Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John Carter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] John Carter

Final (146/0/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Nominee, who has gone by simply John Carter for quite some time, has had his username officially changed from User:Warlordjohncarter to User:John Carter. I have changed the links in this nomination to reflect that change. See the user log. Pastordavid (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

John Carter (talk · contribs) - To call John Carter a prolific contributer to the encyclopedia would be a huge understatement. Since he began editing in January 2007, John has racked up over 74,000 edits (using the original edit counter, Intriot's Tool 1 doesn't count high enough). As of December 2007, John had the 34th highest all-time edit count - all the more impressive given that John does not use a bot, and these are all hand-edits.

John has his fingers in almost every part of Wikipedia. Although he has no featured content of his own, John has enabled countless WikiProjects to improve the encyclopedia by assisting with the set-up of projects, the tagging of articles, and the assesment of articles. He has created numerous stubs to help fill in the knowledge gaps of wikipedia, and has nominated or created an astounding 63 Did You Know articles.

John has contributed as needed to the Administrator's Noticeboards, and is quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy and procedures. As with all prolific editors, John has been involved in his share of controversy (actually, surprisingly little). I have always known him to act with civility and good faith in these situations. He always seeks consensus first, and is eagerly follows estalished consensus if his viewpoint is over-ruled.

John is not an editor who ever sought any sort of recognition for his editing, and he certainly is not an editor who has pursued adminship as a trophy. Perusing his talk page archives will reveal that many editors have offered to nominate him in the past, and he consistently turned down such offers. I can think of no editor that I have met who is more suited to adminship, and it is a privilege to whole-heartedly nominate him for the mop and bucket. (UTC) Pastordavid (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

And, regardless of how this may turn out, I am wholeheartedly grateful for the willingness of several people to consider me for such a position. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I should also note that I myself may withdraw this request if at any time anyone here points out any reasons which I believe to be valid that I should not become an admin. I have left a somewhat jokey note on my user page, and I wish to encourage those who seriously question this request to indicate why below. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants: Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Generally, dealing with protected templates. Given the increased complexity of several WikiProject banners, particularly the creation of task forces and work groups, many if not most of those banners will have to be protected. However, it seems that new subprojects are almost always being created, and it isn't always the case that individual editors with those projects will necessarily be competent to deal with the changes to those banners. Also, although I am probably not the best person in the world to do this sort of thing, I expect, with luck, to be able to maybe add a bit to the DYK effort, and maybe update the page when there has been too long of a delay. I am aware of some of the other options admins have, particularly regarding blocking and banning. I freely admit that I have no intention of employing either of those functions any time soon, if ever. I am far from sufficiently experienced in such matters to think that my judgement would be necessarily reliable. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This is a value judgement. I hate having to make value judgements. Admittedly, nothing I have ever written is even remotely of FA quality, although I am currently copyediting a draft of the Preity Zinta article with the intention of nominating the final article for GA and ultimately FA. The lack of such recognized work makes it even harder to find something to point to. I've had a part in the creation and maintenance of some portals, including the Portal:Scientology, which is now at Featured Portal status by someone else, so maybe that would be the thing to point to here. And I've had a hand in creating more than a few WikiProjects, although I'm not really sure that, given the question of banner proliferation, that's really anything to boast about. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Oh, yeah. There was a major conflict with another user regarding Bob Dylan's religious affiliation, if any, which happened very soon after I first appeared. There have been one or two subsequent ones as well. As I indicated above, my own interests are almost exclusively in seeing to it that content meets standards of quality. I took this name because I have a bit of a hot temper, and freely acknowledge that. In all honesty, there isn't a lot of reason to think that that temper may not reappear later. In fact, it probably will, unfortunately. In light of that, I wish to state immediately that I will be more than willing to withdraw any and all access to the tools of adminship and adminship itself if there is ever any serious question about my ability to perform the tasks, or if my conduct is such that I would in any way be of negative impact. I think I've seen elsewhere that three admins not involved in any current or former conflict are sometimes required to be sufficient. I personally doubt I would require even that many. And, certainly, if at any time I ever find my own actions unsupportable, I will immediately withdraw as an admin. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions by D.M.N.

4. Because of the Dylan conflict, did you ever think about retiring from Wikipedia at all? D.M.N. (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that I can recall. "At all" is a kind of extreme phrase, but I don't remember having ever thought that. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
5. If you see a vandal vandalising some pages, would you try and work with the vandal to try and make them a better Wikipedia, or would you block them on sight? D.M.N. (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Some is the problematic part here. If I were to see someone vandalizing the main page, community portal, and other important pages in quick succession, then I'd probably block on sight. Otherwise, I've said above I can't reasonably see myself placing blocks or bans anytime soon. There are other admins who are much more experienced in such matters and I don't see any reason to not follow regular channels for their input in most instances. Beyond that, I have had a part in the creation of a group which would try to present the case of individuals whose circumstances are such that their ability to control their own conduct could be questioned, although, luckily, there hasn't been any cause for the group to be active. I am also now a designated potential adopter, although it looks like no one has been stupid enough to want to have me do so. I would be more than willing to work with editors whose conduct is problematic if there is cause to think that such conduct might be eliminated, however long they've been here. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

1. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A block is a function of the machinery, making it impossible for a given account or address to edit one or more articles. A ban is a statement that the editor in question is no longer welcome to edit. So far as I know, a block generally takes place before the ban notice is given. I have relatively little experience in this matter, though, so I can't say that such is true in all instances. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Follow up: Is there a difference in why/how they are applied? What is the purpose of a block? Avruchtalk 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of a block is to keep someone from vandalizing or otherwise disrupting the project by placing a restriction on the account or IP address, either in general or one certain pages. A ban is, so far as I know, generally given after one or more blocks, when it has become obvious that vandalism or other disruption is so predictable from a certain party or address that it would be counterproductive to want them to return. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

Contact the admin in question about my concerns and notify them that I was leaving a message on the WP:BLP/N. I can't see any circumstances in which the material in question would be so pivotal that it couldn't wait until the discussion was ended. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3. If you wish to close an AfD that is still open after 7 days but you believe the consensus is against current policy, what action should you take?

If I hadn't already voiced my concern, I would do so. Were it to go against my opinion, I would nominate the article for Deletion Review, saying why. In all honesty, though, I can't really see any instances in which I would be so sure of my own opinions that I would necessarily close it "my way". John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

4. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

I can see how there might be specific admins who for whatever reason perhaps shouldn't be open to recall. I'm not one of them. If I ever think that I have myself screwed up seriously, I won't have to be asked. I'll withdraw as an admin and not go for reconfirmation. Otherwise, I would be listed there. I can't see any circumstances in which my being an admin would necessarily be important enough to run the risk of causing any real disruption to the project. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from John254

1. Suppose that an administrator deleted Tony Blair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) with the following summary: "Deleted per WP:BLP1E -- Tony Blair is not at all notable except as a former prime minister. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, do NOT restore without consensus." How would you respond to this situation?

First reaction: What? I saw the page linked to and I can't see how that "not notable except as a former prime minister" makes any sense whatsoever in terms of notability criteria in this instance. Being prime minister is I think still reason enough for inclusion as per Wikipedia:Notability (people). And there's the matter of the episode of The Simpsons he appeared in, published biographies, and on and on and on. Having said that, I can't see it being very likely that the presence of the page would necessarily be an absolute requirement each and every second. I'd probably, in some order, post it on deletion review, indicate that it should be speedily restored as per notability guidelines, notify the admin who removed it of the discussion there, and then probably leave it alone. I know some things are never going to make sense to me. This might be one of them. Other people sometimes know more than I do, hard as it is for me to admit that. That last's a joke, by the way. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Geo Swan

1. It has been my experience that an unfortunate minority of the wikipedia's current administrators seem to think that being trusted with administrator authority means they are no long obliged to comply with wikipedia policies, like WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:BITE. It seems to me that administrators should be setting an example, and should make a greater effort to comply with policy. If we trust you with administrator authority can we count on you to make your best effort to be civil to the rest of us? Geo Swan (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can, as said above, get heated. I acknowledge that up front. Regarding NPA, I don't remember having explicitly ever talked about a person except in the context of their own comments being almost entirely personal. Regarding AGF, it is only supposed to be applied if there is cause to not assume otherwise. There are any number of issues in which a person in good faith, but with perhaps an unrecognized existing bias, limited scope of knowledge, or other concerns, might be acting in such a way as to seem to not be acting in good faith, and I definitely try to take that into account. Certainly, User:Bus stop, the "opponent" in the Dylan debate, probably qualifies on that basis. However, if policy and rules are indicated to them which contradict their position, and they still persist in such conduct, then the best thing to do is to seek outside input, as we repeatedly did in that case. Regarding Biting newbies, I generally at least try to ensure that if I leave a vandalism tag on an IP address or party who doesn't have a user page yet, to remember to add a welcome template as well, except maybe in cases of really blatant, conscious, vandalism. Beyond that, I regret to say I don't keep track of who is and is not new that well yet. I am not an Aspergers cae, but I do acknowledge that I can and do become more than a bit frustrated when faced with what strikes me as sustained adamant irrationality, as per the above Bus stop. Even in such instances, however, I do at least try, although I'm not the best one to judge if I succeed. Again, though, if I ever see that I have myself fallen well short of my own, admittedly ill-defined, standards, I will withdraw my status as an admin immediately. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Similarly, I think it is important for all of us to be prepared to remember we are all fallible, and acknowledge when we have made errors. In my experience an unfortunate minority of administrators just don't seem up to the challenge of giving fair consideration to the possibility that they may have made a mistake. Personally, I admire those who can admit error. If we trust you with administrator authority can we count on you to make your best effort to remember that there will be the occasional instance when you made a mistake? Can we count on you owning up on those occasions? Geo Swan (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Response:I hope you realize that this is a difficult question, as it involves among other things predicting the future. I know I make mistakes, that's not a real question. One of the reasons why I intend to limit my own admin input in a fairly limited field is because I want to ensure that I don't make mistakes, or abuse my perceived power as an admin to the detriment of others. Like I said above, I can't imagine any likely situations in which I would block or ban an individual. Regarding acknowledging mistakes, I wish I could answer that more clearly than I can. Part of the problem there would be whether the mistake is a matter of policy or opinion. If the former, I don't think there's any question yes. If the latter, I try very hard to prevent having any preexisting biases I might have ever influence anything I do here. I can't rule out the possibility that I might not be able to acknowledge an error of opinion, because I can't be sure of the specific circumstances which might be involved. But I do try very hard to ensure that any opinion I have be based on sources, policy, or linguistic accuracy. However, like I said above, if it becomes clear to me that I have acted inappropriately or abused adminship, I would immediately remove myself from adminship. Maybe not the best answer, but the best I can give. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Dr.Kane:

1. What are your ambitions and goals if you become an admin? Also, what was your biggest mistake you made as an editor and how did you handle it? Also, give example if applicable. And last but not least, what is your view on the censoring of images (including but not limited to breast, genatalia, etc) that religious people might view as obscene and/or inappropiate? Dr.Kane (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard to answer, in a sense. My reason for seeking adminship is to basically be able to edit protected templates. That's about it, really. In that sense, I can't really think of any ambitions or goals for being an admin, other than that one. Regarding the second question, that one's hard to answer, because like most people I don't make a great effort to remember embarrasing mistakes. I know I have more than once said something after the fact to the effect of, "I can't believe I did that, sorry", or words to that effect, but the ones that currently come to mind, like mistaking Hiram Abiff for the candidate for initiation playing him on User:Warlordjohncarter/Hiram Abiff doesn't strike me as being in the league you're asking about. I'm not trying to be evasive there, I just honestly don't remember, although I'll try to remember some later and comment. Regarding the last point, I can't see any reasonable objections to inclusion of any images if they honesty serve the purpose of enhancing the project or the content. Having said that, I would acknowledge that there are some images I honestly have to question do serve the interests of the project or the content. I would probably say the same thing about any number of other pictures, although given the obscenity laws we are obliged to follow I tend to think that most images that some might not call pornographic probably have a better chance of inclusion in other articles other than the primary apparent subject, if for whatever reason it isn't included there. So, if your asking whether I think a full frontal nudity picture is appropriate for, say the Atlanta article, probably not. National Geographic-type pictures of naked members of other societies would certainly be acceptable if they further the purposes of the project or the content, but I'm not sure there would be any particular reason to include them in articles where they are at best marginally relevant. I'd probably say the same thing about clothed fashion models and others as well. For a directly relevant subject, if it is useful for that article, yes. I'm not sure if that's answer enough for you, but it's the best I can come up with. John Carter (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
First off, sorry for being vague in my last question. I do, however, totally agree with you that a nuded picture in the "Atlanta article" would have absolutely no place there. I actually meant to ask your opinion of articles such as breast, vagina, penis, anus, and many others articles of the human anatomy that some people consider "offensive". Do you think pictures like those are appropiate for those articles? And do you believe that the pictures in the article should be removed and/or replaced with diagrams instead? Look forward to a response soon and good luck. Dr.Kane (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, any such article, particularly important articles such as those above, can and should have adequate pictorial content. In most cases, including those above, I also believe that, whether for better or ill, the primary interest in the article will be related to its applicability to the human anatomy, so a picture of the item in question certainly makes sense. I can see objections to photos of particularly egregious examples of non-standard anatomy (like having the "breast" article contain a photo of a 64FFF or whatever female) and the like, as the inclusion of such photos, unless they're the only free ones available, aren't necessarily representative. And, in many cases, I can also see inclusion of diagrams, particularly in cases where there is significant internal structure which may not be visible. I suppose in some cases pictures of particularly relevant animal anatomy may be relevant as well. As long as the picture is generally accurate, relevant, and not too obviously pornographic, I can't see any objections. John Carter (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Great response. I wish you success in your run for adminship. Dr.Kane (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from Walton

Do you still stand by the views expressed in this post, and in the various other discussions (from September) at Wikipedia talk:Editors matter, concerning MfD nominations on userspace pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walton One (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I remember, I was discussing there "people who rarely if ever do anything but update their resume or other nonproductive pages." I would probably draw the line at about 10% productive edits, depending on the definition of "productive", the length of time the editor has been an editor and the apparent relative age of the subject, The bar would probably be lower in the cases of short history or apparent youth. I might still warn them about the subject, and might even, in cases, vote for deletion if it looks like the concensus is to keep, just as a tactical cautionary matter, but I still hold to the idea that we should be first about real content, second if that about ourselves, although application would have to be on a case by case basis. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Your final point demonstrates a misunderstanding of the point of WP:EM. When I say that editors matter, I'm not suggesting that editors are more important than content; rather, I think separating the two is a false dichotomy, since it's editors who create and maintain the content. The point of EM is that rather than enforcing petty rules and policies at MfD, we should recognise that the most important thing is to recruit and retain editors, so that the encyclopedia will have enough contributors. This comes before enforcing petty rules, and this is why I believe that we should be extremely reluctant to delete userpages or even to open MfDs on them, unless they're blatantly abusive. I won't be voting in this RfA; I think it would be unfair to oppose or go neutral, since you're entitled in good faith to disagree with me, but I also can't give positive support to an administrator who doesn't agree with the essentials of EM. (You will pass anyway, so my view won't make any difference.) WaltonOne 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I recognize your point. My only qualification is whether someone who hasn't yet done any real or significant contribution would qualify as an "editor", as you seem to implicitly believe. They might in the future become one, and that's why I hold the line as 10% productive edits or lower and cautions about editing userspace too much before votes for deletion. I should also say that if it were the case that an academic or other figure updating his biography primarily, that found probably be fine, if the updates were verifiable. I also should state that I generally tend to be involved primarily only in WikiProject related MfD votes currently, that being my main focus right now and likely to remain such, and that'll probably remain the case except in cases where it looks to me like really egregious abuse and/or a case where a little reminder to edit something real once in a while might be useful. And thank you for your honesty. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your prompt and civil response. WaltonOne 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Warlordjohncarter before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support as nom. Pastordavid (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Lawrence Cohen 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - Outstanding candidate. Rudget. 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support as a great candidate. Dreamafter ⇔ 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support This guy has not been nominated before...why? Trusilver (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - one of the best candidates I've seen in a while. This guy should have had the tools long, long ago. --  jj137 ♠ 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. NHRHS2010 talk 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support Very good candidate. Ohmpandya (Talk) 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. edit conflict support - overdue for the tools. BencherliteTalk 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - Had my run ins before with him, but he has always proved himself to be polite and reasonable. JASpencer (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Of course, my goodness. Jmlk17 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. I demand an answer to Trusilver's question! (support) - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Strong support -A prime example of what an admin should be. John is a good coordinator of this project and like myself is attempting to address the problem of uneven coverage on wikipedia. He has set up some sort of wikiproject for practically every place on the planet including Vanuatu and Micronesia lol! How he could ever possibly have to time to be a project member of the hundreds + projects he's set up I don;t know lol but he's doing a great job. He is also skillful in intervening in difficult situations which is an asset to the project. I thought John was like myself and not in the bit interested in becoming an admin but I see not. Best of luck! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Of course Secret account 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Great editor. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support John254 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Absolutely. Timmehcontribs 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Although I usually like to see editors with at least 80,000 edits apply. Nick mallory (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Yep. — DarkFalls talk 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Have seen him around... he's a dedicated, hardworking editor...soon to be admin with good reason. κaτaʟavenoTC 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support A good, experienced, trustworthy editor. I'm sure he will use the tools well.--BelovedFreak 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support A great candidate. Captain panda 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Majorly (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oh good god yes. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - Yes, of course :-) - It's an honour to support such a wonderful contributor. ScarianCall me Pat 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support - Great candidate, and will make an equally great admin. -Mastrchf91- 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support Of course. RuneWiki777 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support. Looks good. Malinaccier (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. John is an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia and imho perfect admin material. I would happily have nominated him, and happily support now. --kingboyk (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Unbelievably good editor who will be an amazing admin.--Alabamaboy (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - Wow. Will make a great admin. :) Keilanatalk(recall) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. I've encountered Warlordjohncarter mainly at MfD and I have found him to be a civil, reasonable, and communicative user. Acalamari 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support per being one of my favorite fellow Wikipedians. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support. I have no reservations about John. He's well-qualified, very helpful and a great contributor. He will be an excellent admin. Majoreditor (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - Wow! 74,000 edits! (thats not my reason for supporting). Great editor, shows extreme admin potential. Give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support. A fine editor, good contribs. Wont' abuse the mop. Keeper | 76 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support. The warlord without edit warring or any other kind, for that matter. Kakofonous (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. My goodness yes! GlassCobra 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. I thought you were an admin already (the last person I thought already was finished with 147/0/0, btw), support Wizardman 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support A good contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support per Nick Mallory (no 18). Great candidate. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  43. Amazing editor, I'm pleased to add to the pile-on. --Maxim(talk) 02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  44. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support. Great editor. Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  46. I am Assistant Secretary to the Chief at the WP:WikiProject Africa/Democratic Republic of the Congo work group. Warlordjohncarter is the Chief. I strongly support him or he will send the secret police at my home to wait for me. Just a joke. But my support part is not a joke. Congolese fufu (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support - great contributor - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support: Well-rounded contributor and answers to questions appeared to be honest and really quite refreshing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support Looks good. --Sharkface217 04:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support per clear understanding that the Simpsons clearly demonstrates notability. the_undertow talk 05:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support a Wiki machine with 25 DYKs and a great user name? An easy choice. It's only a matter of time until somebody BLP's Tony Blair, isn't it? Sigh... --JayHenry (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support. Great content contributor, as well as a great collaborator with others on many topics. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
  53. Usual Cliché Per nominator. Pedro :  Chat  08:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  54. Seen him around. The Transhumanist 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  55. <Cough> Splutter - You're not an admin already? Colour me a hackneyed cliche. Strong Support - jc37 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  56. Strong Support Oh yes, we are going to disagree at some times, but that is separate from his skills in maintaining Wikipedia. Good choice. docboat (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  57. yes'n1yaNt 10:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support I swear I voted already...hmmm... Anyway, good job! SpencerTC 12:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  59. Oppose, needs more Talk-space edits. Lankiveil (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
    Lol. He has 21,000 talk page edits. What do you want, blood?! --kingboyk (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with kingboyk. Unless Lankiveil is suggesting we set a new standard of 25,000 talk page edits before someone can be an admin?--Alabamaboy (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    It should be noted that the above comment was moved from the "approve" section by a party other than Lankiveil. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Likely to be a good faith move. Rudget. 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've restored the original comment, and indented this duplicate. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    I added my support above, and spotted an oppose in the support section, so I moved it, maybe its supposed to be funny? I don't know. Perhaps I'd better work on improving my sense of humour eh? Regards to all, King of the NorthEast 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, it was meant as a joke. Lankiveil (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
    Looking at the diff before taking action is often helpful when in doubt. Dorfklatsch 16:38, January 9, 2008
    LOL. The Transhumanist 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Second the LOL... this is too funny! Wonderful wit, Lankiveil. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support - Good luck John. I know that you are both dedicated and capable. - Modernist (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support There is no reason to oppose him. Super editor!! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support, as I can find no cause for concern in the candidate's considerable body of work. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support Great contributor, great name. King of the NorthEast 14:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support youngamerican (wtf?) 14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support. Thought he already was, etc., etc. Coemgenus 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  67. Solid support Ditto. How could he not have had the tools by now? Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support. Hemmingsen 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support - I have gotten into quite a few very heated debates with John recently. His comments about his temper (see questions above) are quite true... he does indeed have a short fuse on issues he cares about and when other editors reject his opinion on editing issues. However, I do not think that these will affect his ability to be an effective admin. He takes the rules very seriously (almost too literally)... and that would include not acting as an admin on articles in which he is an active participant in disputes. On the brighter side, I have also seen him act as a neutral party to resolve the disputes of others, and there he is excellent. All in all, he is a fine editor, and giving him admin tools will be for the betterment of the project. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  70. Sure: Someone with this many old-school unassisted edits should probably be an admin unless they're manifestly unsuited. I don't see anything like that, so why not? MastCell Talk 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  71. Definitely Why didn't you tell me about it? I would have co-nommed!--Phoenix-wiki 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support Candidate could do the job blindfold, but I hope he won't, if appointed! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  73. As a former martian myself, I support this highly qualified editor. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  74. Strong Support. A very good contributing editor. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  75. Support Jespinos (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support based on my experience of this user. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  77. Strong support. Spebi 01:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support I have no qualms whatsoever, go get 'em Johnny! VanTucky 03:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support. Absolutely - seen you around in many places doing good work.--Kubigula (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support. Level-headed and fair. Although we do not always agree, I have seen enough to feel that placing my trust in his judgement will not go awry. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  81. Support Could this be the perfect candidate? So far, looks like it... everything I look for in an editor. Cheers. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support As noted, many people have offered in the past to nominate this candidate. I am one of them. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  83. Strong support, but I don't particularly like the warlord part of your username. Dorfklatsch 16:40, January 9, 2008
    Understood. When I first signed on, I mistakenly thought what I had been told was that "John Carter" wasn't available, so I added the character's most obvious title as a qualifier. I wish I had paid a bit more attention initially too, but I'm not entirely sure how to change that now. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    It's not that important really, just one user's opinion. Dorfklatsch 18:02, January 9, 2008
    FWIW, I appreciate the name change, despite the short burp it caused for the wiki. User:Dorftrottel 18:47, January 11, 2008
  84. Support - it really does all read well. The contributions, the approach and many of the preceding comments --Herby talk thyme 16:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support -- thanks for answering my questions. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support -- easy decision. Jauerback (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  87. Strong support - fantastic editor. We need another admin who knows something about saints and has a sense of humor! Bearian (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  88. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  89. Strong DYK Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  90. Piling on a good user was never bad. · AndonicO Hail! 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  91. very weak support was a little reluctant, bcauses of our previous issues at List of people who converted to Christianity, but that is long over with, and you have proven yourself a good contributor, so I think I can look beyond that. Yahel Guhan 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  92. Support. It's about time. Help at DYK is always welcome! Royalbroil 06:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  93. Support - superb editor. Will use the tools well. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  94. Support - Oh, what the hell - he doesn't meet the criteria under which I'll normally participate in an RfA, but I can't resist a good (and evidently well-deserved) love-in. WP:100, here he comes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  95. Support - has always been a calm rational voice in any discussions I've seen him in. Ealdgyth | Talk 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  96. Very firm support - from his responses (and credentials), I'm very confident that he will be an excellent admin. Dr.Kane (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  97. Support Yes, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  98. Thaught he was support Agathoclea (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  99. Support per VanTucky, although in a more under-stated British sort of way. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  100. Support Helpful. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  101. Support. Welcome to the WP:100 league. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  102. Of course Lara❤Love 03:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  103. Support. obviously can be trusted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  104. SupportBless sins (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  105. Support: for breaking the edit counter (user was renamed by the way, contribs link didnt work). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  106. Support enthusiastically. How are you not an admin already? Doczilla (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  107. Support potential user. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 07:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  108. Support - have encountered this user in several places around Wikipedia, and I trust him to use the tools properly. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  109. Aye per the cliche. Hiding T 19:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  110. Support - getting rid of the term "warlord" in user name is a good portent.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  111. Support - I don't usually vote in these things, but I love the idea of admins who are energetic and knowledgeable about creating actual content. This intelligent, prolific editor has my support.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  112. Support - I first came across this user creating new articles in a head category from which I had down-categorised nearly all the articles, but he had good reasons for it and explained fully and clearly why he was doing it and what he would do to support my efforts in future. I'd probably trust him with my life, and certainly with my encyclopedia. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Support Good user Ohmpandya (Talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Already supported - see Number 8 Rudget. 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  113. Support - Per WP:OUTRAGEOUSLANDSLIDE? Gromlakh (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  114. Support - seen around, very deserving of mop. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  115. Support - I'm quite surprised that he is still not an admin despite that much edits. Certainly due for having the tools. Great contributions overall--JForget 02:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  116. Support great track with over 74000 edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  117. Support pending his return to WP:EH to work on the collaboration of the month. Or something. Obviously. - Revolving Bugbear 14:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  118. Strong support - User is very experienced and knowledgeable, and seems to be fair-minded. I think he'll do a good job as an administrator. Aleta (Sing) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  119. Support - I couldn't find a reason not to support if I tried. Guldenat (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  120. Support Long service deserves reward. Callmederek (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  121. Support - This could just tip things in your favour! A solid candidate GRB1972 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  122. Support - Strong editor, experienced, knows policy, great admin candidate. Woody (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  123. Support - very patient, level headed and likable answers to the endless questions. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  124. Support good show my friend. - Dureo (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  125. Support - I trust him. ChetblongTalkSign 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  126. Support - Certainly. --Bhadani (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  127. Support - Could I have honestly said no? ;) Spawn Man (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  128. Finally, a candidate who has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart 100% rather then their own. Been a while since I've seen one of these :) Dedication and discretionary ability displayed in spades. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  129. Support - Would be a fantastic president admin // F9T 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  130. Support. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  131. Support - 'crats: give him the tools! EJF (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  132. Support. This has been a long time coming. And this support column is 32 KB long...;) WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  133. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  134. Support: Congratulations. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  135. Support. No concerns, and I do remember the Bus stop controversy. Since those days whenever I see John Carter weighing in on some issue I tend to assume that the advice will be sensible. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  136. Support A fine editor, in my few interactions with him, and am sure he will be an excellent administrator.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  137. Indeed. I (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  138. Support. Always calm, polite, reasonable and rational. What's not to like? --Gene_poole (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  139. Late Support. And thanks for being a fine contributor. —Moondyne 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  140. Support - good to see the warlord bit has dropped off - he has given great support for some very disparate projects and template issues - SatuSuro 10:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  141. Support I've seen some of his good work around, but with 75,000 edits I don't see how I could miss it. --Canley (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  142. Support-I think all the comments above got pretty much what I have to say(this user should be a B'Crat by now!)--Kushan I.A.K.J 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  143. Support - words are unnecessary. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  144. Support - very clearly. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  145. Support - Excellent candidate! Midorihana~いいですね？ 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  146. Support. After a review of the candidate's editing history, I'm confident he meets the standards required of administrators. Anthøny 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
Oppose Use has to many edits, if he keeps it up we will run out of storage.--Dacium (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (kidding)
You're opposing because the number of edits is so high? Dreamy § 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is a joke? Or is there logic to your oppose (if so, please fill me in)? · AndonicO Hail! 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
He has a point. It would really help in some cases if I drafted some pages before storing them, like my proposed revision of the Project Directory, which can be seen by those with strong stomachs at User:John Carter/Directory. I would if I thought I would be able to ensure that the pages or separate disc I stored them on would remain useful. Unfortunately, I have tried that before and found that what really happens is that it all just gets lost. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutly no need to worry about high numbers of edits. We will not run of space, period. Loads of bots have about 5 times your edits count.--Phoenix-wiki 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral. Good contributor, but rename of account with 75,000 edits caused the whole wiki to seize up for 10 minutes earlier today – Gurch 08:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    So that's what happened. Well, how many admins can say that they single-handedly brought the entire project to its knees, if only briefly? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry about that. I did notice the problem myself. If I had known it would take that much work, I would never have made the request. It was pointed out to me above that the name might cast me as even more belligerent than I (maybe) really am, and it did seem a valid concern. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    To your credit, I think it speaks highly of you that you were willing to take such a drastic step without being forced to, server load aside. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Good Lord! Hang him out to dry. Indirectly causing the wiki to freeze for 10 minutes is intolerable! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Great, so it's my fault now. I said it wasn't that important though... User:Dorftrottel 18:43, January 11, 2008
    No, it isn't your fault. It's entirely my own. You made a valid point with which I came to agree. And, for what it's worth, knowing what I do, someone had better present a really awesome reason for me to change it back for me to even consider doing so. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    :D ok then. User:Dorftrottel 19:09, January 11, 2008
    :O You guys really have to stop taking my neutral votes seriously – Gurch 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    That wasz what the that was! Woah!.--Phoenix-wiki 15:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    Good Grief! Seriously?!? Causing the whole wiki to freeze for ten minutes, there must have been a lot of angry users! Glad I wasn't there at that exact time!--Kushan I.A.K.J 13:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, yes. It was in the evening US time; I remember, I was wondering what was happening at the time myself. Luckily, I doubt there will be anyone stupid enough to try such a stunt again. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    I doubt memory will last as long - the crat could choose a nonbusy time in case of large contributions though. Agathoclea (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.