, unsuccessfully; very unfortunate. I usually have no problem with other contributors; in retrospect, it would have been better not to react to any of these three incidents. Tony 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

PS The edit count is inflated by my regrettable habit of saving the page, then identifying further improvements; on the other hand, sometimes I do massive edits in one go.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. 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] Mysekurity

Final (47/1/0) ended 23:41 November 6 (UTC)

Mysekurity (talk · contribs) – Mysekurity is one of the friendliest users I know. He is very welcoming, he helps out newbies, and he's kind to people when they're distressed. He can often be found at AfD and other pages in the Wikipedia namespace, so we know he's experienced enough, and his first edit was on May 15 2005, so he passes the time guideline. As for his edit count, doing it by hand I see... ~1800 contribs. He's often asking myself and other admins for adminly help. Give him the power to {{Sofixit}} ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

With pleasure. Thank you so much, Redwolf! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{00:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)}

Support

1. Support, ignore that my timestamp says I voted after Dmcdevit... Redwolf24 (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

   Whaddya mean? :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

   Much better :D Redwolf24 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Support. A good choice. I respect Mysekurity's judgment, and he's a cool head. Admin material. Dmcdevit·t 00:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support - Yep, hand him the mop! Sango123 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - Seems okay to me. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, of course. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Alphax ^τεχ 02:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support good editor --Rogerd 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Seems like a good chap.--Sean Black | Talk 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support, good egg. BD2412 T 03:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support good edit, trust the nominator. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support, expect that he will not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Jacqui ^{★ 05:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)}
13. Support, looks OK to me. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Very good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, a steady hand and a cool head and a friendly demeanour. Good balance of edits, too, Kate's tool or no. -Splash^talk 08:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. El_C 10:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Redwolf's nominations are normally fine ones, trust him. Banes 11:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 11:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support — looks a good bet. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Adminify.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Support --Kefalonia 15:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Joining the parade of happy people. :) Xoloz 16:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support --JAranda | watz sup 17:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Support Oh yes, no prob with Mysekurity, have seen about the place many times, no worries. Alf ^melmac 17:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
25. FireFox (RFA) 18:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Support.....I guess. Private Butcher 20:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support MONGO 20:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support..He's prompt and helpful.--Dakota 04:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Extreme support cause no one's opposed support keep up the good work.  ALKIVAR™ 04:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Most certainly. -- Essjay · Talk 17:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support -- Longhair | Talk 20:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support Johann Wolfgang 21:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support Enthusiastic, cucumber-cool... and sekure :) +sj + 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support Good editor! — Wackymacs 20:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. The Minister of War^(Peace) 07:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Extreme Sport! Acetic'^Acid 20:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Yes. encephalon 21:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support, with hopes that he will also find time to help with the ever-present CSD backlog. -R. fiend 06:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. I've seen him perform excellently in many occasions. He deserves it. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 19:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC) ╫
41. Simply support. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. per everybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamri (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 November 2005
43. Support Looks fine. Dlyons493 Talk 12:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support Leaning towards oppose. He doesn't like my signiture! LOL, just kidding. Great editor. — Moe ε 21:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support All members of the Association of.... whatever it is should receive adminship. Ashibaka (tock) 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Support: all said and done. --Bhadani 11:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose.Wiki brah 05:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, would you mind stating why you oppose my adminship? Have I ever been anything but cordial with you, despite various arguments put in place against you? I would really like to know, and you can post this at my talk page, but please add this here. Thank you. Mysekurity (talk • contribs)

I presume he must have some reason to oppose, and it would have been fair to record the specific reason so that all other users (including me) get enlightened and initiate corrective measures, as warranted in the light of his comments. However, if he has chosen to maintain silent, that is ok. Let us forget it, and let him remain comfortable. --Bhadani 11:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• {{Sofixit}} is primarily an editorial, rather than an administrative, exhortation. -Splash^talk 08:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Mysekurity-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use of edit summaries is 71%, 94% over last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 10.5 per day, 12.5 per day over last 30 days. --Durin 14:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I already rollback vandalism, but the ability to block and delete would be helpful. I participate as much as I can in AfDs, so deleting powers would be helpful. This said, I would become much more active in AfD closing, and page protection. I'd love the ability to delete clear copyvios, in images and otherwise, and do general cool stuff like that. I like to make sure my powers are not abused, and will only protect a page when I feel it absolutely necessary, and only block when I feel there is no other way. I am absolutely in love with the concept of Wikipedia, and will do everything I can to make sure the fabric does not come undone.

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

A. Our Bodies, Ourselves. I know the writers of the book personally, and have gotten permission to use the logo (they're extremely busy, so they didn't quite have time to get me the things, but I feel I've added some good contributions to that. My favorite article, of which I am the largest contributor, is the one on my school. I learned so much about my school's history, and asked a few of my teachers for input (about such former students as Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Patrick Ewing, and others).

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 tried to avoid high stress articles, but I tend to be a very low-strung person, and thus I feel I'm pretty capable at staying cool. I've talked to several people about copyvios on articles and userspaces, and worked on a few NPOV articles. I try to be civil in all my talk page edits, and have actually befriended a few users as a result of searching through high Wikistress categories, as per Esperanza guidelines.

I am also on the Boston Meetup group that is responsible for bringing Wikimania| here next summer.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. 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] Psy guy

Final (51/1/2) ended 02:55 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Psy guy (talk · contribs) – Psy guy has been here since July 19th and he's amassed two thousand something edits. A chunk of these are in the user talk space, which is a Good Thing as the number one quality for an admin in my opinion is the ability to interact. He can be seen closing AfD's too, and so far every close he's done has been fair game, so we know he does some of the admin side of things... He has over 500 article edits, so he's contributing to the main goal of the wiki, and he's a very active member of the welcoming committee. Psy guy is never afraid to ask for help, and won't charge ahead blindly when he doesn't know what he's doing. But when he does know what he's doing, he does it... There is nothing in my mind telling me he won't make a great admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am very flattered and truly honored. I accept. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 03:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support Totally deserves it, great vandal slayer. My interactions with him have been nothing but positive. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support I thought he was a admin already --JAranda | watz sup 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Suport- Good vandal-whacker.--Sean|Black 03:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Cool. JuntungWu 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Toh. Tuh. Lee. Good luck, sir! These tools will keep vandals at bay, and I know you'll use them wisely. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{05:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)}
7. Support vandal whackers. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 05:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Week Support - I dont know this user to well. But I am pretty certiant that they remove vandalism a bit --Adam1213 Talk+ 06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. A solid Wiki-contributor. Brisvegas 08:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Month support OK so he doesn't write many articles? But if he's happy to clobber vandals and let others get on with writing articles in peace - that's fine with me. --Doc ^ask? 09:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support - I've had nout but good experiences with this user - vandalwhacking makes a great pastime as this user hs found out. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - different people contribute different things, and vandal-whackin' is a contribution that merits (and would be assisted by) an award of admin powers. BD2412 T 14:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support I like that he welcomes newbies and removes vandalism. However I suggest some more article contributions. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Private Butcher 17:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support; am convinced that he would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Support FireFox 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support GraemeL ^(talk) 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support - Nevica 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support --pgk^(talk) 00:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support Absolutely no reason to deny him tools that will make him more effective at working for us. But be careful to use the blocking option with restraint and discretion :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support - I've seen him in action. A good vandal-fighter. Owen× ☎ 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support --Rogerd 04:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support. Certainly. -- Essjay · Talk 05:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. - A solid Wikipedian. Brisvegas 10:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
27. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 12:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Support. Never let it be said I can't jump on a good bandwagon as it comes thundering by. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
29. A good guy. Dmcdevit·t 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support; I see him on vandal patrol a lot. Nice work, apt to be a good admin. In addition he works well with others. Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, seems to handle tasks well that could be boosted even more with admin tools. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Yes. Radiant_>|< 10:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. No cause for concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. Keep whackin those vandals! --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 05:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support - excellent contributor. --Ixfd64 18:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Super-duper extreme support. I like vandal whackers! Linuxbeak | Talk 19:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support MONGO 02:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support as per Linuxbeak ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. Not all users are going to be doing article revisions, and in my mind as long as a user has found himself/herself a niche within the community and does well in that niche, they should have no reason to be prevented from becoming an Admin. --Martin Osterman 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. the wub "?!" 14:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support very much as per Martin Osterman. Dlyons493 Talk 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support Jumping on this bandwagon. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
45. SupportSeems a good choice and he could use the extra tools to vandal whack.-Dakota ^{t e 22:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)}
46. ^{Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)}
47. Support, love the peeps that do the stuff I never want to. Alf ^melmac 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. I was convinced he was one already. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
49. weak support Originally I was opposed but conversations with several users have convinced me perhaps I have been too hasty. Changed to weak support, I'm not sure your ready for it but I'll give you the chance to prove you are.  ALKIVAR™ 07:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Support. Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. Given his other activity, the lack of article edits is no problem for me. Psy guy has also kindly reverted vandalism on my user page (from an anon I reverted myself :D). I'm convinced his adminship will serve the community. Karol 17:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He seems to eager to please, will he be able to go counter to the admin culture of deference to other admins when it is the right thing to do?--Silverback 16:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
   • If he defers to other admins when it is the right thing to do, how would that be a bad thing? Radiant_>|< 10:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose hasnt been here long enough yet, while his vandalwhacking is a good start, I just dont feel ready supporting this user at this time, definately in the future tho. changed to support  ALKIVAR™ 05:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. A majority of his edits are welcoming new users and to his own user page. Looks like he has a done a lot in the way of attacking vandals. Would like to see more contributions to articles. --Holderca1 04:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I'd want to see more of your edits.Yes,you're more experienced than I am, but I hope that you can do better.Thanks.Maybe then I'll change my mind.--Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I feel that I should add that I am a "previewist" in that I use the preview button extensively. Therefore, many of my article edits are under-estimatedly because I may make several changes to articles in only one edit. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 05:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment lot of edits to user page. page vandalized by logged in users with few or no contribs,Bobzombi22 (who also has a font emphasis habit,Crypt-Out (really suspicious only interacts with Psy guy) . check user page history. smells like a sockpuppet. plain enough to see.-163.20.85.7 07:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC.163.20.85.7 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I confess! I do make a good number of edits to my user page. It it pretty much my sand box. If I am learning how to do something new, I try it in my user space first. I have a proper sandbox that I use to hide things or just work on things before I put it on my user page. Also, my user page has a lot of very useful links that I refer to commonly. I ususally keep a tab open to my user page when I am on just in case I need something fast. To the other comment, I haven't thought about Crypt-Out in a long time. That was when I first really got into RC. It was actually kinda fun: He would blank a page, I would revert it back, warn him, then he would blank my page. Aww ... memories. :-) -- Psy guy ^(talk) 19:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• MarkGallagher deleted my comment. The ip's can make comments but of course cant vote. This user violated policy when he reverted my comment.163.20.85.7 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I deleted his comment. I was under the impressions that anons weren't allowed to vote/edit/anything RfAs. I have since been told that this impression was incorrect. Fortunately this fellow has reiterated his comment, so I've not had to dig it up and restore it. I am sorry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Just a few comments after spending some time looking through your contributions: First, nearly 400 of your edits (385, to be exact) have been welcoming users. While not necessarily a bad thing, they can make the number of edits (which, by the way, I can't tell, since WP:KATE seems to be down) seem inflated. In addition, many, if not the vast majority, of the other user talk comments are either warnings or have an edit summary of ~~~~ (see [9]) — in the future, would you mind using a more descriptive edit summary? Also, I don't mean to be critical, but with the large amount of warnings and welcoming, your user interaction level doesn't seem to be exceptional, though it seems to be adequate. You have recieved 83 comments on your talk page, which isn't exceptional, but enough for an admin candidate (my opinion, of course). Second comment — it doesn't really matter, but I note on your edits and on your monobook that you've been using the rollback Sam has developed. Just out of curiousity, where did you first hear about it, and why did you decide to use it? Third comment: you've been closing AfDs as keep. In the future, would you mind placing a notice on the article talk page that it survived an AfD? Thanks. Finally, my apologies for grilling you — I had an impulse to look into your contributions more deeply than I do normally for RfAs in which I vote on. :-) Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 00:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it that you bothered to look so closely at my contributions. It is truly noble. I do tend to use the 5-tildes to create a heading when I warn users. If have found that most do as a way of categorizing warnings for IPs. In the future I will try to use "Edit the page" rather than the "+" tab. That is why the heading reads as the edit summary. I don't use the talk pages a lot since I discovered IRC. I am frequently in #wikipedia-en-vandalism where I am a Channel Op. I have found it to be much more efficient to jump into a channel and ask a question rather than through a talk page. I decided to use godmode because it was much more efficient. Angela let me in on the secret! Lastly, it never really occurred to me to leave a message on a keep article from AfD. I will do that from now on. I was more concerned about making sure that what I closed was an "unambigious" keep. If you have anymore questions or concerns, do not hesitate to ask. However you decide to vote, I fully respect your decision. Thanks. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 03:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Firstly, I have really enjoyed RC Patrol, so I want to continue with vandal whacking! The block tool will certainly come in handy with this. I am sure that the guys (sic) in IRC are tired of me asking them every 10 seconds to check a vandal for blocking. Secondly, I enjoy closing AfD. Right now, I am trying to be careful to only close those that are for sure keeps. Being an admin should allow me to work more efficiently in AfD.

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

A. I confess that I have not done a lot of article work. I am proud of Pathological gambling since that was were I started when I joined Wikipedia. I am working on the article off site a little at a time, but it is slower than I like. I am very proud of some of the vandalism that I have rolled back. Coming to the aide of the Almighty Jimbo is an ego boost for sure! If I can speak of "contributions" in general, I would say that I am most proud of my rollbacks. (None have been contested by legit users!)

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. Not really. I try not to let things get me. I try to get advise from other users and maintain NPOV. In the future, if I am faced with great conflict and stress, I will try to continue as I have and back up, take a breath, and deal with it diplomatically.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. 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] Sean Black

Final (56/1/0) ended 01:36 November 26 (UTC)

Sean Black (talk · contribs) – Sean has been here since June 11 [10]. Looking at that diff, one can see that his very first edit was reverting vandalism, and he did it correctly, and he used an edit summary even. This first edit showed good potential, and from what I've seen, he's been great. He's got 1949 edits as of me typing this up (please don't say 'will support at 2000' it's rather pointless ;-) Let's go over some statistics: last 500 edits (as of 00:33 November 18 UTC) have been between the end of November 1 and November 18, so I believe he passes the activity test. He is JUST shy (983 as of typing this) of 1,000 article edits, he has over 400 talkspace edits, and he has over 350 Wikipedia edits. I believe he's past all those bars. Sean works on everything from articles to welcoming newbies to RC Patrol to complimenting people. I think he's earned the extra tools, and proven he's to be trusted. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Wow. I'm shocked, but I will accept. This is an honor, and I do hope that I can be trusted by the community. Thank you again.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Support A productive and fair editor.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Support good overall work, would like to see them with admin tools. «»Who?¿?^meta 02:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Yes. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 02:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support Good editor --Rogerd 04:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Support per above. BD2412 T 04:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
7. SupportMONGO 05:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Andross' enemy is my enemy...uh, Red's friend is my friend... (Plus, I've seen you around and think you'll do just fine). -Mysekurity 06:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Support and happy to do it! – ClockworkSoul 06:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Solid user, trustworthy. Xoloz 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support Per all of the above. He deserves the mop. Banes 07:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Merovingian 08:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support from slasher moviez lover. - Darwinek 10:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Support I coulda sworn he was one! Hiding talk 15:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Strong Suppoer Great user, trust the nominator. - GregAsche 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support! Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support --pgk^(talk) 19:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Strong Support. Good luck, mate. Blackcap (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Good active vandalism fighter. --Nlu 21:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. El_C 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support great work on several horror film articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support looks good and, of course, I've been brainwashed by User:Redwolf24. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Calm and rational. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Support as a fellow troll. — JIP | Talk 11:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Support. All my personal interactions with him have been positive, his answers below make me believe he'll use the admin toolbox responsibly and we need more admins. It's an open and shut case. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support; this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
28. Yup. Martin 20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. KHM03 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
30. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 00:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Blimey I haven't stated it already. Alf ^melmac 02:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support 172 07:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. -Willmcw 09:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support per nom.Gator (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
35. --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
36. This user will never, ever be an admin while I'm here. I guess I'll just leave then Support. Fahrenheit Royale 17:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support cool person (or so it seems ;) --TimPope 23:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support, good record, will be a good match for the job. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support. A fine fellow, deserving of the office. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
40. Support Lookin' good ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 06:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Hayupp. A little low on the article-space edits, but editcount ain't everything, so everyone keeps saying. Has shown good skills since he's been here, so I'll add my scrawled X in the plus column. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Thryduulf 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support - no objections from me. --Ixfd64 09:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
44. Support. Should handle admin duties with aplom. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. I've seen him in action; he'd make a good admin. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. Per nom. Good record--Dakota ^{t e} 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Yes. Exceptional newcomer, an asset to Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 23:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support, I would have nominated him if I had know he wasn't a member of the mop and flamethrower federation. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
49. Support - I thought he was an admin already O_o TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Support: --Bhadani 15:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Support Izehar 19:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
52. Support.per nomination.--Pomegranite | talk 02:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Support. +sj + 07:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Support. AnnH ^(talk) 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
55. Well I was going to vote oppose but it seems he reached 2,000 edits...Support! (just in case you didn't know I was kidding about the 2,000 mark thing) Derktar 17:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
56. Support. -- DS1953 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Boothy443 err yeah whatever :) (No one should go unopposed)  ALKIVAR™ 07:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• He just broke 2000 edits, and so now is infinitely more worthy of adminship, QED. Blackcap (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See? Now you people don't have any excuses. Go to it! :)--Sean|Black 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

A. I believe that deleting speedies, closing AfDs, assisting with backlog (WP:RM, WP:CP, ect) will be high on the list, but I don't anticipate blocking too much (Titoxd and Curps are better at it, no reason to step on their toes), although I'll do so if necessary. Basically, I'll help out however I can!--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Tough one. Many of my edits are minor, tweaking little things here and there, but I think I did a good job on Jason Voorhees, Friday the 13th (film series), which I heavily cleaned up as part of an ongoning project to improve horror film related articles. Critters (film series) was something I picked from WP:RA, and I feel that that's a significantly good article for a third rate Gremlins rip-off :), and Pip and Jane Baker, which I was surprised didn't exist before. However, I'm most proud of the diversity of the articles I've edited- everything from The Brain of Morbius to Hamas to Galvatron to John Kerry. I think that I have both greatly increased my knowledge of the world through WP, and hopefully, others knowledge of it as well. Additionally, I'm very proud of those new users that I helped learn ways of WP- It's more than just welcomes, it's answering what many of us percieve as "dumb questions" kindly, honestly, and openly.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (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.Mostly no, as I tend to avoid contentious areas. However, I was part of a nasty edit war at List of minor Doctor Who villains which I felt I dealt with well. Additionally, I recently started editing Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and related articles in an attempt to broaden my Wikipedian perspective: as most know, these articles have a history (including two ArbCom decisions), but I feel that the editing has been mostly civil, with less POV pushers and far more good faith concerns about neutrality and original research, and I think that I have handled it well.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.