This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angela(talk | contribs) at 19:53, 4 August 2004(+Stormie, DropDeadGorgias, Kim Bruning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:53, 4 August 2004 by Angela(talk | contribs)(+Stormie, DropDeadGorgias, Kim Bruning)
Stormie has been a full contributor since March 2004, and does an excellent job of patrolling for vandals and of producing his own work. Definitely should be an admin. RickK 21:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
I am honoured to be nominated and gladly accept! Thanks Rick! —Stormie 23:42, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Impressed by his diplomacy in resolving the Joaquin Phoenix dispute. --Michael Snow 18:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comments
2729 edits for anyone who wants to know. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note: This nomination has been removed twice so far, once by Lir [1] and once by Merovingian [2]. Somehow this made me vote for him. Chris 73 | Talk 11:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Chris, I think both of those were accidents falling out of the strange section duplicating/destroying events that seem to happen on heavily edited pages, but regardless, your vote of support is much appreciated. :-) —Stormie 12:40, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
You're probably right. I contacted Merovingian, and he apologized. Anyway, you have my vote ;-) Chris 73 | Talk 11:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
A. Yes, I have, and have actually been considering putting myself up as a self-nomination. Rick beat me to it. :-)
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I'm quite an active Recent Changes watcher, so I find myself quite often reverting idiot vandalism and tagging nonsense articles for speedy deletion - admin privs would make this job easier. Also I'm reasonably active on WP:VFD, and would be happy to help out with implementing the keeping & deleting at the back end of the queue, as well as voting at the front end.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I do the recent changes watching, copyedit & wikify new articles, and browse through Wikipedia:Cleanup for things to do. I've also put some hard yards into gruntwork like Topbanana's possibly misspelled links list and the list of French articles with no English interwiki link. Also, I've recently been trying to help mediate some edit conflicts on X-Men, although I'm not sure how successful I've been, since a formal request for mediation was made after I started trying to help. :-)
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Can't say I've ever been involved in any particularly stressful or grievous conflicts yet, thankfully. Worst I've gotten has been the occasional anon vandalising my user page because I reverted some other vandalism - and that's more likely to make me laugh than make me stressed. —Stormie 23:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
DropDeadGorgias has over 1600 edits since 5 Mar 2003 (with increased activity from February of 2004), has shown interest in issues like featured articles and deletions, and would benefit from having admin abilities. In my opinion, this user shows good judgment and an even temperament, and would make a fine administrator. --Michael Snow 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I accept, and it's an honor just to be nominated. BTW, this gender neutral stuff is really annoying. I'm a dude. I'll put a note on my page.... - DropDeadGorgias(talk) 20:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Support
I know I'm not the first to say this, but I love the username. --Michael Snow 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hear, hear -- both to the compliment on the username and Michael's assessment of DDG's suitability. :-) Strong support. Jwrosenzweig 19:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Finally someone I'm familiar with to vote for. An excellent choice. BCorr|Брайен 19:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
<cliche>He/she is not already an admin?!?!?!?!?!?!</cliche> Seriously, this is a big surprise to me! Strong support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I thought you already were an admin. Jeez! :)--Neutrality 20:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In my interactions with this editor, I have been deeply impressed by his commitment and lack of stubbornness. I feel he is both responsible and committed. - Mark 07:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Looking through DDG's history, it's clear he or she is a hard-working user who has added much to WP. It looks like heshe lost hisher temper here, but the matter was quickly resolved equitably between them. Quadell(talk) 20:52, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I would be able to help with watching recent changes, executing deletions and removing failed deletions on vfd, and responding to editor requests. - DropDeadGorgias(talk)
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Hmm, my interests are all over the board, so there are some silly articles that I've done a lot of legwork for (COBRA Organization), and there are some more substantial articles, like Gmail, and The Library of Babel. The most tedious thing I ever did was disambiguate all of the mathematicians on Mersenne prime, which is harder than it sounds because most mathematicians only go by their first initials. - DropDeadGorgias(talk)
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I have done a lot of work to bring some literature articles up to speed, particularly those of latin american and japanese authors. I also fleshed out a lot of the information on tropicalismo, and the related artists. - DropDeadGorgias(talk)
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I'd like to think that I've been pretty level headed about resolving conflicts. I recently had a misunderstanding with User:Tannin about thumbnailed images on Hard disk, which seemed like it was almost going to escalate into a revert war, but we were able to come to a solution that met both of our needs with the new image markup. I don't really get into revert wars, because after the first few reversions I make it a point to resolve the issue either on the article talk page or the other user's talk page before editing again. If that proved unsuccessful, I'd probably escalate to RFC, but I haven't had to resort to that yet. - DropDeadGorgias(talk)
I would like to nominate Kim Bruning for administrator -- in my experience working with Kim on and off for the last several months, he has been the model of care, patience, and positive attitude we need so desperately as administrators. His careful work with WHEELER is an excellent example of his ability to interact productively and reasonably with an editor who has driven a number of admins (myself included) into dialogue that cannot be classified as entirely civil. I hope, in fact, to learn something from his ability to work with editors I find frustrating. I have spent several months waiting for Kim to accept that he is worthy of the nomination and allow me to nominate him, which only assures me that he's right for the job -- I think a reluctance to accept a position of increased authority is an excellent indication that someone is unlikely to abuse that position. I hope you will find him as worthy a candidate as I do. Jwrosenzweig 19:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Kim has been here since February 24, 2004, and has 1,236 edits at the present time. Jwrosenzweig 19:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've checked Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit based on Kim's comment below -- he's right, and that would add another 250 or so edits to his tally, and take him back into early December, by my reckoning. Jwrosenzweig 23:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support. I've come across Kim's comments here and there and am impressed. Kim seems to be one of those uncommon folk who are an oily influence (as in troubled waters), and that influence is sorely needed. To the extent Kim can share it, WP would benefit. Awesome admin powers would not be amiss in this case, I think. Lack of edits (see below) do not seem to me to be an impediment, in this instance. Let's hope Kim's temperament survives a year or so of WP intact, eh! ww 18:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support, one of the very best. Sam [Spade] 02:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes! Spent an hour or so checking the history, and I'm impressed. Calm and level-headed, and I particularly liked the "Editing on Wikipedia should be fun. Why else do it for free?" (Quoting from memory). Lupo 21:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I usually look at Wikipedia during short breaks, while waiting for my computer to catch up with me.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I've managed to nab a number of vandals from time to time. Admin powers would probably be really handy for that.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I've managed to keep people talking with each other, I hope.
6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A.I end up solving conflicts a lot, maybe because I think it's a fun challenge. I deal with conflicts by looking at peoples' behaviour logically, and trying to figure out what's causing them to behave that way in the first place. Kim Bruning 22:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I nominate Robin Patterson for adminship. I know that his 605 edits since January 30 are at the lower end of Wikipedians' tolerance range, but from my own dealings with him I know that he strives for quality over quantity. I hope that all will take note of the high standard of his work, and elect him to a position to which he is well suited. David Cannon 01:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the votes of confidence, David and others. I may not actually DO anything with the position (seeing my main "responsibility" as a continuation of being the major operator as a sysop on Wikipedia Maori over the last few months), but one never knows. Kia ora! Robin Patterson 03:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Seems like a thoughtful, balanced contributer to me. Quadell(talk) 18:10, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Support, the quality is definitely there, even if the quantity is low, and I think Robin is a very helpful, friendly and level-headed contributor. —Stormie 00:17, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 16:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Lots of useful edits on New Zealand information. + Also contributes at another language wikipedia. (see under comments)
A quality contributor. Being a sysop elsewhere doesn't automatically make you a sysop here, but I trust Robin is familiar with our policies, since it's probably been necessary to draw from them in the effort to build the Maori Wikipedia. I also don't expect admins to necessarily be highly active in that capacity, so I'm not concerned with how Robin divides time between here and there. --Michael Snow 21:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In my experience, Robin would be deserving of "important and ponderous privileges" if we had any to offer here -- in the absence of them, I heartily approve of entrusting Robin with the few abilities of an administrator (and their attendant disadvantages). :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, seems like a genuine and good contributor, but far too few edits for me. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that a person's edits are not and should not be the only factor in adminship decisions. Certainly, they are an important indicator, but it should be asked as well what a prospective admin will do for Wikipedia. No offense, but it seems like Mr. Patterson is quite involved with the Maori Wikipedia, and, as he himself has stated, "may not actually DO anything with the position." Perhaps more people need to view adminship as an important and ponderous privilege rather than a social title. --Slowking Man 06:04, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Adminship is not an important and ponderous privilege. It's the technical ability to perform certain administrative actions, and the trust from the community that one can perform those actions in an accepted and helpful manner. At least, that's how it should be; in reality administrators are (through no fault of their own) somewhat revered as Important People and their admin status gives them an elevated social position. I am therefore supporting this nomination on the grounds that whether or not this user intends to, or will, make use of their privileges, there is no reason for hir not to have them. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:29, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
On the contrary: Fewer people should view adminship "as an important privilege" -- or else, we need to change the official policy ("no big deal"). In the meantime, since adminship remains officially nothing more than acknowledgement that a contributor is competent and trusted, a contributor's intention to use admin options (or not) is hardly relevant. Cribcage 06:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lysine states that adminship involves the giving of trust from the community to the adminee. This is exactly right, and this is why adminship is important. Among other things, admins have the ability to ban users and IP ranges from accessing and/or editing the Wikipedia, to use the revert function, to move and delete pages, and to protect pages. While admins do not have unilateral leeway over executing such responsibilities, these certainly are not unimportant abilities. I disagree with the tendency for people to be viewed as qualified for adminship solely based upon edits. If people should recieve adminship after reaching some quota of edits, then voting is unnecessary. However, since adminship is important, I don't see why we should grant a person adminship if he or she is going to be inactive. Do we elect people to legislatures who publicly claim that they won't have time to attend sessions or vote on laws? --Slowking Man 08:10, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
You're missing the point of a wiki. Yes, an admin is able to protect pages or ban users. But an anonymous user is able to come along and edit nearly any page of our encyclopedia. We don't restrict that ability to registered users, on the logic that, "It's too important." (You may have noticed that fact is our single most consistent source of criticism.) We've chosen to restrict a few select options, and our official policy is basically: "Anonymous users shouldn't be able to ban people; and since registration is free, there's little difference between an anonymous user and a day-old user ID. So we'll restrict these few options temporarily -- once we're sure you're on the level, you're in." As has been stated time and again and again: If you want to change the official policy, then do so. Otherwise, abide by it. Cribcage 13:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
People should not automatically receive adminship after a certain number of edits: rather, a certain number of edits may be regarded as the base qualifications for adminiship. There are generally a fixed or limited number of members of a legislative body; it is therefore important to elect those who will make the most desirable difference. However, there are no practical limits to the number of sysops at any one time, so there is no inherent disadvantage to appointing sysops who may end up doing less work then their fellows. I agree that number of edits is not the sole, or most important criteria for adminship; however, proper assessment of a nominee's temperament can only take place after they have reached a certain amount of participation, which in real terms often translates to a minimum number of edits or length of time. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 08:23, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
Slowking Man wrote: If people should recieve adminship after reaching some quota of edits, then voting is unnecessary. However, since adminship is important, I don't see why we should grant a person adminship if he or she is going to be inactive. Do we elect people to legislatures who publicly claim that they won't have time to attend sessions or vote on laws? I'm sorry, but I beg leave to disagree.
We've all seen police officers sitting in parked cars, doing nothing. Are they wasting time? Is it a waste of money to pay them? NO. Even if the officer is doing nothing, the fact that he is there acts as a deterrent to people who would flout the law. I assure you, I won't be speeding if I know that a police officer, however "inactive," is around! Likewise, a sysop need not be "active" to be effective. The fact that others know that sysops are around is enough to discourage most would-be vandals and other problem users. I recall one experience I had with an article that two users were endlessly reverting and counter-reverting in a seemingly senseless edit war, without adding anything substantive to the content. I didn't have to do much. I (a) protected the page for a very brief period, and (b) put a note on the talk page, requesting that both users provide sources for the information they were fighting over, and included the "administrator" label in my signature,. I haven't had to do anything more since - they've both dropped the matter. Just like the speedster with the sedentary police officer, they both know that I'm around somewhere, "inactively" watching the page - and are therefore behaving themselves.
The analogy of a legislative body is flawed. It is for good reason that sysops' official title is "administrator," not "legislator." Sysops do not constitute a legislative body in any sense of the word: we have no power, as a body, to make rules and regulations, only to enforce rules that the Wiki-community as a whole, consisting of all registered users who want to particpate, has decided upon. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your reasoning here, Slowking Man. David Cannon 22:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
The idea is to determine whether we can trust Robin Patterson not to do anything crazy with admin privileges. One way is to look at some number of edits, and some period of time to statistically figure out if someone is trustworthy. But there's more ways. In this case Robin Patterson also contributes at another language wikipedia, and is apparently trusted there already. This tips the balance in this editors' favor for me. Kim Bruning 16:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
A. Yes, some of it more than once, a few months ago.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Slightly, and yes, but see my main reply above.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. Anything requested, but no guarantee of noticing anything urgently, because my visits are relatively rare and short compared with those of some contributors. My New Zealand timezone may be an advantage.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most successfully and helpfully to?
A. I don't recall anything outstanding; but my village, Plimmerton, and city, Porirua, have substantial contributions, with more to come if I get time and can avoid more distant distractions such as Tom Lehrer and Colonization (game). There was also the list of trees that I added after creating it for the Maori version. Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. Wikipedia Maori (see main response above) and the welcoming of newcomers. Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
6a. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret?
A. None of the world's estimated 130,000 Maori language speakers has yet shown his or her hand in any significant way (except in the English Wikipedia).
6b. What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. Found WP years ago... Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 05:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
User:Lupo is an encyclopedia addict and on Wikipedia since 18 Dec 2003. He has 1713 mainspace edits and 2812 edits altogether. He is active in almost all areas of Wikipedia (WP:RCP, WP:CU, WP:FAC, VfD, WP:CP, WP:SD, etc.). He got three of his new articles on Did you know (Frankfurt kitchen, Short-horned Lizard, Amerigo Vespucci), and is currently working on turning Kitchen into a featured article. A calm and reasonable editor in exchanges with other editors. He has been nominated for adminship before on 25 Mar 2004, and the main objection was the lack of experience on Wikipedia. I believe he has now enough experience and would be an excellent admin. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris. I am honored and accept this nomination. Lupo 19:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Seems just what an admin should be. Quadell(talk) 18:33, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Patient and polite character when dealing with problematic users is just what an admin should have. Also very good contributions and maintenance. --Romanm 21:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 17:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good at maintenance.
Acegikmo1 21:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC). This user has comprehensively answered a few questions I had on User talk:Lupo. I appreciate his responses, which have convinced me that he feels very strongly about some Wikipedia policies and has good reason for doing so. Lupo has also made many excellent contributions to the encyclopedia. As such, I believe that he is a trustworthy user.
I strongly supported Lupo's failed nomination in March, and I strongly support his (I'm glad to see successful) nomination today. He is an asset to the project. -- Hadal 04:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
Oh yeah. The standard questionnaire. My answering here does not relieve any responsible voter from checking my contributions him- or herself and form his or her own opinion.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Answer to (1), (2), and (3): I'm not running for a political office here, and neither am I applying for a job. I accepted the nomination because I'd be willing to expand some of my housekeeping activities a little bit if the community considers me trustworthy enough—getting the "janitor's keys" would allow me to do some of these chores myself instead of having to ask others to do them. I would have declined Chris's offer for a nomination if I wasn't familiar with the relevant reading list.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
Nothing spectacular. I'm helping out a little bit here and there.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A good, good, good editor. Had the unfortunate experience of coming through RfA way too early. But he's a good deal more established now. He's eager and energetic and has already delved into chores-type activities. I can't think of a single non-admin Wikipedian right now that would be better suited for adminship. 2629 edits, been registered for 3 months, 6 days. - blankfaze | (беседа!)
I thought he already was an admin! Full support, of course. Neutrality 17:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I do believe Snowspinner is a he. Either way, I support. Mike H 17:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
It's still very early for my tastes (just above my personal minimum) but my interactions with Snowspinner convince me he'll make a fine admin. →Raul654 17:24, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Of course this is not sarcasm. Snowspinner is a really nice guy... He supported my nomination in June, and when my nomination failed, he posted comments on [3] and asked what I can do to get their support the next time... That is so nice... I am also impressed by his edits... How can anyone not support Snowspinner? --Lst27 02:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Darn. I wanted to be one of your top 3 supporters. Missed first post, I guess. - Fennec(はさばくのきつね) 13:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow (no relation) 18:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support, just because I don't want to be in the same group as Avala; fractured logic like that could be contagious. j/k, snowspinner's great. - DropDeadGorgias(talk) 18:47, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
What the...you're not an admin yet? Unbelievable! An excellent Wikipedian who carries himself well and makes great edits. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Kim Bruning 16:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) You can tell a lot about a person from how they deal with their own mistakes.
Dieter Simon 00:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) I will give him the benefit of the doubt and vote for Snowspinner. Yes, lack of fluency in a language in itself is not a valid reason, as in Avala's case. After all the Wikipedians can copy-edit an article. Snowspinner has patience in dealing with difficult cirumstances and will gain more experience.
Support, while I agree w much of the criticism, and feel SS is an opinionated, strong willed individual, who is capable of being wrong or exaggerated on occasion (who isn't), his obvious integrity and deep focus on neutrality and fairness more than make up for any mistakes he has made (which don't ad up to much, BTW). IMO the ability to admit when we are wrong, and the sincere desire to be right are far more important than a specific error or two. Sam [Spade] 03:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Support, of course. -Seth Mahoney 23:42, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
Support. User is obviously qualified if Lir and Plato are opposing. --H.CHENEY 02:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Without question. -- Hadal 04:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - You have support of the GP, who calls other users "cunts", and uses fascist abbrevations. It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can still turn to yes but not under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of third party, but I am affraid that users like GP will be able to continue with such behavior. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This very well may be the dumbest, dumbest, dumbest vote I've ever seen on RfA. Vote on the candidate's merit, not that of the people supporting him... blankfaze | (беседа!) 11:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don`t want to be in the same group with such people as GP. And please don`t call my votes - dumb. We have no personal attacks policy in here.Avala 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but that vote is dumb. If you don't want to be in the same group, then just don't vote at all! Voting against someone on account of something they have absolutely no control over and that relates in no way to their potential to be a good admin... makes you look like an 8-year-old. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just utterly baffled here. a) Who is GP? b) What actions, exactly, would you have wished and expected Snowspinner to take? Not taking sides, just puzzled. Dpbsmith 13:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To answer your first question, Dpbsmith, I think "GP" means GeneralPatton. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:19, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
On b) It looks like you are asking the question to blankfaze but presumably you mean avala. Pcb21|Pete 10:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll second the opinion that your vote is dumb. (A personal attack would be calling you dumb.) It's unfortunate you can't muster the maturity to separate one user's behavior from another's reputation -- but it's not surprising, reviewing your history. Glass houses, pal. Cribcage 18:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, I, for one, am glad. I think George Washington should be the only American to have the honor of being elected unanimously. Waitamminit, is Snowspinner even American at all? Rats, I should have asked him that before I voted! - Nat Krause 10:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Oh, yeah, you are. The not funny thing kinda got to me for a minute, there. Mike H 15:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
I have decided to vote to support the nomination solely because God has not voted in opposition. - Tεxτurε 17:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I oppose solely because people are jumping on Avala for opposing. Who cares? If he feels like opposing, then allow him that privilege. Frankly, I don't care what his reasons are. And anyway, Snowspinner has 40 votes in favor... I do expect people to jump on me for this one as well. And Cribcage -- have you even read the personal attack page? If I were to say, "articles written by Cribcage are dumb", that's obviously a personal attack... or, "every article written by ugen64 is racist"... ugen64 21:40, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, I think your vote is just as dumb. Cribcage 02:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, dumber. At least Avala's was (peripherally) related to the current nomination. My discretion as a beaurocrat is to totally ignore both Avala's and this objection, and I recommend any other beaurocrat do the same. If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make frivilous objections like this a serious policy matter. →Raul654 18:47, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed...if it weren't like 55 votes to 3, I'd be with you Raul (as a sysop, a beuraucrat and most importantly a member of the WP community). Ilyanep(Talk) 05:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, honestly. This is a vote. You can't discount my vote just because you disagree with my reasoning, unless you want to completely do away with the democratic nature of choosing administrators. Although I've called many people's votes "dumb" (including, to name one example, Kingturtle, whose standards I thought were much too high), I've never asked people to ignore a cast vote. Of course, I am with Raul -- "If this weren't such a landslide in Snowspinner's favor, I would make [frivolous] objections like this a serious policy matter" -- I would strongly object if my vote were discounted simply because the rationale is considered "frivolous". ugen64 22:54, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring your objection because I disagree with your reasoning - I'm ignoring it because it's completely, totally, 100% irrelavant to the nomination. And, for the record, the poll which defined how a bureacrat does his job (which I wrote, for the record) ended up saying exactly that - a beaurocrat may use his discretion in weighing votes and give them unequal consideration. →Raul654 23:08, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. [personal attack removed by Ambivalenthysteria]. Lirath Q. Pynnor
(Personal attack was "Snowspinner is a jerk." I feel that especially on voting records like this, confidence in the system requires transparency, and transparency requires not altering someone else's words. I also note that Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks was never passed, and so is not policy. -- orthogonal 23:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))
I think Lir should have been banned a long, long time ago -- but for the record, I don't like the idea of censoring others' comments, particularly on a ballot. Cribcage 02:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Ambi was out of line. It was an unsubtle and unequivocal personal attack, and was well justified under Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I'd have done it if it were any RFA other than my own. Snowspinner 13:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
That's a reasonable point. Cribcage 19:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I prefer to leave a link to the diff showing personal attack removal. But that's me. -Fennec(はさばくのきつね) 17:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Here is the link: [4]. I looked at it and thought "is that all?" but it is a direct personal attack and the removal is appropriate. - Tεxτurε 18:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think that Ambivalenthysteria should remove, or all personal attacks or none. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Reluctantly oppose. After reading User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence, in which Snowspinner includes as "evidence" against Avala that Avala opposed Snowspinner's previous nomination here, and that Avala nominated a candidate Snowspinner finds unworthy, I'm worried that Snowspinner doesn't clearly enough distinguish between his personal opinions and Wikipedia policy, and is too likely to see mere differences of opinion as actionable "rule breaking". I say this as someone who also finds Avala difficult, and as someone who had planned to vote for Snowspinner both here and for ArbCom. -- orthogonal 22:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My objection was not that Avala nominated a candidate that I find unworthy - it's that he does not seem to consider "engages in edit wars and deletes other people's polls" to be a reasonable grounds for opposition, while finding "I don't want to be on the same list as person X" to be reasonable, which is part of the larger problem of not respecting or engaging with the community of Wikipedia and its consensus and conventions. Since that's unclear, I'll edit the evidence page to make that clearer. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Snowspinner 23:07, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, based on the tendency for confrontation and rash judgement evident on his edits to this page. Zocky 23:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In the name of openess, I think, though I'm not sure, that what zocky is objecting to is that I removed a pair of nominations under the policy that obviously unsupported nominations may be removed. I did so because they were becoming exceedingly vicious and hateful, and, in the case of one of them, because it appeared to be posted by a sockpuppet and seemed designed to foster exactly the kind of flame war that it did foster. Were I an administrator, I would have done exactly this, and probably warned some people for personal attacks as well. I say this by way of saying that, yes, I am willing to be decisive in my actions. If something is causing a problem, I will attempt to fix it. I will note in my defense, however, that I did not remove the nominations once they were reinstated. I will be decisive - I will not be stubborn and insistent. Unless there's something else entirely that you're referring to here, in which case I confess curiosity as to what it is. Snowspinner 23:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
That is a part of it. Removing a nomination in less than 24 hours on an international website means that people from some parts of the world don't even get to see it. I call that rash judgement, yes. The other is including "Avala's limited fluency in English" as a reason to oppose his RFA. That's either a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia (which I choose to believe) or a sneaky perpetuation of personal antipathy. I found both very undesirable in someone who is trusted with the Delete button.Zocky 23:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Limited fluency in English is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. This is the English Wikipedia. Admins especially should be fluent in the language as they must communicate frequently with other users. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think the amount of time matters as much as you do... there's just no way that Avala's nomination is going to pass, and I think that was clear when I removed it. A nomination with 12 votes in opposition, which was what I think it had at the time, needs 40 supporters to pass. Only one RfA has ever passed 39 votes. It was not concievable that it was going to pass, no matter how many people had time to vote on it. Clearly there was disagreement with this. I stand by my decision, but I'm not rushing to take it down again, as I said. As for the other... I personally attribute a lot of Avala's seeming hostility to difficulty expressing himself in English. I find that a more sympathetic opinion than that he's a hothead. I think we're reacting to the same set of behaviors here, at least, though attributing different causes to it. Looking at my wording, though, i can see how it could be misinterpreted - I'll clarify. But both of those are neither here nor there, and I don't want this to turn into a lengthy debate on the matter. Feel free to bring it up with me on my talk page or on IRC if you want (And please do - I'm happy to explain myself). I just wanted to note that my approach towards this page regarding Avala's nomination and its removal would in fact be consistent with my approach towards conflict as an administrator, so that, should anyone else find it extremely objectionable, they would be aware and would vote accordingly. :) Snowspinner 23:54, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm entitled to the last word on my vote. Removing anything of consequence in less than 24 hours keeps even regular editors, who take time to follow the running of Wikipedia, out of the loop and denies the user's right to reply to objections.
The other thing is, Avala's English is nowhere near as bad as you claim. I read all his comments on this page carefully. He has problems with articles and tenses, but so do most Slavic speakers. All his text is in fact perfectly understandable, if one reads it carefully. Zocky 01:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is a reluctant opposition and does not reflect any personal feelings I might have toward Snowspinner's past or continuing contributions to the site and project. However, I reviewed the evidence against Avala, and I felt that there were a number of occasions when an appeal to a broader community might have easily forestalled the animosity. Avala's English is not fluent, and he is a citizen of the former Yugoslavia. Consequently, some of his arguments were hampered by the language barrier, but, additionally, many of Snowspinner's misunderstandings were caused by not seeking out other, more fluent, English speakers from the area to help negotiate opinions. After a certain point, it seems like the fight was about the fighting, and not about any particular issue, article, or decision. That it reached such a point without outreach, without seeking the aid of neutral parties, does reflect somewhat poorly on Snowspinner's reactions to a belligerant fellow editor. Finally and ultimately, though, I feel that Snowspinner's time on Wikipedia is simply too brief. I say this not because I believe there is a magic number of days or edits, but because the motivation to move to administrator quickly worries me. If one's desire is based upon getting one's will, then it is bad. If one's desire is based upon changing the course of the project, that, too, is bad. If one's desire is to particpate in a social world of admins, then, I feel, the motivation is suspect. Only if the desire is based upon duty and a belief that the project is far more important than any of the project's participants is it appropriate. I do not in any way whatever mean to imply that I believe that Snowspinner's motives are bad. In fact, I think Snowspinner is a reasonable, intelligent, and dilligent contributor to the project who has shown himself of the highest commitment. Instead, I oppose because I feel that it takes a great deal of time as a regular user to show a person's continued perseverance and to establish how such a person will react to others in opposition. I do not think there is enough of a track record. Hoping by all means that I offer no offense and provoke only thought, Geogre 17:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Snowspinner has enough editing experience. Yes, he has over 2,600 edits, but looking at his last 100 contributions there are only about seven edits to articles. He may only have a few hundred article edits altogether. Paradoxically, this appears to be the very reason he has received so much support as opposed to the other nominees on this page - at least I can find no other explanation (if I'm wrong, maybe some who supported Snowspinner but not the others can explain their voting) other than that he is simply better known, and this is because the average "Wikipedia:" page is more widely read than the average article (and article edits are not signed). I find it troubling, however, that this way we tend to create a class of "professional sysops" who are merely supervising the actual editors who work on the articles. And I note that Snowspinner is already running for the Arbitration Committee, which I don't see as a good sign. Everyone here should be an editor in the first place, and the administrative tasks should be shared among editors, not entrusted to a separate class who does little else but administrating. Gzornenplatz 13:54, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
If you want to see specific article work I've done, Video game studies, Chicago School (literary theory), Janet Murray, Michel Foucault, X-Men ReLoad, Betty Brant, Rallos Zek, 2004 Tour de France and the stage recaps of 2003 Tour de France are all articles I've done work on. I don't pretend that all of these are great articles - they merely demonstrate article editing. Note also that, although many of my edits are in the Wikipedia namespace, a large number are on talk pages - often talk pages of articles. That is to say, not all contributions to articles happen on article pages - I've helped resolve a number of disputes and worked towards consensus on a number of articles, often without touching the article page itself much at all. Snowspinner 16:35, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
Note also that I have withdrawn my entry to the arbcom race - my reasons are on the candidate statement page. Snowspinner 17:26, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting Snowspinner's nomination -- but for the record, I absolutely second your last three sentences. Cribcage 16:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Well, after some consideration, I am compelled to oppose here. I do not often vote in such things, but I am not at all certain I agree with many of this user's views on WP administration, particularly regarding resolution of disputes without recourse to enforced procedure and regulations. Specific examples include Avala's RfAr evidence (which, while not containing any specific objections which would on their own disqualify a user from adminship, exemplifies my general feelings), and an opinion that mediation is not helpful; however, I also have a broad non-specific objection to hir general attitude and opinions in such matters. While adminship should be something bestowed upon anyone willing to enforce the community's decisions, rather than an ability to enforce one's own views, there is at present a certain status associated with adminship and it does result in one's own opinions, however inadvertantly, carrying more weight than a normal user's. I therefore cannot personally support adminship for those whose desired procedures differ so much from my own. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 00:27, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC) Having considered this further, I am changing my vote to neutral; not because my opinion has changed, but because I do not feel comfortable opposing a nomination on the grounds that I personally disagree with the direction the community is taking. The solution to the exhalted admin status seems to be in having more admins, not less. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:41, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
Guanaco 11:55, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) For the same reasons as Lysine.
He surely is experienced and respected enough, but he is maybe too bold and therefore I'm unsure that he won't make something wrong by the negligence. Dr Bug(Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 00:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comments
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if I care to respond:
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Yes. Hell, I already do some of those chores. Now I can just speedily delete things myself instead of having to tag them and wait for someone else to do it. :)
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I watch recent changes for vandal updates and either revert or tag them for speedy deletion. I intend to continue this. I track vandalizing users and report them frequently to ViP. I intend to continue this, and also to monitor ViP for reports that need to be dealt with.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. At the moment, I'm pretty proud of 2004 Tour de France. I would be proud of Michel Foucault, but I got distracted before I really finished work on it. Oh, and Video game theory is pretty spiffy, though also in need of expansion. (Yes, I confess, I have a bad habit of writing half of an article before flitting off to some other task. But I really like the halves of articles I write!)
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. Wikipedia:What is a troll. It didn't pass, and I'm sympathetic to people who say it needs more work (I intend to put that work in once the vote ends), but I think it's a great start towards a real problem.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. Heteronormativity. I tried to settle a dispute between some users and wound up basically pouring gasoline on the fire, leaving the article still a mess. I should have stayed a bit cooler, and couched my objections in existant Wikipedia policies like verifiability. Big learning experience. Snowspinner 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck! -- Snowspinner 17:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
There is one condition for my support. Could you give up of support (he supported you earlier) of User:GeneralPatton who called me "cunt", then he said "I will shit on your kings picture" etc. He used abbrevation ZDS of Ustasha movement, the fascist movement. Only thing I ask to give up of him and similar users to show that you are an example of dealing with such users and that you are ready to become an admin. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I never requested comment of GeneralPatton attacks, for an example when he called me a cunt. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 09:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am uninterested in doing favors in return for support, for obvious reasons, however, to make clear, I have never supported personal attacks, and, in fact, actively oppose them, including GeneralPatton's attacks to Avala, as well as Avala's hostile responses. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and there is no excuse for them. Snowspinner 20:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Favor? I just wanted to make things clear. I will be neutral for the next few days to see the situation and then I will decide. [[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 20:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it's none of my business, but I'm curious since you announced it: What does "to see the situation" mean? Is it basically, "I like to follow the pack -- so if there's a consensus, that's how I'll vote"? Cribcage 06:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
For everybody's reference, the previous (failed) RfA can be found at [5]. Snowspinner 22:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
A careful editor, and calm and reasonable in exchanges with other editors. A solid contributor. About 1500 non-minor edits since March 1, 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch 12:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I feel honoured and accept. Andris 13:21, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Jerzy(t) 23:59, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC) I seldom work closely with another WP editor, but have briefly w/ Andris; i seldom form impressions other than "bad WP colleague" or "OK", but Andris made an especially good impression on me.
A. Yes, just now, but I found out I knew most of content from other policy pages.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Yes.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. It's hard for me to pick one of my contributions over the rest. I wrote List of political parties in Latvia and most of articles on individual parties linked from there. I have also contributed to some mathematics and computer science articles. Young tableau is probably my best contribution in that area.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
Joined in August 2003; a couple of thousand edits, about three quarters of which have been in the mainspace; has contributed quite a few photos, diagrams, &c., as well as general copyediting and so on; even attended the first ever wikimeet. Disclaimer: Personal friend. James F.(talk) 02:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Accepts, honoured. Ed g2s 03:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Sadly, I have far too much free time at the moment, so yes, see below.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. My two favourite pages are Random Page and Recent Chagnes, so I come across a lot of vandalism. It would be nice to be able to deal with it myself.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A.Euro 2004, London Underground tube line images, I created the football kit template used on hundreds of football club websites, lots of photos/diagrams/image cleanups, see User:Ed_g2s/Images, far too many edits to random pages, and lots of templates.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. Not hugely into categorisation, yet. Lots of edits to pages that look ugly, creating templates, fixing layouts, using image boxes. Oh, and chasing up image copyright info.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. Not playing with the mediawiki code.
Вопрос 7: Do you promise to always use proper British English, never the corruption that is American English?
Hey! Ya tawkin' tuh me, Limey? Dere's nobuddy else heer but yoo and me. Ya tawkin' tuh me? -- Cecropia | Talk
About 1000 edits in main namespace since August 2003. A careful editor, and calm and rational in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm honored :). I accept the nomination. Thue | talk 23:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A. Yep. I have also checked out the sysop functions while playing with the mediawiki software on my own computer.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I plan to have a look at the mediawiki code at some point, so that will take priority over committing to do a sysop chore on a regular basis. (I am thinking of integrating the wikipedia:new pages patrol functionality of saying "I reviewed this edit" into special:newpages and maybe special:recentchanges)
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I often watch the new pages part of recent changes, I think I will keep doing that. It is quite possible that I will do some maintainance at WP:VFD, WP:CP or vandalism if either thing needs doing.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. I think I did a good job of writing the synopsis of The Little Mermaid. Almost a stub, but Cell chip is also a nice reference.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I have spend a good deal of time watching special:newpages: copyediting, expanding, vfd'ing and watching for copyright problems. Fx I caught Gatch gereftani the other day, what looks like an example of false information.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. No big regrets come to mind.
Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 23:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nearly 2000 edits since 20 December 2003. Excellent user. Handles disagreements well, and has done extensive work, particularly on Australia-related articles.
I accept the nomination. What I'm currently focusing on edit-wise is the Australia and Melbourne related articles and page-series, especially within the Melbourne WikiProj. Although as I'm migrating piecemeal to a new computer, (among other things), I haven't been able to do as much as I would have liked to by now. Still, I'm trying to do things like categorization, filling in infoboxes (that's one hell of a task in some places!), and uploading images and diagram series when I can. When it comes to maintainence-type tasks, I've been here-and-thering with welcome messages, VFD discussion, RP watch and the like. All of this I'd like to do more often, and if everything falls into place, I'll be able to finish off my looming to-do list. I'd particularly like to do more welcoming and watching anon users on RC. (Also, for the record, I've got a name-change request in the works from Hypernovean to TPK). TPK 13:40, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Handles disagreements well." — Any examples in particular? I looked at Hypernovean's talk page and couldn't spot any disagreements. (I think that is a good thing, btw). — David Remahl 14:01, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. Definitely, and I'll make sure I scrounge up the time to do them in.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. RC-watch and things like reverting vandalism and CSDing, as well as welcoming new users (although not specifically a sysop task, I want to do more of it). And if anyone needs assistance, I'll help if it's within my knowledge to do so, of course.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I can't really say that I've done life-saving reversions or categorizing, but bits and pieces; although I did categorize a lot of public transport for Melbourne, that's sort of a niche area. Mostly I've been just editing, like any good Wikipedian.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. Creating the godforsaken adjaceny table for the Melbourne suburbs, and hoping they would sort themselves out... Not only are there a few hundred empty tables floating around, most of them have dummy "To North", "To South" links which have shown up right at the top of the Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is a most wanted article. It's my top priority for fixn'.
Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 19:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thankyou all for the support. TPK 06:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let me introduce you to this great user, Ssd. He has over 6200 contributions and has edited Wikipedia since February 21. He has put in a lot of work concerning our categorization system and CSS styles, which I have no clue about (I’m still using the classic skin). Anyway, Ssd has expressed some concerns on helping out more with the maintenance of our encyclopedia. I think we should give him this chance. - Merovingian✍Talk 20:58, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
I accept nomination. I can't take credit for much CSS stuff; while I understand it, I probably didn't spend more than 10 wikiminutes on that. Please understand that I'm still balancing looming wikiholism with other things, so what I do with the adminship will be limited to what I have time for after doing other wiki-stuff I want to get done. Right now, my primary task is cleaning up categories, and admin will probably help with that a bit, especially with cleaning of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The rest is listed on my user page.
A reasonable and pragmatic contributor, amenable to discussion. -- Heron 08:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment
Just one niggle: when you become an admin, ssd, you should probably refrain from deleting stuff from Talk pages - not that I mind, because I can see that your intentions are honest and you are just trying to save space, but it sets a bad example for others. :-) -- Heron 08:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That was a special case. I've never done it that way before, it just seemed appropriate and was the best way to keep the discussion from folding under its own weight. (Essentialy, I deleted all the points we agreed on (including my own replies) and then started adding comments from there, and mentioned so. If the discussion had been more complex, I would have left a link to the previous version.) --ssd 11:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:
A. Can't remember which I've read, but I did look into the administrator stuff. I've read everything I could find on categories, category deletion, and deletion in general. (I have not restricted myself to reading in these areas of course.) If I decide to persue other admin responsibilities, I will be sure to read up on it fully before doing it.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. As stated in my acceptance, I will do what I have time for with priority to what I am already doing. I make occasional ventures into VfD, recent changes, vandalism watch, etc., but don't expect me to frequent those areas (except randomly) until I've got categories under control.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. I could help with any or all of those, but will only have time to do so randomly until I have completed other things I am already doing. (In a pinch, I'll help if I can.)
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Probably Antenna (electronics), which parallels my recent entry into another hobby. But a lesser contribution to UFS, which is a piece of filesystem and unix info that I will continue to contribute other articles to as I have time.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I've done a very little bit of vandalism reversion, but mostly lately I have been working on categorization. Probably 80% of my edits in the last month have been about categories, with a reduction in other areas I will eventually get back to.
6. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
A. I nearly always regret hitting save page instead of show preview, but that's easily fixed after the fact. I regret creating Category:Science fiction authors which will (I hope) eventually be renamed to Category:Science fiction writers. (Right now, it's hopeless without a bot, perhaps I'll write one later.) --ssd 21:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 21:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Since the entire opposition to Quadell's nomination rested on an asuumption concerning the appropriateness of his comments on a single article, I took the liberty of asking Jimbo whether he could claify his own position on Quadell's actions. I received a response two days ago, but waited for Jimbo's permission to reproduce his comments, and they are below, verbatim:
"I have no opinion about the RFA, (I don't know him) but I did not see his work on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz as being bad or damaging. Indeed, his research was very helpful, I think, and as you put it, it just looked like "good journalism" to me. His closing remark was a bit rough, but I don't see any real problem with it.
"And you are right of course, if I was really worried about a lawsuit, I could have just deleted the page, protected it, put a stub in there, asked people to tread lightly or whatever. But (a) I am not really worried about a lawsuit and (b) I want the article to get things right.
"If we do NPOV the right way, then we will say virtually nothing ourselves, and merely report on what other people are saying. We will be safe.
Even now, I feel that the article could be improved. "There is evidence that NCB, bin Mahfouz's bank, was involved in funding an al-Qaeda group." That is *us* making a particular claim. We should avoid that. Who claims that there is such evidence? Let's just report on that.
"--Jimbo"
I have restored this nomination for the three days that were "lost" since the first discussion of bin Mahfouz article. Since all the voters made their votes in good faith, we all now have the opportunity to reconsider. My only other comment is to note that Quadell has dealt with this issue with patience and exceptional good grace, further demonstrating his fitness for adminship, -- Cecropia | Talk 17:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason]] I think he'll be fine;)
Cecropia | Talk 19:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) He wikifies, works on requested articles, does the kind of dog work (categorizing, copyedit) that admins should do, and expresses a positive desire to do admin work. Gladly support.
I have had no knowledge of Quadell before this nomination. I've again reread the material on the Talk Page of the disputed article. Jimbo could have (1) deleted the article with an explanation or (2) protected it and asked that discussion cease. He did neither. He did say the article needed to be corrected, but didn't say to whitewash it. Some of us are pillorying Quadell, but it's Jimbo's neck that is on the line, not the critics "defending Wikipedia". If Jimbo speaks on this and says his intent was not to try to affirm apparently true parts of the article, that's one thing, but I've been a journalist, and what Quadell did looks like good journalism; everything we he said is sourced. If some of those sources have been recanted, tell us and we can say so. So, until Jimbo says I'm wrong, If he erred in doing research that Jimbo seemed to be encouraging, so be it, but this makes me think moreso that he would be a fine admin. I strongly reaffirm my support for Quadell.
Oh, why not. You seem level-headed enough, and quantity of edits does not necessarily correspond to quality of edits. Plus I didn't want to be in the same boat as Acegikmo1. Just make sure you're familiar with all the policies, okay? blankfaze | •• | •• 06:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) Vote withdrawn. Nothing personal, but in light of your actions discovered by Secretlondon combined with my original skepticism, I no longer feel comfortable with this vote. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll study up. Quadell(talk) 13:01, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
Elf | Talk 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC). In my limited dealings with Quadell, my general impression is of someone who is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, a quick learner, & willing to go exploring to find out more about Wikipedia. Elf | Talk 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Danny 04:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think we are overemphasizing this entire Khalid bin Mahfouz thing. In al other respects, Quadell has been a top-notch user. His response, even if hasty, was to an exceptional instance of someone who is clearly under some sort of suspicion attempting to force Wikipedia, through litigation, to clear him. While the situation is delicate, it is certainly not one that admins should be expected to handle. I therefore support, based on Quadell's other contributions.
VV[[]] 19:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) I agree with Cecropia's assessment that Jimbo's instructions by no means precluded the route Quadell took, which he clearly put much research and effort into.
Beth ohara 19:28, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC) Quadell is a proficient researcher, excellent writer, and works very hard to keep his views neutral. He takes his role on Wikipedia very seriously. He has a humble attitude toward his articles and places Wikipedia's mission ahead of his own motivations. He would be an excellent admin.
David Remahl 20:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Changed from neutral (see below). I agree with Cecropia that the candidate has handled the pressure of this whole situation with great calm.
[[User:OldakQuill|OldakQuill]] 21:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good contributor, did well on the Khalid bin Mahfouz article - excellent research - commend him.
David Cannon 23:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC). I'm not one to beat about the bush, but now that Jimbo has clarified the legal aspects of the article in question, I am withdrawing my opposition to Quadell's nomination. My overriding concern was that a lawsuit should be avoided at all costs; now that Jimbo has allayed my fears, I have no further reservations about supporting this nomination. Quadell is a writer who does his homework. BTW, thanks for explaining on your user page where you stand, Quadell. That explanation puts your actions in a different light altogether. I apologise for making 5 out of 2+2 earlier.
Looking through contributions, a lot of them - several hundred at least - are minor edits, mostly adding categories to articles. That's no criticism: it's all necessary work. But it does mean that you perhaps don't have as much experience as some others might have with the same number of edits. Combined with the fact that this is a self-nomination, I'm inclined to oppose, for now, but would certainly reconsider in a couple of months.Neutrality is right, adminship should be no big deal. On that basis, and on the basis of what Quadell has said here, and on the basis that other Wikipedians who I greatly respect seem to have no problem, I'm moving to neutral. As with at least one other here, I have found myself in all three camps over the course of this nomination. But unlike blankfaze, I've ended up in Support, I've read carefully over all aspects of this issue, and Quadell's response to it. He demonstrates maturity and a commitment to NPOV (regardless of his own point of view). Supporting - and hopefully this will be the last time I move my vote! --ALargeElk | Talk 14:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed. Support. --H.CHENEY 21:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ditto what Dick said. Neutrality 00:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your response to the threatened libel action on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz doesn't give me confidence that you have the maturity needed. Secretlondon 02:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In all honesty, perhaps I'm missing something. Jimbo posted information about this suit. He did not protect the article and say we should abandon it, then he said "in the meantime, some specific points to research include:" followed by a number of talking points. Then I see Quadell posted an amount of information which appears to be well-sourced. Don't you think it's up to Jimbo to say if Quadell's material is inappropriate? Was Quadell supposed to "read between the lines" and assume the article should be whitewashed or espunged? It seems to me that if Jimbo's intent was that, as a matter in litigation, we should leave it be, he would have said just that. Am I wrong? -- Cecropia | Talk 07:14, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes you are, IMHO. When lawyers take exception to claims made in an article, Wikipedians should not comment on the content unless they are absolutely sure they know what they are doing. In a provocative summing up, User:Quadell repeated/embellished some of the points challenged by the lawyers. So Wikipedia effectively re-published information that lawyers had already taken exception to. I'm sure Jimbo Wales didn't intend that to happen when he mentioned points to research. Moriori
I agree (to oppose). A paragraph Quadell wrote on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz has created a much greater threat to Wikipedia than the original article. I suspect Quadell does not know why. If Elf is correct that Quadell is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, (and) a quick learner then I guess I might change my opinion in a few months time.Moriori 03:25, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
As a PS, I think Quadell should no longer edit Khalid bin Mahfouz. On his user page, Quaddell says I also, somewhat perversely, enjoy shining a light on influencial people who would rather not attract too much attention, such as ...... Khalid bin Mahfouz..... Rightly or wrongly, some people might say that indicates he is editing with malice.Moriori
I've never voted against anyone before, usually I abstain if I choose not to vote positively. But in regards to Khalid bin Mahfouz, as well as Quadell's user page, I must agree with Moriori, as it troubles me to think of the consequences if something like this happened repeatedly. Rhymeless 05:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wow, this is the first time I've ever voted in Support, Oppose, and Neutral on one person. But seriously: I was originally only going to withdraw my support vote, by I am really concerned with the Khalid bin Mahfouz stuff. I don't think you're ready for this. Get a clear head and come back in a few months. Nothing personal. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
While I still oppose (I think more experience can't hurt), I would like to thank Quadell for handling the aftermath of this whole Mahfouz thing honourably and patiently. I'll support in a month or so. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 12:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC). Quadell, I am disturbed by your apparent lack of discretion with respect to the lawsuit threatened by Khalid bin Mahfouz. Sticking your neck out is fine; only this time, it isn't your own neck, but Wikipedia's. I would expect a greater sense of responsibility from someone who wants to be considered for any kind of leadership position. I'm not saying that the opinions expressed were necessarily wrong; I am simply saying that you need to be a lot more discrete about how and when to air such potentially inflammatory views. When Wikipedia is threatened with a lawsuit is not the time. I have noting against you personally, Quadell, but I think you need to demonstrate greater maturity in tense situations, and I fear that appointing you as an administrator would be seen by the people threatening the suit as Wikipedia's throwing a cloak of approval over your behaviour. For that reason, and also on principle, I oppose this nomination. Changing my vote to support on the basis of Jimbo's statement.
"Sticking your neck out is fine; only this time, it isn't your own neck, but Wikipedia's." This isn't entirely fair. Once legal action has been threatened regarding libel, it's perfectly reasonable to assume a plaintiff might name individual editors in his suit, alongside the Wikimedia Foundation. I find it unlikely Quadell was ignorant of this possibility -- and while the wisdom of his action may be questionable, it certainly took guts. Cribcage 22:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it took guts, and I admire him for it. I like Quadell as a person, and have a lot of respect for his scholarship as a writer. My chief concern here, however, is that Wikipedia doesn't get sued. I'll be happy to support Quadell's nomination once this legal issue is resolved to Jimbo's satisfaction. In the meantime, my opposition remains, but I think I did overreact, and apologize for doing so. David Cannon 02:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Acegikmo1 21:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) I remember your username because I've come across your edits in the past. A brief scanning of your contributions confirms that you've made many excellent edits and have also engaged in good discussion. My only reservation is that you've only been here since April. I would be happy to support in a few months.
IMO, kind-of a low number of edits for a self-nomination. Plus, from a quick glance at the User's talk page, he seems to not be as familiar with Wikipedia policy as he need be. I'd probably support after 2000+ edits and a thorough reading of all of our policies as well as Wikipedia:Administrators. blankfaze | •• | •• 21:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Will support after 1500 edits. --Merovingian✍Talk 09:55, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
Although Quandell's comments on the aforementioned talk page are troublesome, I sympathize - I suspect he is n ot completely off the mark in his assesment of the person in question, and I think it very unfortunate that Wikipedia needs to let itself be bullied by people who have enough money to spend threatening British libel cases against anyone who says things about them that they don't like. That said, the situation required tact and care that he didn't display. Adding more potentially libelous statements to Wikipedia was not entirely helpful. I do not think this incident is a reason to oppose, however it combined with the relative newness and the sense that it is perhaps too soon for a self-nomination, I am at least concerned enough to withhold support until a later date. Snowspinner 15:03, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
David Remahl 17:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) He did what Jimbo Wales suggested and researched the points pointed out by the lawyers and posted them on the talk page. If we cannot discuss a page accused for libel in the open, how should we then handle it? I would support, but in this case I think waiting another month is warranted. Changed to support in accordance with my first instinct.
Comments:
User has exactly 1354 edits as of this minute, for anyone who wants to know. blankfaze | •• | •• 20:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:
Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Answers: Yes I have read the Administrators section, and yes, I am interested in sysop custodial duties. Some of what I would want to help with are things I already do in a more limited capacity: looking through recent changes for errors, welcoming new users, adding most-requested articles, and watching out for vandalism. I would also want to be able to respond to editor requests for assistance. Quadell(talk) 15:05, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
Is there any part of Quadell's history I could look at to see how they might handle an edit war? Quadell - have you ever edited a controversial article for instance? Given this is a self-nomination an indication of how diplomatic you can be would be helpful. EddEdmondson 15:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sure. In fact, when I first discovered Wikipedia, I jumped in with creating and updating biographies of 9/11 Commission members, Khalid bin Mahfouz, and Katharine Gun! Those could have been landmines, but I tended to discuss before making big changes, and I didn't run into any conflicts right away. But when I tried to edit the September 11, 2001 attacks article, I ran into a conflict (which is preserved in the amber of Wiki). I suggested a change here, and after murmers of approval, made the change. Another user reverted the changes, and I responded here. I didn't know much about Wikipedia policies at the time, but I tried to be polite. I offered to put it up for a poll, but the other user did not want to. Not knowing the procedures for dispute resolution, I simply let the matter drop. Knowing what I know now, I would request third party assistance, start a poll, or ask for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Still, I did not turn the dispute into an edit war, and I have never participated in one. I tend to avoid these sorts of conflicts when possible, and with a few embarrassing exceptions, I don't let my ego get me into a fight. Quadell(talk) 18:51, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
Yep, you sound like a Buddhist, all right. :-P blankfaze | •• | •• 19:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
People lose sight of the fact that adminship should be "no big deal," demanding that sysop candidates have thousands of brilliant edits before supporting. This is misguided. Neutrality 01:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree, but our view is outnumbered. What drives me nuts is that there's no consistency. If y'all are going to insist that adminship must be doled out carefully, and not simply granted to anyone who behaves responsibly, then change the stated policy. Cribcage 06:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Like most everything else here, the policy has been chewed over until there is consensus, which may mean agreement, but also may mean lack of opposition to the current understanding. The quotation of "no big deal" came after some users were virtually wanting to raise a Star Chamber in chewing on certain candidates--this is not a coronation and the new sysops don't become princes and princesses of the realm. That is why this is not a big deal—However, we sometimes go in the opposite direction now (not referring to this candidacy, which I supported early and firmly) and start passing out adminships like peanuts just so somebody and say "hey, I'm a sysop on Wikipedia cooooool!" and then rarely ever perform the work that underlies the desire to have more sysops. I think at a minimum, a candidate should exhibit some measure of maturity and calmness, fairness in dealing with others, including those with opposing views, and a positive desire not to be a paper sysop. For those purposes, and those alone, this is a big deal. If we just want to make sysop a simple right of passage, then give out "I'm a proud Wikipedian" awards with a nice graphic to put on home pages. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, a few immature people may want adminship solely for status ("paper sysops"). What's the harm? Those people aren't going to perform cleanup duties, etc. whether they have sysop status or not. If they want cheap bragging rights, why do we care? Cribcage 00:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is no great harm, except that we want to encourage people to take sysophood seriously. People do not respect what is cheap, and we need people to have enough pride in obtaining the position to take it show willingness to make an effort, not just accept a title. If they can't show a desire to understand the duties and make a non-binding commitment upon seeking a position of responsibility, the community should be aware. If sysophead sysophood were really "no big deal [at all]," our polling would not have indicated that a requirement of 75%-80% assent is almost universally expected for promotion. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A few questions. (I know I've already voted here, but I still have some questions.)
In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
I have attempted to be helpful, structurally, to the adding of categories (such as Bibles et al, and Politicians by nationality et al), and in fixing pages listed on Wikipedia:Deadend pages (and removing pages that were not deadends from the list).
I'm not yet sure whether my discussion on Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz was a mistake or not. I'm still thinking about this. Perhaps my biggest regret is that when I was a new user, I enthusiastically added images to articles without worrying about boring issues like copyright. ;) I found out too late, those issues matter a lot. This created a lot of extra work, both for me and for other people. Quadell(talk) 16:55, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
I was shocked to discover so much discussion on this page about the Khalid bin Mahfouz page. That page is potentially the most important to get right on the pedia right now. At first I thought few people were working of fixing it because few knew about the problem. However upon visting this page it becomes abundantly clear that many of Wikipedia's finest know about it, but have decided to do nothing except attack the person who has tried to fix it! That looks like a pretty poor show to me. Pcb21|Pete 19:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Active since July of 2003. 2214 edits, 817 non-minor. I take the small number of non-minor edits more as evidence that she actually uses the minor edit checkbox. Has done extensive work categorizing, is active on IRC, VfD, and FAC, seems to handle dispute well, reverts vandalism, and it's generally a shame she's not already an admin. Snowspinner 03:59, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I accept the nomination. Ambivalenthysteria 04:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
<cliche> I thought she was one! </cliche> Seriously though, I had noticed her good contributions to policy and administrative-type discussions. Isomorphic 05:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Markalexander100 06:20, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC). Missed on ODP, glad she's still around here.
A fantastic contributor, she commands my respect. - Mark 08:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comments
A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:
1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
Yup.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
Of course.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
I tend to watch RC/watch for vandals of late anyway, but that will be much easier if I have the rollback function. I'm sure I'll end up helping with VFD too. Ambivalenthysteria 00:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Lir is supporting your candidacy? --H.CHENEY 04:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Because Lir is mad at me for dragging him to the Arbitration Committee, and he's trying to sabotoge nominations I make by voting for them and getting reasonable people like you to object just because he supports them. :) Snowspinner 04:34, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I guess that's it. I haven't had anything to do with Lir, and as the IRC logs would show, I was a bit concerned when that vote came in. Ambivalenthysteria 04:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A few questions. (I know I've already voted here, and also that I made the nomination, but I still have some questions.)
1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
2. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
More than anything else, I write articles - so I think that's been my main contribution. Still, I chip in with categorising sometimes, and lately I've been doing a fair bit of RC patrolling too.
3. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
My introduction to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, it resulted (eventually) in a far better version of the article at hand. Ambivalenthysteria 11:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mark's been here since late 2001 (no, that's not a typo). He's a very familiar face on IRC, and he's been nominated here at least twice (that I know of) and he's turned both of them down. I asked him again if he wanted to be an admin, and this time he agreed. He's a hard worker and extremely trustworthy, and I have no doubts he'd make a fine admin. →Raul654 06:58, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. As Raul says, I finally agreed. I've been here a long time, but I haven't been an especially active user, and I don't expect to become incredibly active any time soon. The only sysop privleges I would use if I had access to them would probably be image deletion (getting rid of thumbnails obviated by the thumbnailer) and page deletion (for when the slightly smarter vandals create a new page of vandalism, rather than just editing an existing page). Anyway, only support my nomination if you feel I have the necessary experience and you trust me. - Mark 08:03, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note for blankfaze: Yes I am Mark Ryan on both IRC and Meta. That used to be my username here on Wikipedia as well. - Mark 10:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mark has made 1540 edits. --H.CHENEY 08:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mark has the necessary experience, and I trust him, but this sort of emphasizes that we don't know how many admins we really have; active rather than honorary. Nothing at all personal to Mark; I'm not opposing him. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
By "not active", I mean I make sure my studies and personal life take precedence over time spent on Wikipedia (except during holidays). I'm not planning to go away for six months like I did in 2002. - Mark 02:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A few questions. (I know I've already voted here, but I still have some questions.)
1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
Well, probably Perth, Australia, of course. But that's just because I edit it so much.
2. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
Back when enrc reliably showed all new edits, I would spend hours checking every new anonymous edit for vandalism. That got very boring very quickly (and it annoyed me how anonymous users doing interwiki linking didn't use edit summaries to good effect). Other than that, I don't really have any redeeming achievements. I just sort of hang around like a bad smell, making a lot of noise but achieving very little. I made a logo they used for Meta for a while, though! Not exactly maintenance-related, but still a bit gratifying (even though it looks appalling in comparison to the swish logos we have today).
3. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?
I regret not sticking around for the long haul. When I left Wikipedia for those extended periods, I would come back like a completely new user, finding the site completely different and all the old users gone. I have missed huge leaps in its history, and that makes me sad.
No offense meant toward Mark. But IMHO, I feel he still needs more experience in our community. Kingturtle 17:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sheesh, Kingturtle. You're a hard nut to crack. You seem to consistently reject nominees for being too new. What's the minimum of time you think is enough? Or is it also a function of numbers of edits, or types of edits? (I don't mean this agressively. I'm delaying my own vote until I read your answer). --Woggly 18:37, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Uh ... Don't you mean hard shell? Sorry, can't ignore a straight line. Anyway, I think KT once said something like four months and 3,000 edits. I'm sure he'll correct me. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3,000 edits is about twice as much as what I would assess establishes a solid editor. Anwyay, I'm not going to wait for Kingturtle to answer, I've explored Marks record and it looks okay to me, I'm supporting this nomination. Woggly 06:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutral:
Lots of experience but over a comparitively short time. Certainly a few months from now I'd support EddEdmondson 06:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comments:
Nominated before in May, nomination failed on account of being "too new". --Woggly 18:37, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:
Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
User has 2111 edits as of this comment and has been around since February 17. [7] -- Grunt(talk) 14:58, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)
Standard questions - can you give us an example of any edit wars you have been involved in and how you acted during them, or ways you have "been involved in the community", etc etc? →Raul654 17:34, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
Questions 1 and 2, yes and yes. Question 3- I'm happy to do whatever needs to be done. Being in an Asian time zone, probably my most useful ability is being awake to keep an eye on things when Americans and Europeans are asleep. ;-) Edit wars: probably only Liancourt_Rocks, where I'm pretty confident I was on the side of the angels. My most active involvement outside "my" articles has been on FAC- I've done quite a bit of copyediting on candidates. Markalexander100 08:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A very smart, polite user who has made many fantastic contribs (~1140) about the scientific community, scientists, etc. Here since at least December 30, 2003.
Honoured and flattered to be nominated. Not something I'd especially sought but pleased to accept and be part of this great project. Cutler 16:01, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
In response to User:Cecropia, I guess that I so believe in this project that I'll certainly make it a priority to get involved in some chores. I don't have a well-developed programme of how I will use admin priveleges. I guess that I'll start off with the more straightforward stuff: hang around WP:VFD, watch the more experienced admins, contribute and gradually build a role for myself from there. I think that it will evolve. Cutler 12:22, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:17, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tags stuff for speedy deletion, patrols Recent Changes, performs other fun administrivia. Chats onna IRC channel. Second-spiffiest user page I've ever seen (next to User:Angela's). Has a sense of humor humour. Claims to have been here since 3 April with 2600-2800 edits. - Fennec(はさばくのきつね) 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Er, well, I was surprised by Fennec's nomination, but... pleasantly, I suppose. Thanks, and I accept your nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America! blankfaze | •• | •• 14:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I've never made a single biased or POV edit, IMO. I've never touched an article with a religious topic. I try to be NPOV at all times. And I always, always abide by consensuses here on WP, even if I don't agree with them. blankfaze | •• | •• 17:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sometimes a fish is just a fish. In any case, we have many admins with strong personal views about both politics and religion. The important thing is that they respect the NPOV policy and not use their position to promote their viewpoint or suppress opposing views. I don't believe Blankfaze will do this, so I support. --Michael Snow 16:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If we asked our admins not to have opinions--or even not to make them clear--I can think of dozens who wouldn't be admins any more. Blankfaze has always behaved well in his interactions with me, and would make a good admin. [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 18:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Because of the fish :D. We need people working on this to not take everything so seriously, we are creating an encyclopedia, but none of blankface's edits are biased and his parody is quite amusing. Just read the comments. Never mind. Strong support nonetheless. Aaron Hill 11:46, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze, you're an excellent fellow, and you'll make a good sysop. By the way, I'm Vasco on IRC. DO'Иeil 13:44, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
Not yet enough experience here yet for me to get a full picture of how said user reacts in various situations. Kingturtle 17:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Blank is a good contributor, but he's been here less than three months - this is premature. I think I'll support if he is nominated later. →Raul654 00:53, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
Well, as of today, I've been here precisely three months. I respect your vote, I just thought I should point that out. blankfaze | •• | •• 07:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Acegikmo1 19:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC). This user seems like he'd make an excellent administrator. However, I concerned about the user's defensiveness with regard to religion, and therefore must agree with Raul and Kingturtue's comments.
Sadly, I Oppose. Blankfaze's apparent hostility to Christianity and ridicule of a Christian symbol (the Fish) on his user page suggest a current lack of maturity in dealings with the diverse community Wikipedia represents. Since I am bound to be asked, I am unchurched personally, and consider myself a freethinker. If I were forced to subscribe to the tenets of a faith, I would probably have to look toward Bahai in that it attempts to respect the validity of all religions, races and peoples. Cecropia | Talk 15:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Whoa, no offense, Cecropia, but you're waaaaaaaaaaay wrong here. First of all, I have no hostility towards Christianity at all. I think religion is a great thing for a great many people. I DO have a problem with it playing such a prominent role in my nation's highest office, because not everyone in my country is a Christian. That is all you can read into that. I have no beef with Christianity. Second of all, the fish has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with Christianity. At all. It's the logo/mascot/symbol for my band The Milky Ways. The description text clearly says "blankfaze's avatar" ... His name is Fishy and it's just a dead stick-figure fish. It has NOTHING to do with Christianity. So, I respect your vote to oppose, but I want you to know that you're off-base on that. blankfaze | •• | •• 15:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze, you insensitive clod!!! I'm going to beat you up for that "warmongering tyrant" bit! <boof! pow!> However, I fail to see how this reflects on his suitability for adminship. Perhaps if you'd care to point out him adding POV to an article of some sort, Cecropia, you'd have a case... - Fennec(はさばくのきつね) 15:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A fair enough explanation. Objection withdrawn, though I think you'll now have to deal with fish supporters. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, and I apologise for getting so heated, but I take accusations like that rather to heart. Ikes! Fish supporters! I forgot all about them!!! blankfaze | •• | •• 16:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
THAT IS A GROSS NATIONAL INSULT AGAINST FISH (formerly Danzig) - David Gerard 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(previous on opposing) I have to confess i am a bit distressed by the amounts of bolds and screaming used to respond to a perfectly well balanced comment on an opposing vote. Muriel G 16:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I understand. Ordinarily, this would not be the case, but his comment was so unbalanced and just... off-base... that it really offended me. I pride myself on my tolerance and acceptance, and for someone to accuse me of being some sort of anti-Christian bigot... just... really offends me. blankfaze | •• | •• 16:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You shouldnt be offended. Anyway, i am removing this to comments, because i have really nothing against you personally. Muriel G 16:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I shouldn't be offended if someone accuses me of being intolerant? Well, I'm sorry, but I am. blankfaze | •• | •• 16:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think this was intended as emphasis rather than screaming and is quite reasonable given the accusations… —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 16:10, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Thank you for that kind observation, Lysine. blankfaze | •• | •• 16:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I too would have been offended if someone made assumptions based on a picture of a fish. However think on this - It is quite possible that Cecropia was joking! theresa knott 16:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Jokes are usually funny, though, innit? Mike H 14:56, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
He really does strive for excellence in whatever he does, and has helped me, on multiple occasions, in cleaning up not only articles devoted to our hometown, but to more diverse exploits as well. His user page is evidence of that. Mike H 16:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Rmhermen has been here since sometime in 2002 and made nearly 10,000 edits under this account. I've never seen Rmhermen get into any trouble and was very suprised to find out that Rmhermen is still not an admin. (So suprised I had to ask before nominating.) Someone who's acquired so many edits and been around so long certainly deserves it. --Jiang 22:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I accept. Actually I've been here since the first half of 2001 -blame those early software upgrades which lost some of the edit histories. And I must admit there have been a few conflicts in that time. I remember HJ in particular. I promise I won't abuse any power. In fact you may have to remind me what it is. Everything moves so fast these days... nobody remembers back when... In the old days we ... Rmhermen 23:18, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Wow. I know this is a cliche here on RfA, but I really, really thought you were already an admin. REALLY! blankfaze | •• | •• 23:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What Blankfaze said. older≠wiser 23:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
An excellent choice I'd have nominated long ago if I'd thought to check. Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know Rmhermen had been around for quite this long, but even if I was only considering what I've seen of Rmhermen over the past few months, it's quite enough for me to support. --Michael Snow 16:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
David has been here since the beginning of January and made 3,352 edits as of June 12. I thought he was an admin until I noticed he was revert vandals the old fashion way. I feel he would be a great admin. --"DICK"CHENEY 03:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating me, Dick! I accept. Being an admin isn't something I've given a lot of thought to, but I promise that I will faithfully attend to any administrative responsibilities if chosen. To let others know where I stand, I'm a strong believer in democracy, so I promise not to take any major actions (deleting articles, etc.) without putting them to a vote first. I've been a bit quiet on Wikipedia in June due to a temporary overload at work, but will be back to full-time Wikiholism in July. Once again, I'm so grateful for this nomination. Thank you so much. David Cannon 04:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good solid work and a lot of it! Pollinator 13:46, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
Though people who speak Esperanto frighten me, Dave is an excellent worker and has a well-measured temperament. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've known from first-hand experience that David has the type of calm and cool-headed personality suitable for adminship. --Menchi 00:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I dispute this vote on the grounds Lst27 has already made one vote in support, and is not entitled to a second. -- H.CHENEY 02:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note for User:Lst27: You're the kind of person I love - someone who supports me strongly enough to vote for me not once, but twice! You are both the fourth and the fifteenth person to vote for me. I feel very gratified, but I'm sure I'm only allowed one vote from you, so you might like to look into this:-) David Cannon 02:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry. I forgot that I have voted before. I will try not to do it again. :-) --Lst27 17:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help you keep track if you didn't blindly vote in support of everyone who is nominated. -- UninvitedCompany
Respectfully, I think that comment was out of line. Snowspinner 20:52, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
Lst27 has, by his own admission, nominated people here in order to gain their sympathy. He also shows a peculiar fascination with adminship having nominated himself here twice. He votes to support nearly all nominees, and rarely if ever explains his reasons for doing so. I do not recall him opposing any nominees. And, just today he has suggested that "bribes" using Wikipedia:WikiMoney should be sanctioned in votes here. My comment stands. UninvitedCompany 21:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Although I find Lst27's actions to be frustrating in a number of cases, nothing I've seen makes me think he edits or votes in bad faith. I'm willing to assume his Wikimoney comment was a rather unfunny joke, but, as someone with a questionable sense of humor myself, I can sympathize. I suppose my point is that Lst27 is not doing anything offensive or problematic enough to make speculation as to his intents or motives worthwhile. Let's save harsh words and criticisms of user action for problem users - not users with problems. Snowspinner 21:23, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
Fredrik has something over 8000 edits since October 2003, and has been very active this year in particular. He has accumulated so many edits partly through very diligent and systematic work in cleaning up articles. He also has participated in discussing proposed deletions. As a result, I think we would benefit from having Fredrik as an admin. In enforcing our stylistic conventions, he has been willing to listen to opposing views and conducted himself in a very reasonable fashion. In sum, I believe he satisfies virtually every criterion I have ever seen anybody suggest an admin should have. --Michael Snow 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I accept. Thank you Michael for the nomination and for the encouraging words. Fredrik | talk 23:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've already commended Fredrik for his almost mechanical diligence and cool demeanor. No doubt he'll be a great admin. DropDeadGorgias(talk) 12:27, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 14:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have no doubt that Fredrik can handle being an admin. →Raul654 16:03, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 20:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Fredrik is levelheaded, POV-conscious, and always courteous to other users. I appreciate the very high quality of his work, and heartily support his nomination.
Denni has been here since January 3, with 1960+ edits to his name. He has proven an excellent contributor on a variety of subjects, and has contributed some beautiful photographs (take a look at Weather lore). He has the right temperament for admin work -- when I asked him for permission to nominate, his remarks struck me as quite wise. He is open to the possibilities as an admin, and yet wants to be sure it doesn't keep him from contributing: I think he'll find an excellent balance, and urge you to support him. Jwrosenzweig 15:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Jwrosenzweig, moink, and Woggly. It's a big responsibility with low pay and no respect, but I have done a 24-hour marathon for Wikipedia and I hope that shows how dear I hold it. I am bold when appropriate, cautious when necessary, and always ready to discuss things rationally. Mr. Baas and I are currently in mediation, and I trust the outcome will be satisfactory to both of us. (BTW, yes, I am a "he", but I believe I am properly in touch with my feminine side.) Denni
She was nominated by Jwrosenzweig, she does great work, andshe uses my email signature. How can this go wrong? [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 16:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nothing i hope, except that (i believe) Denni is a he :) Muriel G 16:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Doh! [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 17:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support, pending links from Kevin Baas. Well spoken recently on foundation-l (even though I disagreed). Taking part in mediation shows that Denni is willing to compromise and build consensus. --"DICK"CHENEY 21:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 04:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) I have had the privilege of working with Denni on the Wikipedia:Multilingual Statistics page. The quality of his work is excellent, and I know him to be one who is quick to encourage others. I very strongly support his nomination.
Does not work well with others. Violates policy. Obstructs transparency. See his talk page history - he deletes user feedback on his talk page, so that noone else can see it. He is currently undergoing a user dispute mediation for making personal attacks. (see the mediation page) Kevin Baas 16:50, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
Please provide links. --"DICK"CHENEY 18:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comments:
I think Kevin is of course well within his rights to object to Denni's nomination, but I want to point out for information's sake that Denni is undergoing mediation with Kevin himself. As someone who's been in arbitration, I know that two parties in a dispute often have exaggerated views of each other's conduct. Furthermore, I hope Kevin will refrain from turning this nomination into an attack on Denni (although of course he should respond to Hcheney's question), especially as mediation is still occurring, and I think it against the spirit of said mediation to publically air grievances in this forum. That's just my perspective. Jwrosenzweig 19:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm a party to the same mediation process; it was requested by Kevin. I think it would be a dreadful precedent to take any notice of this; could only lead to more people refusing mediation when asked to agree to it. Charles Matthews 20:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am in general agreement. This should definitely not be an area for extensions of character attacks/ad hominen attacks. However, I feel that people should be able to express positive views as much as negative views; criticism as much as praise, and have the right, nay the duty, to provide others with access to information which may benefit their decision. Ofcourse, one shouldn't be coercive about it. A one liner is good, so long as its not mere rhetoric - which is never good. As for Charles' comment about people refusing mediation when asked to agree to it - I highly doubt that it will have a significant effect of this sort on reasonable users. And even if it were too have this effect on unreasonable users, this would be no counterargument, as whatever helps to ensure just and responsive governance is ipso facto justified - and this is the question; what things must be weighted in respect to. Kevin Baas 01:36, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
I feel that Kevin shows little understanding here: of mediation and its aims; of the propriety of citing it in terms such as 'undergoing', as if it were a judicial investigation; of the function and etiquette of user talk pages; of the likely effect of his remarks; of the likely behaviour of others on reading them. The matter he brings up would properly be dealt with by a simple link to the relevant subpage of the mediation page. Charles Matthews 07:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hence the simple link to the relevant subpage of the mediation page. Also useful to make a brief statement as to the subject of the mediation, and some objective facts never hurt. This all does not exclude the right to make independant criticisms. Charles, chill out, okay? I didn't post a harangue here. You've already generated more dialogue, primarily of a negative nature, than my relevant, appropriate, and brief criticism. Remember, as we all seem to be in agreement on, this is not a forum for personal attacks. "Kevin shows little understanding." is, by sentence structure, irrefutably a personal attack. Notice the subject of the sentence is me, and "little understanding" is pejorative. Let's just have a vote here, okay? Peace. Kevin Baas 16:12, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
I am uncertain when personal attacks got defined as "Voting against inclusion of vanity pages," but, if this is the new definition of personal attacks, I support them wholeheartedly. Snowspinner 22:15, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner, a personal attack is when a user makes a pejorative remark about another user. A typical format is "x person has x undesirable trait", but it may use different verbs like "shows" or "demonstrates", or it might refer to their faculties such as "x person's thoughts" or "x person's statements", indirectly but indisputably refering to the person (in contrast to arguments or article content). there are many variations of the form, but it's nonetheless pretty simple and easy to pick out. I hope this helps to clarify the meaning of a "personal attack". Kevin Baas 16:39, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
I was being facetious. I looked at the VfD you cited as an example of Denni's personal attacks, and there were no personal attacks on it whatsoever - only a vote to delete the page, which I believe was entirely justified. In case I missed something, I went and looked at the other two pages just now. The rest were comments on your behavior - accurate ones at that. In fact, Denni's interactions with you convinced me that he has the temperment and determination to handal vandals and other problem users. Snowspinner 17:45, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, the Vfd page was listed as a primary source under mediation for Charles, not Denni. Denni had made only one comment on that page, which was ad hominem cicumstantial, and a vote for deletion, as you pointed out. I informed him on his talk page that it is not in the best interests of his reputation to make ad hominem circumstial arguments, and he was... well... unreceptive and inhospitable. Perhaps this is the cause of confusion. This thread orignates from the subject of Charles, not Denni. Secondly, I don't appreciate your accusations. Nor do I appreciate your self-righteous interpretations. Trying to talk out problems with someone is not vandalism. Violating wikipedia policies and guidelines constitutes a problem. Refusing to communicate to someone who is trying to point out an injustice constitutes a problem. Attacks on people's character, like you just did in the above paragraph, constitutes a problem. (just after we've discussed the vices of such dialogue here, too!) And finally, I don't appreciate your hostility. Kevin Baas 19:03, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
That's blatantly untrue. You listed the VfD as a place where Denni made personal attacks. As for my accusations, I don't expect you to appreciate them. Regardless, this is pretty cut and dry as far as I'm concerned. You made a vanity page. Denni voted to delete it. You made vaguely threatening comments about how something wasn't in his best interest, and he got mad. If you expect me to shed a tear for you here, you're quite mistaken. Your vote against his admin nomination, while within your rights, is petty, childish, and misrepresentative. Snowspinner 20:46, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
I never said that I did not list VfD as a place where Denni made personal attacks. I said that i did not say that it was a primary source. Nor did I say plural. On that page, Denni made an ad hominem circumstantial argument, which, by definition, is an attack on the person. I am certainly within my rights to point out logical fallacies. If someone is irritated by it, that does not reflect poorly on me. I didn't want to bring this onto the page, because i consider it unethical and none of anyone else's business, but you are forcing me to defend myself, as you apparently consider it their business. On Denni's talk page, in the cited history, mind you, as he attempted to repress my criticism and hide his own remarks, he called me delusional, a five-year-old, irrational, and said that i have a "social quotient of australopithecus africanus". Personally, i found these comments offensive and in blatent violation of wikipedia policy. I'm sorry if you do not see this. I don't know how i can make it anymore clear. I voted against him because i felt that this kind of behavior from an administrator would be counter-productive to the goals of wikipedia. Kevin Baas 21:15, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Well, Kevin, your doesn't work well with others is hogwash; and your circumstantial ad hominem, to translate from semi-Latin to semi-Latin, is suggests you had an agenda. But keep up the good work. Charles Matthews 19:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well denni certainly didn't work well with me, so i don't know where the deprecatory and unsubstantiated comment "hogwash" is coming from. As for "ad hominem circumstantial" (you flipped the order around), i refer you to the article ad hominem, and assure you that i understand and acknowledge everything on that page, including the fact that, by making an ad hominem circumstantial attack, denni was suggesting that i had an agenda. But thanks anyways, and thanks for the encouragement. Kevin Baas 20:55, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Let me be picky then: 'others' implies you know of someone else, not yourself, who has had difficulties 'working' with Denni; even at the level of your pursuing a VfD discussion onto his user talk page. By the way, the page on ad hominem does employ the 'circumstantial ad hominem' phrase, as you can see. As it is, you have 'flipped' the statement. You appear to mean that if anyone suggests you have an agenda, this is CAH; which is therefore AH; which is therefore a personal attack; which is therefore a violation of WP policy. You state your 'interests' on your user page; are you really suggesting that even to bring these up in discussion is a policy violation? Charles Matthews 21:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, bringing up my interests in a discussion is not a violation of wikipedia policy. It is trivial conversation; "chit-chat". regarding suggseting someone has an agenda - i consider this psychologically manipulative and am always turned off to the person who does it, wherever i see it. to be considered CAH, however, it should be in point of making an argument; the part "x is false because..." is missing from your stated criteria. But if it is missing this part, and is left, instead, in the infinitive form, everything remains but the focal point; it becomes a general attack, and i would say still an attack on the person: it attempts to make what the person says less credible. I see that the page on ad homimem employs both orderings. "ad hominem circumstantial" is used twice, once in the subheading and once in the para underneath the subheading, while "circumstantial ad hominem" is used once in the para underneath the subheading. If the usage on that page is considered authorative, we are both correct in the ordering we employ, and both wrong in accusing the other of having flipped the order. I stand corrected, and am sorry for the mistake. Kevin Baas 22:41, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding "pursuing a vfd onto his talk page" This is factually incorrect. At no point did i solicit him to change his vote. Nor was the topic pursued. For the most part, it was Denni flinging insults and sarcasm at me, and me telling him that such behavior is inappropriate. Kevin Baas 22:46, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
You really like splitting hairs, don't you? Snowspinner 19:06, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
User:VampWillow
VampWillow has been here since March and has about 1600 contributions. Lots of good new articles and edits, a good understanding of NPOV and wikiquette, and an interest in admin-type tasks (marking for deletion, advising new users on style, etc). --ALargeElk | Talk 14:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Very happy to accept (if you'll all have me, of course;-) --VampWillow 14:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've been an active member since November 2003, have a couple thousand edits under my belt and have been in the community long enough to understand the integral nature of Wikiquette and the NPOV policy in maintaining credibility and sustainability of this project. Although I turned down a previous suggestion of admin nomination in the past because of time obligations (full time school and full time work), I now have the time - and thorough understanding - of the WP community to be a good admin. Also, since I declined nomination in the past, think it is cheesy for me to ask someone to nominate me now - so I'm sticking my own neck out. Still, if there is a collective "no" to this self-nomination, I understand. I can still do 99% of what I want to do the old-fashioned way and have faith in the current batch of admins. Davodd 22:00, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Davodd has made 3,698 edits as of 12 June 2004. --"DICK"CHENEY 22:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support
A worthy candidate who would have had this earlier had he succumbed to peer pressure more readily. ;-) Glad to see him ready to take on the glory and tedium that is being an admin. Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 20:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) A good candidate. Davodd had the good sense to decline nomination earlier when time constraints would have inhibited (in his eyes) his activity on Wikipedia; it's very good of him to offer his services now that he is able. Give it to him!
OldakQuill has in the three months since he came here created, cleaned up, expanded and in other ways tended to a myriad of stubs. He seems to enjoy Wikipedia and I can't find any conflicts in his past here. He is a devoted, hard-working Wikipedian with insight into what makes Wikipedia work. He has done more than 3200 edits. ✏ Sverdrup 21:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I accept this nomination with thanks. --Oldak Quill 22:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia | Talk 23:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) He has done a mountain of work in minutae—redirects and starts, that especially suit him for an admin's duties, IMO. Gladly support.
I have been a Wikipedia member since September 2003 and have contributed a little over 1000 edits to the English Wikipedia since then, and one or two dozen edits on the Malay Wikipedia. I have not been involved in any edit disputes, and I believe I have sufficient understanding of Wikiquette. I am requesting adminship to assist in administering VfD and speedy deleting patent nonsense (I used to follow recent changes a lot but have been unable to do so recently due to lack of time). I understand if I am considered too new to become an admin, especially since this is a self-nomination, and will not mind if you can provide constructive comments on my manner of contributing to Wikipedia, regardless of whether you support this nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I too believe in quality over quantity and your contributions definitely have quality. -JCarriker 09:01, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
Qualified, has shown a good grasp of policy and etiquette. —No-OneJones 12:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Quality over quantity. Calm and well-spoken in exchanges with other editors. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While he doesn't quite have a comfortable quantity of edits, I trust him and I hope sysoping him can boost his contribution. ✏ Sverdrup 01:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Quality over quantity, indeed. Cribcage 03:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
After consideration an review of your edits, I've decided to support. Not that it matters. You have a healthy amount of support already. Quality over quantity, I concede. I just hope you're more active in the future! blankfaze | •• 04:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seems a good contributor, and certainly VfD needs more people willing to maintain it (IMO). Jwrosenzweig 16:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1000 edits? I've only been here since April and I have almost 2000. I'm kind of wary of supporting someone with only 1000 edits if they're self-nominating. The guidelines say 500-1000 edits are necessary before people should consider your nomination seriously. It also says self-nominators should "wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure. Oppose, for now, but I am open to reconsidering.blankfaze | •• 02:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I read the guidelines. However, I believe in quality, not quantity. I agree that most of my edits are inconsequential, but I have contributed to several articles. I helped bring The Beatles up to featured level. I have written non-stub articles on subjects not covered extensively in Wikipedia, such as Bandar Utama (if American towns have articles, so can any other nation) and Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia. I created the boxes for the various Prime Ministers of Malaysia. I helped start Malaysian general election, 2004 and Malaysian general election. I also believe that given how long I've been on Wikipedia, I have been able to sufficiently understand the various policies, etc. of Wikipedia. I have actually contributed even before September last year, as an anonymous user (I wrote 95% of Education in Malaysia). Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No offense to Johnleemk - but for now, I oppose. I think it is still to soon to judge. Kingturtle 01:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This may sound unusual, but I'm neutral only because of this user's relatively few discussions on his talk page and other talk pages. While this is probably a good sign, I feel it's important to be able to gauge how a prospective admin relates directly to other users, as well as editing articles. BCorr|Брайен 13:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Excellent contributor, been here about a year, thousands of edits. - Hephaestos|§ 02:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I graciously accept. -JCarriker 02:50, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
Support
Hephaestos|§ 02:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) (assumed, forgot to vote)
Cecropia | Talk 14:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I graciously approve. ;-)
Support... even though adminship is just receiving flak and having a whole bunch of red buttons on your console you can't touch. --"DICK"CHENEY 19:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
older≠wiser 22:00, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) Heh, you don't need to be an admin to catch a lot of flak around here.
Jiang 09:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) certainly deserves it
Acegikmo1 11:29, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC). Theresa's questions brought up some of my own concerns and Jay's responses helped to convince me that he'll make a fine admin.
Ilyanep 14:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) One of the few names out of the 100000000000 people void that I recognize.
Oppose
No offense personally to JCarriker. I just want to see more interactions with the community before I support. Kingturtle 02:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
None taken. Can you please elaborate on what type of community interactions your mean? It's specific enough to state your concerns, but not enough to let me know what I need to improve on. -JCarriker 08:48, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
You needn't improve on anything, per se. I'd just like to see more interactions with the community. As time passes, and you continue to work with the community, you will encounter more situations - and that will provide more examples of how you interact and react. Cheers, Kingturtle 19:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
comments
I hate to do this, but I feel I must.
I have a few questions for JCarriker. I get the impression he is a sensitive soul and I wonder if he knows the kind of flack he might come in for once he is an admin.
How will you react if you find yourself listed on "review of admin actions"?
What if someone says you are part of an evil cabal?
Or if someone vandalizes you user page or user talk page?
What if another admin undoes something you did, accusing you of not following procedure?
What if someone is very rude and agressive towards you when you were only trying to help them?
I'm not saying any of these things will happen, but they might. (I have had all this and more happen to me, and so have many other admins, but then I am very thick skinned) If they happen to you how will you feel about it?
I am also troubled by your "read this before posting" note on your talk page. It comes across as agressive.
Don't get me wrong. I think you are an excellent contributor of quality work. But I do think you haven't thought this through. You said not very long ago that you felt like a second class citizen here I don't want you to come under fire from some troublemaker accusing you of abuse of admin powers and then feel even worse. Admins need to be tough, very tough sometimes. Are you sure you want to be an admin? theresa knott 15:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please don't hate to do this, you have raised only valid points. I am very sensitive and I'm usuually open and honest with my feelings. I am actually a local political activist so I have actually had perosonal experience with many of the things you mentioned.
1. How will you react if you find yourself listed on "review of admin actions"?
I will be open and honest as I usually am. I've had people I've known my entire life level much more hurtful allegations at me and I'm still active in politics.
2. What if someone says you are part of an evil cabal?
I enjoy evil cabals; especially when their members are of such high quality. I have also supposedly been a puppet for various mythical organizations in Marshall for years, so it wouldn't be the first time.
3. Or if someone vandalizes you user page or user talk page?
I've had some one vandalize my house after a political election, and changing my name from Jay to Gay is a common albeit annoying practice among my rivals. My user page is much more easily redeemed.
4. What if another admin undoes something you did, accusing you of not following procedure?
I'll react as I do now, by asking them why on there talk page before I take any action myself; preferably after reaching consensus. I'm usually a by the book kind of person, my policies should be in accordance with wiki's. I've actually had a page I created deleted, you can find my reaction here: please see: User_talk:Jiang
5. What if someone is very rude and agressive towards you when you were only trying to help them?
I'll ask them to use wikiquette, and reiterate my statement. If that doesn't work I'll ask another party to step in, unless the situtation is too serious.
I am also troubled by your "read this before posting" note on your talk page. It comes across as agressive.
I'm sorry to here that, I certainly don't consider myself aggressive. I added the notice becuase my wikiquette posting seemed to be being ignored. There is also an extensive welcome section. Which parts do you find aggressive? I'm open to suggestions about how to improve it.
You said not very long ago that you felt like a second class citizen here I don't want you to come under fire from some troublemaker accusing you of abuse of admin powers and then feel even worse.
I've already been accused of being a racist on wikipedia, as a white Southerner I can't imagine a more hurtful and crafted attack. One of my primary reasons for feeling like a second class citizen was that after being at wiki for almost a year, I seemed to be a generally ignored figure. I decided that this was due to both the niche like nature of my work and have since started editng pages outside of that niche.
Are you sure you want to be an admin?
Yes, recieving adminship would signal that the community has confidence in me and that means a lot. It also makes it easier for me to combat vandalism when I come across it, something that is much more difficult without admin privelages.
I hope this answers your questions, I am of course still available for more answers and elaborations. I hope you will consider supporting me Theresa, but if you don't I know it's because you have my and wikipedia's best interests at heart.
Thanks for answering my questions. I am very happy with your answers and have added my vote to support. As for the note on you user page, we'd best discuss it there. theresa knott 05:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Great contributor - untold thousands of edits either under this name or at previous name Andylehrer since March 10. He was nominated a couple of times a month or two ago, and there seems to have been a general sense that more time was needed. But many people seem to become admins after three months or so, and he's made tons and tons of edits. johnk 21:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination. I accept. AndyL 03:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Impolite POV warrior. Generally good editor, but thats not what this job entails. Seems to have no grasp of Wikiquette nor wikipedia:civility. Sam [Spade] 00:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
I'm inclined to support, given my limited contact with Andy. Sam (or others), if you believe he's been uncivil or impolite, please offer a link or two? The only times I've seen Andy even get upset are in conversations with WHEELER, and while of course it is always better to remain calm, anyone here who's worked with WHEELER knows that frustration is often a product of that interaction. I intend to support in a couple of days, but will wait to see what counter-evidence there may be -- thanks. Jwrosenzweig 16:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I was refering mainly to the regularly acidic dialogue on Talk:Nazism and socialism, particularly in the archives. He utilized ad hominem arguments regularly, and pressed a "socialism has never truely existed (except maybe in cuba...)" POV. Sam [Spade] 17:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't recall ad hominems, and I certainly don't recall any praise of Castro's Cuba. I do remember some of the "socialism has never truly existed" stuff, but only in talk. I've had some disagreements with him over edits (at the page Sam cites, for instance), but I've always thought he's handled it pretty well. johnk 19:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sam, I've read through the last three archives at the page. I had to go all the way to the end of March to find behavior of Andy's that seemed at all questionable to me, and I would say that, given the context, Andy was behaving essentially like everyone else -- that is, there was a bitt of "point-scoring" and rhetoric flying around, which he took part in for a while. It isn't significant enough to cause me much concern, especially given that, since that time, he has shown a remarkable amount of calm on that page, even during WHEELER's frenzied assertions that Nazism was "LEFT LEFT LEFT!!!" Anyone who can hang on to their senses in that situation has enough patience for me, especially as I see no ad hominem attacks even in Andy's more wild discussions from late March. Andy is welcome to have opinions that I disagree with, as long as he handles himself well, and I believe he has. Jwrosenzweig
A great contributor, has made about 2500 edits, his recent work categorizing World War II is admirable. I feel he needs to be rewarded for all the hard work and dedication.GeneralPatton 23:08, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Patton, I accept your nomination. Oberiko 10:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure adminship should be considered a "reward". Acegikmo1 19:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the above statement. →Raul654 18:01, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
His edits look good. How's his dealing with editing conflict? - David Gerard 19:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've only dealt with a few admittedly. When a conflict does come up I'll ask the other party to talk it over on the discussion page in question. So far I haven't had anything go beyond that as an agreement has, so far, always been reached. Oberiko 21:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like Oberiko's work is in topics that are particularly controversial. ;-) There's certainly nothing wrong with that. Isomorphic 00:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dave Iberri has been doing a phenomenal amount of maintenance and quality improvement of articles pertaining to medicine and physiology. He is scrupulously adherent to policy and helpful whenever called on. He is the stuff administratorship is made out of. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1500 edits, here since January, in case anybody wanted to know
Thank you for the nomination. I humbly accept. --Diberri | Talk 22:14, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting, even though I'm skeptical of anyone who admires Bill O'Reilly. At least it seems he has a better grasp of "Fair and Balanced" than O'Reilly and hasn't adopted O'Reilly's tactics for squelching dissenting opinions. older≠wiser 18:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't we judge Dave by his work, rather than by his stated affiliations and views? JFW | T@lk 13:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, um, that's what I thought I was doing. I am supporting him despite my skepticism. older≠wiser
So why make the point? JFW | T@lk 09:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Because O'Reilly is a highly biased, POV-monger, disingenuously advertising his show as a "no-spin zone". I am extremely skeptical of anyone who claims O'Reilly as a role model. Despite my dislike of O'Reilly, I think Diberri has not shown any O'Reilly-like tendencies in editing Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that I can't use the comments section to make comments? older≠wiser 15:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I never claimed that ol' Billy was my role model or that I ever admired him (Bkonrad's words). Indeed, on my user page I merely point out that many of our social/political views are in alignment. If some have misinterpreted that as admiration, then hopefully I've clarified my intent. To be honest, I'd hoped these comments would be more about me as a Wikipedia editor and less as a political commentator ;-) That said, this comments section has made for a delightful read :-) --Diberri | Talk 15:41, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Diberri, I'm sorry for a lack of precision in paraphrasing what I recalled seeing on your user page. I did not in any way intend the comment to portray you in a negative light. I really was just trying to make a snarky comment about O'Reilly while pointing out that your edits are of better quality than O'Reilly. I hoped that people might find it amusing--sorry if anyone misunderstood. older≠wiser 16:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting, even though I am sure O'Reilly would hate my pro-choice secularism. There needs to be diversity in the pool of admins. --"DICK"CHENEY 19:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A solid contributor ~ 4000 edits since arriving in January. Always calm when the editing gets hot, he would make a good admin. theresa knott 10:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I was going to wait until the end of the month to nominate him, but what the heck. —No-OneJones 03:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) :-D - David Gerard 23:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. Known him online since before I knew of Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön 11:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I also thought he already was one.... Level-headed, clear, friendly, and helpful -- will make an excellent sysop. -- BCorr|Брайен 11:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would like to apply to be an Administrator again. PMA 17:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support
Snowspinner 18:13, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) Unless he was forcibly removed as an administrator, or something along those lines, I see no reason why a former administrator shouldn't be allowed to return.
Support (again). -- Cecropia | Talk 19:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) -- add just a comment. When he first looked for reinstatement, I asked whether a vote was really necessary. I still wonder why, since his temporary de-sysoping was voluntary at his request.
Sam [Spade] 14:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm not really sure this should be necessary tho, he was already voted in
Not necessary at all. Admins in good standing who voluntarilly gave up their status should be able to return without a vote. Oh, and he's a good contributor, by the way. Isomorphic 16:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As there was no reason for him to lose it in the first place, I see no reason he should not have his adminship back. Angela. 17:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What were the circumstances that led to you losing administrator status? - Tεxτurε 18:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This diff [12] from March 23 shows PMA requesting voluntarily to be de-sysopped. As an editor on semi-vacation currently, I understand completely his weariness, and applaud his desire to take up "active duty" once again. Jwrosenzweig 19:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm nominating Elf. She is a *great* contributor, and I have absolutely no doubts about her ability to use admin powers wisely. She was nominated a little while back, and I (and several others) opposed only on the basis that she was too new and it would set a bad precedent. She's been here since January and has some 3000 contributions to her credit. →Raul654 19:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up that I'm listed here. I gladly accept. Maybe easier to say yes after 4 days of wikifree vacation. :-) Elf | Talk 19:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I seem to recall supporting her last time. She doesn't seem like she'd abuse her powers, and she's pretty easy to work with. Meelar 19:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I seem to be late to the party - an enthusiastic support for Elf, whose positive demeanor and valuable contributions are an excellent model of Wikipedian behavior. Jwrosenzweig 19:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support strongly. Anybody who is so gung-ho about WP that she wrote a song must really care about our project! And the tips she offered on her userpage show that she really knows what she's doing :-) --Menchi 02:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ahhh!!! I just noticed that technically my vote wouldn't count, because ....technically, this election ended yesterday. Oh well, it doesn't seem like she needs another support anyway. 36 votes and zero opposition -- Somebody's really popular!
