Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

Contents 1 About RfA 2 Nominating 3 Current nominations for adminship 3.1 Davemeistermoab 3.1.1 Nomination 3.1.2 Questions for the candidate 3.1.3 General comments 3.1.4 Discussion 3.1.4.1 Support 3.1.4.2 Oppose 3.1.4.3 Neutral 3.2 Fastily 3.2.1 Nomination 3.2.2 Questions for the candidate 3.2.3 General comments 3.2.4 Discussion 3.2.4.1 Support 3.2.4.2 Oppose 3.2.4.3 Neutral 3.3 Pastor Theo 3.3.1 Nomination 3.3.2 Questions for the candidate 3.3.3 General comments 3.3.4 Discussion 3.3.4.1 Support 3.3.4.2 Oppose 3.3.4.3 Neutral 3.4 Mikaey 3.4.1 Nomination 3.4.2 Questions for the candidate 3.4.3 General comments 3.4.4 Discussion 3.4.4.1 Support 3.4.4.2 Oppose 3.4.4.3 Neutral 4 About RfB 5 Current nominations for bureaucratship 6 Related pages

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this. For examples of what the community is looking for, read some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.

Decision process

Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.

In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.

Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience.

Expressing opinions

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact that positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep", "no way" and "as per."

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so he/she can make proper adjustments and possibly fair better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on-topic.

Note that the Requests for adminship process draws a variety of Wikipedians to express their opinions and help make these decisions. There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for a particular reason. Although the community currently endorses the right of any Wikipedian with an account to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, this more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is perceived by some as "trolling". Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nominating

Nominations can only be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 12:35:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

Davemeistermoab

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (44/13/2); Scheduled to end 03:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs) – I've worked with Davemeistermoab at the U.S. roads project for over a year now, and I've been consistently impressed with his work. Dave is generally a low-profile editor who avoids drama and significant disputes, but instead spends his time working on content. He has about 5,000 edits spread out over the period of several years and well-distributed amongst the namespaces. Contrary to the statement on his userpage, Dave is familiar with nearly all of Wikipedia's major guidelines and policies.

As noted, Dave is most active around road articles. He has contributed (nearly single-handedly) to four featured articles and seven good articles, as well as a handful of DYKs. In response, he has received a Triple Crown and numerous barnstars. Outside of article work, he frequently participates in discussions, and has an extraordinary ability to resolve minor quarrels and disputes. Based on my observations, Dave is a friendly and helpful editor who's willing to help out newbies (like myself at one point!). He occasionally take parts in AfD discussions and other admin-related tasks, and while he doesn't have a lot of deleted edits, he's familiar with deletion policies. To top it off, he maintains a clean block log, and has been trusted with the rollback tool.

I think we can trust Davemeistermoab to push the proverbial mop wisely. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Thanks.Dave (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: AfD (and similar), image deletions (due to copyright violations and/or moved to commons). I've tried to help if asked for a variety of tasks. I am more than happy to help in tasks where there may be a significant demand, such as page moves or the various dispute resolution processes, but would initially ask for second opinions from more experienced admins before using the bits, as I've not been involved with those processes until recently.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: One of my proudest moments is when I stumble across a foreign language article that is a translation of content I wrote. That's happened a few times, however I dont' keep track of these, and would have to search. I am proud of the articles I've worked to get to FA's, as I'm not a talented writer, and I have to work hard at it. However, wikipedia has helped me improve. My most recent FA is U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, which passed a lot quicker, and with half the number of copyeditors, than my first: Interstate 70 in Utah. I have seen two articles I've worked on be TFA, which isn't quite the honor it seems, due to the vandalism revert duty that goes with it. An interesting case is two of my first article creations for Wikipedia: Cisco, Utah and Soldier Summit, Utah. They are how I became an editor instead of a reader. I saw several articles that had red links to those two places. I said, "Hey, I've been there, I could throw something together". They aren't exactly FA's, and I haven't significantly contributed to them since starting them, but it's been fun to watch how they have developed.

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

A: Yes. Like any editor, I've matured a bit and handled more recent bushes better than early ones. One of my first rubs was with a couple of editors to the Mountain Meadows massacre article, which will always be a tough article to maintain. In that case, I tried to take any serious changes to the talk page first, and wait for some of the rational editors to support the idea. While I now feel I could have made my case better, and come up with better ideas at compromise wordings, I do not feel I have anything to apologize for. At one frustrating moment, I switched to other interests until things had cooled down. To be honest, I have never returned to the activity level with this article I once had, but that's partly because the article is in better hands now than when I was trying to mediate the controversies. I am currently participating in one RfC, but have calmly explained my position on the appropriate pages. I don't think I have said anything that would be considered bad faith. A final case is a user that I have a lot of common interests with, and as such our paths cross frequently. We have differing opinions, which has lead to us occasionally butting heads. However, in the end we've been able to resolve issues or at least work around them, and at least two articles that we both have worked on have reached FA status. In the end, I respect this user's hard labor and efforts to improve the encyclopedia, despite differing attitudes, and I would hope he would say the same about me. My crystal ball is as unreliable as the next person's, but would hope to remain calm and not take things personally in any future dispute.Dave (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

4. An editor who has been editing the project consistently for three months has begun to be interested in road articles. Specifically, the editor disagrees with the notability of some road articles and proposes that roads should only have one article dedicated to each, and adds a merge tag to your FA, U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. The editor has reverted the removal of the tag by an uninvolved user, and continues to claim that the particular aspect of road is not notable. What administrative actions, if any, would you take?

A: Administrative action: none, as there is no violation of 3RR or similar. Assuming the situation degrades into edit warring, I'd recuse myself and ask another admin to judge the situation. Non-admin actions: I'd refer both editors to the notability guideline put together by the USRD project to give guidance on this subject and request they discuss changing the guideline there.Dave (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

5. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I am of the opinion that many media sources devote too much attention to subjects that have a pop culture appeal and not enough attention to advances in science, political misdeeds, etc. I am also of the opinion that one should be accommodating to certain factors when making a decision on sources and notability. For example, It's much easier to find reliable issues on an event that happened in New York City in 2001 than it would be for an event that happened in a remote area hundreds of years ago, even though the two events could have had an equal impact on humanity. Were I to spot an example of each at an AfD discussion, I would expect more and better sources on the former than the latter. That's not an indication of how I'd vote, just how I'd feel.Dave (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

5a. Thank you for the detailed answer. I would like a further clarification. I gather that you feel certain "academic"/long ago topics can be notable without an abundance of source, however I am unclear about whether you feel certain current pop culture items should be considered non-notable despite coverage? (That is are you saying some trivial topics should be excluded? Or are you just saying we should try to focus on more important things that may not be well covered, but that there is still room for both?)

A: There is room for both. To give a more specific example, it's hard to argue that Family Guy is a cultural phenomenon, and as such deserves an article. However, I grow frustrated when I see articles about an unrelated subject with a one-liner, such as, "XYZ was mentioned in episode 1234 of Family Guy where Peter..." If the article is not frequently edited, I'll usually delete. If it appears there are active editors, I'll usually ask what relevance this has on the article.

The best example I can think of regarding sources (or lack thereof) is my work with the Mountain Meadows massacre. While the massacre is well documented, by definition, one side didn't survive to tell their side of the story. As such virtually all primary sources are one-sided. Only recently have secondary sources begun to appear that would meet the WP:RS thresholds. However, that does not detract from notability. This event is one of many stories about the what otherwise good people are capable of doing while submerged in a toxic mix of fear and unquestioned loyalty to a charismatic leader. In my opinion, these stories need to be told. I try to stick to what is known; and present context where secondary sources are necessarily relying on speculation. I've made mistakes in doing this. However, I believe I've tried to be flexible and learn from the experience.Dave (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and please advise if this does not address your concerns.Dave (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Along the same lines, please pick one of the current specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as an element of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NF, WP:CORP, etc. and explain why you think the current guideline is or is not a good indication of notability.

A: Most notability guidelines are vague, out of necessity. In the BIO guideline under entertainers I see a few flaws, such as

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Taken literally, one must first establish the notability of the film, before they can establish the notability of the actor/director/whatever. With the second point, those are relative standards, for example, the article on cult movie is subject to content disputes on what is a cult movie.

In the past, if I wasn't sure weather to vote delete or not, I've tried to start a discussion. If an article is truly notable, it should be able to be defended as such to a reasonable audience.Dave (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Sk8er5000

7. Would you be open to recall of the admin tools?

A:

General comments

• Links for Davemeistermoab: Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Davemeistermoab can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Obvious support as nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support This user has shown nothing but maturity in his actions on Wiki and IRC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. A fine contributor and a pleasure to work with. BRMo (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Definite support - I've worked with Dave many times and the interactions between us leaves no doubt for me that he would make an exemplary administrator. He does well serving as peacekeeper whenever there is a dispute at the US Roads project, and I think those skills could translate well into all areas of Wikipedia. CL — 05:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Even though we have just passed by here and there, he is a striving force in my view of Wikipedia, mainly centered on roads. –CG 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support A fine editor... no reason to see that he will abuse the tools. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. No problems here. Matt (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Support in large part because you've got a good ratio of article edits and FAs on what I find to be boring topics. The encyclopedia doesn't need people who've set out to become administrators, and article creation content counts more than "administrator wannabe" edit areas (ANI, AFD, etc.) in my book. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, though I would encourage you to move slowly with admin tools - I can see pretty sparse contributions to the deletion areas that you mention in question 1. Having said that though, all the edits I've reviewed give the impression of a very clued-up editor with the best interests of Wikipedia very much at heart. Even if you just use the admin tools for various noncontroversial stuff in the course of your regular editing, I'm confident you'll be a net positive to the project in doing so. ~ mazca ^talk 07:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed, I would move slowly. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.Dave (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

11. Support. I have dealt with Dave many times through the U.S. Roads project and I feel he could definitely benefit the project by having the tools. Dave has proven himself to be a level-headed editor time and again, so I foresee no problems with promoting him. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Yup yup. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Fully comfortable with having you behind the controls! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per my RfA criteria. Aditya ^α _ß 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support iMatthew ^talk at  13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Looks fine to me. hmwithτ 15:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support per nom and above. No issues here. GlassCobra 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong support - He definitely deserves this. As for the two major opposes here - you guys are opposing over 1 article? Mitch/HC32 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    As much as you may dislike somebody's oppose rationale, calling their actions "trolling" is usually not helpful, and sometimes paints the accuser in the same light. Just saying. Jamie^☆S93 16:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    As stated, that is one article chosen as an example of what is common over dozens of his articles. It is also his most recent FA, which is supposed to be well written. It fails multiple policies and guidelines, which demonstrates a severe ignorance about those policies and guidelines and also involves dishonesty in falsifying what sources say. Such a thing is a potentially blockable offense. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    And? You are just out to fail any productive user - as proven with Leftorium. You are trolling RFAs of high-level contributors and not helping the cause. And there are millions of articles, you have to go after person because of 1 mistake? This proves that RFA needs fixing.Mitch/HC32 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    And so I am also trolling, then, because I agree with Ottava? I am explicitly looking for high-quality contributions in RfA candidates, but I'm not trying to rubber-stamp some criteria. If there are critical issues with their contributions—fatal, policy-breaking flaws—should this not be brought up? In the interest of everyone, I suggest taking further discussion to the talk, Ottava and Mitch. But please, no names. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Wasn't reffering to you, David, was referring the first two, Ottava and Peter.Mitch/HC32 16:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't mean to go all persecution complex on you. Still, discussions at RfA get a little heated, it's best not to drag them out at this venue at least. That's what the talk page is for :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

20. Support I see nothing that makes me think the candidate will misuse the tools and am unpersuaded by the opposes. Davewild (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support — Aitias // discussion 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support--Giants27 (c|s) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Support — As an editor that has worked with Dave for over a year and a half now working on articles, I find his contributions to the encyclopedia to be valuable. As a comment to the bureaucrat that's reviewing this, please note something about one of the opposition below. Mgillfr (talk · contribs) is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mgillfr in which Dave is a party. As is being demonstrated there, Dave's been patient in trying to mentor this editor, but his efforts get rebuffed. If the opposition takes issue with articles, the proper forum for that discussion is WP:FARC, not here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Strong support It's a collaborative wiki, so perfection is not required. It's all about fixing each others mistakes and combining our strengths. Thanks for your contributions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    This may very well be the first time I've ever agreed with somebody 110%. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Nice point, ChildofMidnight. AdjustShift (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

25. Support, I agree with ChildofMidnight. Theleftorium 19:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Support He seems like an intelligent guy. I can trust him to run things. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support No reason to oppose. Good luck. America69 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Adequate knowledge of admin function, and has made it evident during this discussion that he has sufficient patience to do them calmly. Some klnowledge of article writing is necessary in an admin, but not particular skill at every part of it. DGG (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comment :I am great admirer of you and in particular in the deletion area.The User wishes to work in Deletion namely WP:AFD,WP:CSD ,WP:PROD and WP:IFD Now how can one work in areas without experience of having worked there ?I do not see it in the edits. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

29. Support If the opposers are correct, then hopefully he can modify his writing style. However, I don't consider this to be a valid reason not to give him a mop. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Admins need to be able to use the tools responsibly, not write brilliant prose. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comment: this is not an issue of 'prose' but an issue of logical and grammatical errors, and of verifiability. Stifle, you of all people should appreciate the need for administrators to understand what they are making judgments about, i.e. the need for understand content (Stifle absurdly and needlessly tried to delete one of my articles some time ago, and was duly reproved, correct?). Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

31. Support - per ChildofMidnight. AdjustShift (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Handles opposes reasonably well. Writing imperfect, but perfect prose and no OR are unattainable goals. What is important is that the principles are understood. Their application is always debatable.John Z (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    No original research is like every other a necessary encyclopedic standard and not something we can just say "its okay if you don't bother". It is a policy. It was agreed to as a community consensus standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

33. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Support in direct contrast to OR's oppose. I personally see nothing wrong with Dave's edits and we need more people like him because he is not afraid to make contributions to the projects. Nobody is perfect and we don't need people nitpicking their contributions to find any reason to oppose. Besides, I don't think any of that would hurt somebody's ability to function as an admin. Tavix |  Talk  21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    You see nothing long with claiming a source states something which it clearly does not? I hope you never go to college or have a professor that bothers to review your essays to see if a source actually says what you claim it does. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

35. Support The candidate has a clean block log and as this RFA shows can handle himself under fire. I've gone through the opposes and taken part in the discussion on this talk page. The plagiarism discussion seems to be unrelated to this candidate, other than in terms of RFA !voters coordinating what they are checking for. The rest seems to be largely a misunderstanding amongst some of the opposers as to our policy on verifiability. wp:verifiability currently says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". If editors wish to change the policy to "Editors shall provide reliable sources for all material that they write" this RFA is not the place to change policy. The issue here is can we trust this candidate to wield the mop in accordance with policy, in the absence of any reason not to trust the candidate and with plenty of reasons to trust him I support. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    The above user seems ignorant that citations are needed throughout a page when put up for Feature Article status, and attributing a source to information not contained in the source is extremely academically dishonest. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    WSC, I think you're misunderstanding me. My issue isn't with non-use of sources, which you seem to be rebutting; it's about misuse of sources. Yes, on occasion we allow unsourced statements to remain until challenged (although I'll point you towards "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."), but the two examples I gave were of adding sources which don't support the statements made, which is a different matter altogether. – iridescent 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Iridescent, I'm not sure we are as far apart as you might think. My point is that not every fact in an article needs citing, but I see no contradiction between that and "pseudo information should be excised ruthlessly" or "Material that should be removed without discussion includes contentious material about a living person, clear examples of original research, and anything that is ludicrous or damaging to the project" as WP:When_to_cite puts it. I'm not familiar enough with US roads to know whether any of the information in question falls into that category, or whether it falls into WP:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed. In particular "Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions." ". Sourcing at FA is indeed stricter than our default, but it still links to and includes wp:When_to_cite. But more pertinently, we are deciding here whether to appoint someone as an admin, not as a substitute for SandyGeorgia. If you think that one of the candidate's FA articles has flaws that an FA reviewer should have picked up that's interesting, but I think it more relevant to wp:FAC than RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    The second question asks what the user's best contributions are. Gaming the FA system while putting forth something academically dishonest is definitely not something that anyone should be proud of, and it is evidence to not trust them. He would have to know that the FA standards for citations would require such a degree of citing and passing these off as such is highly inappropriate and a blockable offense if done egregiously. This is not something you can just shrug off lightly. It gives a bad reputation to FA and Wikipedia as a whole and is insulting to those who work hard to put forth content without passing it off as something that it is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    If you think he gamed the system, then why don't you take it to FARC? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    FAR requires 6 months to have passed (Route 50 is 29 March 2009 - so September). This passed in April. When Theleftorium was involved in an FA that had problems revealed during his RfA, that was close enough to allow that FA to go to FAR. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    So... why did the article pass if it doesn't meet the FA standards? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Probably for the same reason that there are so many supports stating that they don't care - people don't have standards or the same respect for policies so they let such improprieties get by without a care. I can point you to where GAs are gamed constantly, where some people wait months for a review and others can get 2 or 3 passed in a day by their friends. It happens and the best way to prevent it is to not allow those who do it to get away with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    So you consider yourself the prosecutor, judge, and jury in this case? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    We are all part of an encyclopedia. It is our obligation as members of this encyclopedia to defend the encyclopedia's integrity. Those who do not stand up for our policies and guidelines that ensure the encyclopedia's integrity are not doing their job here. Every single person who is accepting of falsifying of references is contributing to the destruction of this encyclopedia. Since you are a member of the roads wikiproject, you should be ashamed that a fellow member should dishonor that project in such a way and give them a bad reputation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    You have yet to prove that such falsification has occurred. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    See the talk page. Unless you haven't read it, there is no way to claim such. The one instance was a paragraph cited to two sources claiming that Route 50 had such attributes when the source clearly lacks any claim that Route 50 has such descriptions. Another claims something about Route 80 when Route 80 is not even mentioned. This would take a serious case of denial to claim that there isn't falsification there. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    The talk page critique is hard to read; any author could slip anything by if theycrammedtheirtexttogether. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

36. Support Looks like a good user to me (the opposes are unpersuasive as to his likely administrative ability). I am concerned by relative lack of AfD experience, as this is one of the areas Dave proposes to work in, but I don't think RfA is so much about demonstrated administrative competence as demonstrated trust (and lack of demonstrated incompetence), so I'm happy to support. Ray^Talk 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support I am primarily looking two things in an admin: dedication to the project and a strong ability to reason. Dave's dedication to the project is apparent from his steady contributions to the project for 2+ years (plus intermittent contributions from before that). His reasoning abilities are demonstrated by his thoughtful answers to my questions. Thus I am happy to support his candidacy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support, looks fine. --candle•wicke 01:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support- Looks great to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support The oppose votes appear to be a petty witchhunt of some kind. I've known Dave from his USRD work and he's one who has the temperament to be an admin. He's one who will always make sure he's doing something right by consulting with others in cases where he's unsure. Ability to work with others is, in my opinion, one of the main characteristics one should look for in an admin. --Polaron | Talk 04:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    comment on what basis do you judge it to be a 'witchhunt'? You have checked and verified the claims made below? Or is it that Dave seems to be a nice guy? Peter Damian (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

41. Support I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more admin-type experience, but above all I don't want to see the sorts of opposes we have here determining an RFA. And after all I don't have any real concerns. Looie496 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Support per ChildofMidnight. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Diffs such as the one offered in the 06:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC) oppose, far from supporting the notion that this nominee's writing skills are under par, actually illustrate the contrary. I am disturbed by the sideshow of opposition strategy which has little to do with Davemeistermoab's readiness to take up the tools. He is ready. He'll use them well. — Athaenara ✉ 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Why do you think this? I gave a detailed rationale on the talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

44. Support. Does it really matter if his prose aren't brilliant? I can't see him stuffing anything up in admin areas. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose - sorry. I looked at your contributions, including "The now two lane US50 crosses remote terrain, crossing many instances of the geographical Basin and Range construct. "[1]. There are many things wrong with that sentence. We are here to build a comprehensive, accurate and readable reference work. Peter Damian (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   ...personally, I see nothing seriously wrong with that sentence... and you're opposing based solely on that one sentence with a little error in it? Do we have to be perfectionists in order to run for RfA? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   No, we don't. Matt (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed, the ability to write flawlessly has no bearing whatsoever on one's ability to push two or three buttons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   We don't really need to discuss Peter's opposes, do we? Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not totally fond of what Peter's been doing around RFA lately, but it's certainly valid to oppose RFAs. I oppose more than I support, myself. If someone is cruising to success and I agree with it, I rarely comment. If someone is cruising to success and I disagree, I'm likely to state my opinion. Numbers are not the point to be made here. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   As stated above, I freely admit I'm not a talented writer. The diff edit you are referring to was one of many interim saves while fixing concerns raised in the FAC review. That sentence was corrected by the time the FAC closed.Dave (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   The edit is still there in the article, not corrected. If anyone does not see something seriously wrong with that sentence, I do not understand what they are doing here. This is an enyclopedia, correct? Peter Damian (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I've given it a shot, but I'm not sure why you didn't fix it yourself. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   There is nothing terribly wrong with that sentence, though it is a bit poorly worded. I'm not sure what a geographical construct is. But to oppose someone because they happened to make an edit with a few mistakes is not very...kosher, for lack of a better word. Sure, this is an encyclopedia, but we're volunteers. We don't get proofreaders, secretaries and the cachet of being in a written-and-bound book. CL — 08:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Talk about fishing for an oppose - forgive my abrasiveness, but what a load of nausea inducing rubbish. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   What an extraordinary collection of reasons we have here. "The inability to write flawlessly" has no bearing on being elected to an administrative function in a reference work. What? "We are volunteers" - that old argument well I am a volunteer, and I spend much time trying to clear up this sort of mess. "To oppose someone because they happened to make an edit with a few mistakes is not very...kosher, for lack of a better word". My god. "what a load of nausea inducing rubbish" - referring not to the article but to my criticism - if I had made such a rude personal attack I would of course have been blocked within seconds. Final proof that the RfA process is irretrievably broken. Peter Damian (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   [2] - Opposing every new administrator running? Really? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose - heavy use of original research in your FA shows an misunderstanding of policy and guidelines. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing concerns and errors for examples of original research, use of peacock terms, misapplying references, claiming references say things that they do not, and other serious problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Ottava, mostly. If it were simply a matter of misattribution here or there, I could brush it off as honest mistakes (I know I'd made similar in research, and as long as he fixes them, no foul.) However the manipulation of references suggests the candidate is unfamiliar with WP:NOR, a serious editorial issue as well as an area admins should be expected to know about when evaluating ANI reports or the like. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I've worked on highway articles for well over a year now, so I can say that deriving obscure info from normally useless sources (eg. maps and press releases) is a necessity in said articles. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Check the talk page - as I showed, one paragraph went on and on about Route 50 and yet Route 50 does not appear in the two sources used. To also make comparisons with one length and another would be synthesis at best (as in saying "google maps says A to B is this distance, which is the same as C to D"). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   There's good synthesis (the general combination of related facts from many sources into a comprehensive whole), and then there's bad synthesis, the type prescribed against in WP:OR. In my opinion, he's performing the latter. I've got nothing against press releases or maps, but the way the candidate has used them is against our policies. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   That said, the Four corners article was not nearly so bad. I'm not sure what to make of this. Peter Damian (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I hope you are referring to Four Corners Monument, a GA I nominated. Four Corners is in terrible shape, was quickly thrown together, and I feel it would be unfair to judge me on the content of that article.Dave (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Correct. Four Corners Monument was good. The other one, as you say, is terrible. Peter Damian (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing concerns and errors - it explains it all. I see problems with grammatical (and a bit of spelling) structures throughout Davemeistermoab's work on multiple articles. Check history on U.S. Route 395 in California, Four Corners Monument, and U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. Mgillfr (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Closing bureaucrat please note Dave's vote on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mgillfr. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   If you are going to mention such things, why not mention that you are part of the wiki roads project and work with Dave? It would definitely show a lack of objectivity. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   This comment is

   There are several USRD users that I would not support for adminship. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   Should we wish to discuss objectivity, how's this? [3] --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per above.--Caspian blue 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Sorry about this, and I did come here expressly to support, after an argument a frank discussion with Peter about this. To avoid what may have been problems only affecting a single article, I deliberately chose another of yours to review in light of Peter, Ottava and David's concerns (Utah State Route 128), and the very first reference I checked (ref 3 at the time of writing) turns out to be a falsified claim ("Residents of Moab frequently refer to SR-128 as the river road", with this article which says nothing of the sort as the sole source). "Onion Creek receives its name from naturally occurring minerals that produce a strong odor in the stream" has this as the sole source, which again says nothing of the kind (the only mention of odor of any kind is "Stinking Spring itself […] smells strongly of sulfur gas", with no mention of onions). Websites do change, and if it was just a one-off case I'd happily assume that that was indeed what the site said at the time you accessed it, but there's a clear pattern here. – iridescent 17:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Agree - the first link you mention may just have been broken. But the second was still there, and it says nothing about the name 'onion' being connected with the smell of onions. Peter Damian (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I have responded on the talk page to this charge.Dave (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I don't see experience in the administrative areas you say you would be involved in, and while prose problems in the mainspace are of secondary concern, it is vital that administrators be able to communicate with other editors effectively. I don't see evidence of that in your writing here, and you've made several errors in your answers to Q1 and Q2. I think you have also erred in your treatment of those who raised concerns on the talk page. Your responses seem to be alternatively combative and dismissive, rather than collaborative. None of this means that I think you have a negative effect on the project in your current capacity. I hope that you will continue to add content, as long as it is verifiable. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   comment. Again, my objection is not to 'prose' or 'style', but to logical and grammatical errors (some of them connected with NPOV) in the articles. Peter Damian (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps it's my failure, but I've always taken "prose" to mean "writing with a grammatical structure" (in opposition to verse, which ignores such structure). At any rate, this is pretty far off topic. Dekimasuよ! 01:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   It's very on-topic. People above are downplaying the problems with the article on the grounds that they are not polished style or perfectly written. I object to this. Grammatical and particularly logical problems with writing show poor thinking, and suggest poor judgment. Peter Damian (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose User has been around since Jan 2006 but did not find the user involving him/her in Deletions that isWP:AFD or WP:CSD or WP:IFD orWP:PROD where you wish to work in .But as the answer to Quesion 1 the user wants to be involved in deletion.But clearly has no experience.Deletion in particular WP:CSD is a very sensitive area and for example only 2 users are involved the recent page patroller and the Admin and most proably a new user creating his/her first page(which is not an attack page or copyright violation} whether the page is to be deleted within (it is marked in many cases within minutes of its creation) or not is a decision taken by the admin and I feel in areas like this experience is required and moreover WP:CSD deletion unlike Protection of Pages or even WP:UAA or Blocks another admin and other users see it and if is wrong or questionable raise it and change it .But in WP:CSD normarlly no one checks which new page has been deleted by another admin and whether is correct or wrong.Hence if he/she wishes to be involved in deletions he/she needs to be experienced.Hence feel alone involved in WP:CSD Sorry Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   What? Do you mean to say that he has never voted in an AFD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Davemeistermoab says he wants to work in areas such as dealing with images and AFD, but I have concerns about his lack of experience in those areas. He has only contributed to a total of 6 AFDs in the three years he's been around (although his AFD contributions themselves were unproblematic, he just doesn't have many of them). And I can't seem to find any edits of his to specifically image-related pages like WP:IFD. I apologise in advance if I've missed something here - Dave, feel free to correct me and point me to where you've had experience in this area. But as it is, I just don't feel confident enough in the user's experience in these areas to give him the admin tools. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose The editor says he wants to work with (among other things) images if he becomes an admin. Right now, he only has 2 edits to the file namespace. Normally when I come across an RFA like this I suggest on the editor's talk page that they get more experience with images before using the tools. I do not normally oppose for this reason though. This RFA is an exception. He only has 2 edits to the file namespace. Assuming his 41 deleted edits were also in the file namespace, he'd still have less than 1% of his edits there. I think that is too low.--Rockfang (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, but he's also somewhat active at Commons, so his file namespace editcount here should be irrelevant. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose Per the above concerns regarding lack of experience in deletion areas. I'd prefer to see more edits in those areas before supporting.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing concerns and errors; I also find the lack of experience in the areas the nominee in interested. I usually ony care if the person is wise, mature and polite enough to do the job (and not just knowing the tech aspect), but these problems as presented in talk are deeply disconcerting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose. We're not electing moderators for a web forum, but people who will be the custodians of article space. We all understand that you sometimes have to use poor sources, but introducing sources which do not pertain to the subject at all shows, at the very best, a poor grasp of WP:RS. How many deletion discussions, PRODs or CSDs revolve around evaluating sources to verify an article? A great many. The nominee's grasp of WP:RS appears inadequate to judge consensus on these matters at present. If admin roles were separated into different areas and the tools accordingly limited, I'd probably support for non-mainspace adminship, but as such, not now. MLauba (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm concerned by the accusations by the opposers, although they don't necessarily relate to what the candidate wishes to do with the new powers. If people think that challenge can go unanswered, or indeed form a reason to support, I think they are wrong. I'd like to hear more on that issue - from both sides. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Jarry, I think the best way I can respond is so say, "read the complaint and judge for yourself". It lists several grammar error I've made (guilty, I confess), and that I made the ghastly error of saying "4" in the article when the source says "2+2=?". However the complaint proceeds to accuse me of far more serious crimes, such as plagiarism, and ironically synthesis. The only one I feel the need to address are my supposed violations of OR. Highway articles are a little tricky, in that for many important details the only "official" source is a map and/or government logs in a spreadsheet format. As such, sometimes the line of OR does get fuzzy. However, what I've done has been discussed, ad nauseam, in multiple forums (including WT:OR and numerous FAC venues). So far, it has passed muster with people who have actually examined the situation. Hope this helps.Dave (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I suggest you answer your critics there. I'm yet to feel I know enough definitively to come down off the fence. Perhaps if your particular situation has been discussed before, you could point me in the right direction. I will also be taking how you answer this into account, as others I'm sure will, even if the allegations aren't enough to derail your RfA in themselves. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 17:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I will respond. I do request some time to allow things to calm down over there.Dave (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW I have advised Dave not to reply in detail to questions about his article writing. And so has another experienced editor. It's not actually the subject that should be under discussion. DGG (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   DGG, standard question 2 asks what a user feels is their best work. What they chose reflects them in their understanding of how they contribute around here. Dave has chosen article writing. There are many serious problems that deal with both policies and guidelines in those articles. If Dave does not respond to them, then he is saying that he has not contributed anything worth while. Question 2 is vital to a candidate at RfA and your recommendation would severely disable his ability to pass. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   (ec) DGG, I think you've misunderstood the comments by myself and I believe Ottava. My issue isn't with writing style (my own prose style is dull and over-technical), but with the apparent misunderstanding of the core policy of verifiability. – iridescent 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Seconded. DGG has completely misunderstood the issue. I agree that articles should not be oversourced. But when a source is provided, it should support the claim. Such bogus sourcing is worse - far worse - than no source at all. Peter Damian (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I have concerns - not in the editor personally, nor enough to oppose. But I do think that adhereance to policy could be better. It's up to him whether he wants to try to alay my concerns - which is not difficult ("Sorry, yes, point learnt, will be more careful in future" would be enough). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I have stated up front that I'm not a proficient writer. I have tried to improve my writing skills with my wikipedia efforts. I have made mistakes, made apologies where appropriate, and tried to learn from them. I have improved and will continue to do so. I honestly don't know what more I can say.Dave (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   So you want him to copy and paste your statement to buy your support? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not suggesting he did anything deliberately, I'd just like more acceptance of mistakes (and less "pitchfork brigade"). - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2. The sheer number of problems pointed out in the talk page makes me worried that the candidate may not be able to enforce Wikipedia's content guidelines (not being able to write well or interested in writing well is one thing, but an admin should at least understand these things even if he doesn't plan on spending much time in the article namespace himself). While I don't know much about editing road articles and I'm not really qualified to comment on most of the content issues raised raised by Ottava Rima at the talk page; Ottava is known for being a very thorough quality controller and I think his points should be paid attention to, even if some might find them nitpicky. Staying neutral since I'm not really familiar with the candidate's contributions outside this area and I can't think very critically about the particular article in question, but leaning towards oppose because of the article-writing problems (like I said, even if an admin doesn't plan on spending most of his time article-writing, he should at least understand it well--just about everything else at Wikipedia is secondary to it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Fastily

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (29/5/4); Scheduled to end 00:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Fastily (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself, User:Fastily, to wield the mop and bucket. I have been a registered user since January of 2008 and have been editing actively really since September of 2008. I have considered running for adminship for quite some time now but each time I really begin to seriously consider it, I always feel doubt in that I know I can always garner more experience and better my contributions. But I believe I am at last finally ready for this next endeavor, having gained much experience over the course of my time here. I would like to become a sysop to expand my role here on Wikipedia and help the project to the best of my ability. Thank you and I look forward to a week of discussion.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Although I have contributed content-wise to the encyclopedia (mainly through images) and minor edits, I have spent a good amount time reverting vandalism/WP:CVU/WP:AIV, working in image CSD, WP:FFD, and areas pertaining those tasks. However, I would like to focus mainly on dealing with vandalism from an administrative standpoint as well as image CSD from an administrative standpoint. I often find the backlogs at WP:AIV or Media CSD to be needlessly long and I would like to offer my assistance in emptying those backlogs.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I tended and still tend to make gnome edits frequently - correcting grammar, spelling, and formatting in the mainspace. However, as time has gone on, I have made attempts to become bolder with my edits all the while expanding my edits to more namespaces (e.g. Wikipedia & File). I have spread my edits over various fields, ranging from designing userboxes to noting image copyright issues to Wikiproject Articles for Creation. However, I am most proud of my photos and image work I have done for the project. I have uploaded numerous images both free (my work as a novice photographer) and non-free. While I do mainly participate in the more chore-like tasks on Wikipedia, I like to think of uploading images as my contribution to the content-building side of the project.

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

A: Frankly, I haven't had too many conflicts. I try to be as affable as possible at all times, even when engaged in heated discussions. I make an effort not to bite any newcomers (let alone trod on toes), patiently addressing any concerns or questions they may have. However, some people are simply inconsolable and the group which I have probably incensed the most would be that of vandals. In these cases, I usually start off with a level 1 warning and go from there. As can be seen by the history of my userpage, my userspace has been vandalized a multitude times by vandals whose edits I reverted. I never take death threats or threats of damnation from vandals seriously. As an sysop, I will continue to remain as amicable as possible when dealing with not just conflicts, but all situations. This project needs more content - not drama.

Additional optional questions from Lankiveil

4. Should editors who advocate including controversial information in the mainspace that casts on topics like child sexuality, holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories in a positive light be blocked or banned for potentially bringing Wikipedia into disrepute? Why/why not?

A: Not unless the editor is asserting his/her beliefs in a disruptive manner (edit warring/threatening others in order to insert biased information). As long as Wikipedia articles whose subject matter could be considered controversial are written from a neutral point of view, then those topics should be kept on Wikipedia. For instance, an article whose subject matter can be considered controversial, Holocaust denial, is displayed and maintained on Wikipedia as, it is written from a neutral point of view. I believe that editors have a right to let their voice be heard (through article talk pages in this case) and unless their actions are strongly disrupting the peace or integrity of the project, only then should they be banned or blocked.

Optional questions from — Σxplicit

5. Under what circumstance would you speedy delete an article despite an {{hangon}} tag?

A: CSD of articles is neither administrative area that I plan to partake in nor a task I regularly participate in, but I will do my best to answer. In my experience, most {{hangon}} tags are accompanied by a weak rationale on an article which clearly satisfies a CSD requirement. I would speedy delete an article despite a hangon tag if the article clearly satisfies a CSD requirement and/or is accompanied by a weak rationale for retaining the article. I would not however, delete the article if the problem noted in the CSD tag had been addressed or if a rationale such as "Still editing" accompanied the tag. In that case, I would check back in a few days and re-evaluate the article to determine whether to delete or keep the article.

6. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist?

A: Yes, but only under special circumstances. Only if is there is no free equivalent in existence then a non-free image may be used. But even then, any non-free images of the subject in existence may not be viable options as many may not have a compatible license for use on Wikipedia, let alone comply with the criteria presented in WP:NFC/WP:NFCC.

7. Is there an instance in when you would indefinitely block a registered user without any prior warnings?

A: No, I would always be sure to warn, at the bare minimum once, before blocking - including anonymous IP editors. Unless a registered user account has clearly been compromised, for instance, another administrator account, I might block without warning only if there is no other remedy to the situation. However, as often as possible, I will warn any user at a bare minimum once for whatever offense before blocking.

(Correction) I would block a registered user indefinitely without warning if the user had a username in clear violation of the username policy or if the user was a confirmed sock. I would also block without warning, especially if the user is obviously aware of policies, if the account was a single purpose account used for vandalism, making personal attacks, ect.

Questions from Sandstein

8. Under what circumstances would you undo a block without the consent of the blocking administrator?

A: The only time I might possibly undo a block without the consent of a blocking administrator would be if the block was completely uncalled for (i.e. user in good standing, no evidence of vandalism, edit warring, ect.). Even then, that's it's still unlikely I would undo the block without asking the blocking sysop first, as, if presented with such as situation, I would be more likely to ask for the reason behind the block and request that the sysop undo their own block. So unless there is an extremely good reason to, I would probably not undo an inappropriate block without at least asking the blocking sysop for their rationale behind the block.

9. Have you reached the age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you live?

A: Forgive me, but whether I am above the age of majority or not, I prefer not to disclose.

Questions from Black Kite

10a. Could you explain how this image, which you updated the rationale for, passes WP:NFCC#8 for the article it was used in at the time?

A: Well, frankly, no it's omission would not be detrimental to a reader's understanding. It was my mistake not to check the page links and then the article that the image linked to. I had carelessly believed this to be some sort of important logo/opening screen for Tinsel Town but clearly that is not the case. Thank you for pointing this out - I will be sure to take more care in analyzing how such non-free images are being used.

10b. You removed the tag from this image despite the fact that it is clearly a multiple derivative work from well-known images that aren't the property of the owner - why did you not immediately nominate it for FfD? Black Kite 13:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A: Another honest mistake I'm afraid. I do not claim to be with Bigfoot or Bigfoot images but that is on no grounds an adequate reason for excuse. I can recall doing a Google image search for "Simang compared to Bigfoot" to check for copyvio before removing the tag but it did not occur to me that the image was actually a derivative work - not something the author could freely release into the Public Domain. I figure I should have searched for "bigfoot" instead. That would have made it obvious this was a derivative work. Once again, thank you for pointing this out - constructive criticism is indispensable.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

11. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales once said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." If this quote can be applied to the Notability Guidelines, then in my opinion, as many topics as possible should be included on Wikipedia as possible. However, I do respect the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Notability, and for the most part, I am in agreement with these guidelines. I believe that any topic that does not explicitly consist of/have the sole support of original research and has multiple reliable sources should be allowed on Wikipedia. I cannot think of (or cannot remember) any topics that I would deem to be automatically be made notable. Frankly, I believe that for any subject to be noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, it must not completely consist of or have a sole backing of original research and must have at a minimum, several reliable, distinguished sources.

12. Along the same lines, please pick one of the current specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as an element of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NF, WP:CORP, etc. and explain why you think the current guideline is or is not a good indication of notability.

A:

General comments

• Links for Fastily: Fastily (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Fastily can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - We need more admins who are willing to work with images. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Per \ / and I like your user talk page edits, lots of discussion.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support see no problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Cue OMGZ I THOUGHT HE WUZ UN ADMIN LUL. Excellent editor, should do fine. Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. AGF --Caspian blue 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Contribs and interactions look good. Timmeh 02:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Most definitely! Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
9. 'Support the lack of mainspace edits, especially with featured content is a slight concern, but I really don't see much that would be a negative to you as a potential administrator. Good luck! Tavix |  Talk  04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I have no problem at all with supporting this RfA; I completely trust the user to use the bit responsibly, and well. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Hell yes. While I can't recall having any interactions with you personally, I have seen you around and think that Wikipedia would definitely be better with you wielding the mop and bucket of justice. Best of luck! -t'shael^chat 06:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Definitely. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 06:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong support Been waiting for this one. Aditya ^α _ß 13:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Looks fine to me. LittleMountain5 ^{4th of July!}_{233 Years!} 15:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support As per Track and see no concerns and user used roolback well Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I do not see a reason for opposing. — Aitias // discussion 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Photo contributions and copy-editing are also important to content. Seems like a solid editor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I have seen this user around, and have seen no issues. Good luck. America69 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I don't see any problems with this guy. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
22. To help counteract some of the silly opposes. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    You're free to support for whatever reason, but I fail to see how limited experience in writing the encyclopedia is not a valid reason for not trusting someone to administer it. Jafeluv (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

23. Moved from oppose. Your photo contributions make up for the limited experience in article writing. No reason to suspect you'd misuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Image work seems good, which makes up for lack of content contributions (though I'd say that images are content and contributions in themselves, as they add to articles), and things like GAs/FAs are not necessary for adminship anyway. As for question seven, while there are times to block users without warning, it's not a bad thing for admins to issue at least one warning, and it's not a reason to oppose because not using the tools is not a form of abuse. Acalamari 22:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Support, I am impressed by this person although this probably means nothing. I will support though because that is what has to be done and I do not see any major reason to oppose. --candle•wicke 01:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    It means a lot to me. Thank you for taking the time to !vote :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

26. Support- Great answers to the questions. I really think that you should participate more though in some speedy deletions before you go around deleting pages though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Very good work; good dealings as well.  :) -download ׀ sign! 05:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support I've had some good interactions with this candidate, and I like the pictures. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose - Per flimsy and scant article work [4]. Being a gnome is one thing, but I'd expect a little bit more content work for a potential admin. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose - very poor on article work (as far as I can see) which is or should be the main business of this project. Sorry. Peter Damian (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Can you please explain how a candidate's work on creating articles is relevant to this discussion of whether he would use the admin tools properly? Stifle (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   For the same reason I pointed out to you on the other page, relating to your attempted deletion of an article of mine last year. If you have no grasp whatsoever of what constitutes encyclopedic content and subject matter, you had better stay away from this project. Too many people here have been elected on the basis of being 'nice people' or whatever, rather than on the grounds of what really counts. Peter Damian (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose lack of audited (PR/FA/GA) contributions ^{(more info)} --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose, per answer to Q7. Nakon 17:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I am truly sorry, but I feel that not working on articles is detrimental to the project. If you find some experience here, I'd be more willing to support in future. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Your article contributions are almost completely creating redirects and making automated edits. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it leaves me uncertain of your knowledge of policy. Also, you state your image contributions as your best work at Wikipedia, specifically mentioning your work as a novice photographer. Looking at the 35 images you've uploaded, I can find no free use photo you've uploaded that was taken by you. Please do correct me if I've missed something. Your answer to Q7 is wrong – usernames that violate the username policy and confirmed sockpuppets, for example, should be blocked without warning. I like your answer to Q4 and Q9, though. Sorry. Jafeluv (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   A list of my photo contributions may be found here -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Very nice. Moving to support. Jafeluv (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I have had a nagging concern in the back of my mind for several hours, and the link to your article contributions seal the deal for me. I'll reevaluate in a few days, but right now, I'm leaning oppose. NW (Talk) 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Pending the answer to Q10. Whilst the editor does good work with images where the issues are missing sources, rationales, etc, I'm a little concerned about xes knowledge of our non-free policies. Black Kite 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Lack of article contributions doesn't really bother me. However, although I've seen Fastily doing work in many areas, something tells me that I got a negative impression about him once. Apologies about my memory, and I could be mixing you up with another user. ;-) But I think I read some comments of yours once that didn't give me a good impression. Otherwise decent editor. Jamie^☆S93 16:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. I haven't done a review - I stopped after looking at some of your barnstars. They seem to mostly be about fun. Sure, fun is acceptable. However, it just gives the appearances that you seem to care more about that aspect than the encyclopedic aspect. Think of RfA like a job interview - is it better to come in with a suit and tie or in a concert t-shirt and jeans with holes in them? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   At the risk of provoking any fight or disruption I would cautiously say that a user can't help what barnstars they have or have not since they are usually chosen by others and some very good and decent people may have none at all. And if it is the giving of barnstars, well whatever shape or form they may be they will presumably serve to make another user feel valued and recognise their efforts so I'm not sure how this is bad in any way or how this affects an RfA. --candle•wicke 01:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Pastor Theo

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (84/10/8); Scheduled to end 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) – Pastor Theo first disappointed me about three months ago when I first considered nominating him for adminship. You see, I spent a fair amount of time reviewing his edits and was impressed with them before I realized that he had only been on wikipedia for a few months. About six weeks ago, a very respected member of Wikipedia came to me asking me to nominate Pastor Theo. So I broached the subject again. Theo indicated that he wanted to wait until July. Well, July is upon us, and I am happy to tell you that Theo has agreed to accept a nomination.

Pastor Theo is one of those people who joined wikipedia for all of the right reasons and has consistently shown a high level of commitment to the project and has been sought out by others. Including deleted edits, he has amassed over 4,800 edits (all manual) almost a third of which are in the article mainspace. Theo has created about 40articles, mostly stub and start class that exemplify his eclectic interests. The articles fall into four categories: Religion (but not any specific denomination), race horse, stamps, and early twentieth century entertainment. He is a member of numerous projects--the two that caught my attention the most are the Guild of Copy Editors and Article Rescue.

A quick review of his CSD work revealed no major issues, similarly his XfD work is solid. Theo will send articles to XFD when needed.

And for Caspian Blue, who knows that I always have to point out at least one negative of my candidate, I hate to say it but Pastor Theo has one major failing, but I'm trying to over look that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am deeply appreciative of Balloonman's kind words, and I hope that I will be able to live up to his praise. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If provided with administrative responsibility, I would primarily focus on areas where I am currently active: AfD, CSD and UAA. I understand that these areas often get backlogged, so I would like to provide assistance to keep the systems flowing.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A:To be honest, there hasn’t been a single “superstar” achievement – just a lot of gnomish work. I am active in New Page Patrol, where I try to improve the quality of works-in-progress -- by copy editing, adding references, links, categories and stubs plus connections to WikiProjects -- and alert administrators to potential problems via CSD and Prod tagging and UAA reports. In AfD, I have nominated articles, relisted discussions that require more consensus, performed non-administrative closures, and participated in the debates – sometimes rescuing articles that had potential for growth, sometimes pointing out flaws that I believe cannot be helped. I have worked to de-orphan articles and I copy edit existing articles, too. I’ve tried my hand at creating articles and I have three DYKs, but I freely admit that I am not a super writer – I am more comfortable with enhancing existing work.

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

A: I have experienced no conflicts whatsoever. The people here have been wonderful to me. In areas where I have been uncertain of policy and protocol, friendly editors have stepped forward and patiently explained procedures. In discussions and debates, I have been delighted by the intelligent and spirited opinions put forth. Someone even named a day after me, which I still can’t believe! It has been a lot of fun, and I am thankful for being welcomed into this community.

Additional optional questions from Tedder

4. Balloonman said you've spent a lot of time in religion articles. Since I don't think we've crossed paths, can you explain how NPOV is handled in these articles?

A:It is inappropriate to use the articles on this site for either proselytizing or denigrating. Any religion-based article should be strictly academic in nature. The personal views of the editors relating to the tenets of religious faith should not be incorporated into the texts of the articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and we need to realize that people are coming here to conduct research and not to be entertained by personal opinions.

5. Suppose you find a new article about a religion you aren't familiar with. All of the edits are from enthusiastic supporters, and the only sources given (or found) are from adherents to the religion. What do you do?

A:If an article does not meet WP:RS standards, then its survival could be in jeopardy. I would make a very serious effort to research the subject and determine its legitimacy. If I am in doubt on the references and the subject, I would consult with other editors within WikiProject Religion to get second opinions.

6. What would you do in the above scenario if you were closing an AFD for the religion?

A:I would have to present an airtight case to justify its deletion in the face of supportive consensus. If I cannot make a cogent argument with irrefutable evidence that the article’s references do not meet WP:RS standards, then it would be inappropriate for me to delete the article when the consensus is overwhelmingly positive.

Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare

7. Your first edits under this account indicate a high degree of familiarity with both the English Wikipedia and with MediaWiki. Could you please list any account besides this one that you currently use or have used in the past?

A. This is the only account I have ever edited with. Prior to becoming active on Wikipedia, I spent a few days reading the various rules and guidelines and studying the protocol of the discussions. I am the type of guy who reads instructional booklets cover-to-cover twice before plugging something into an electrical outlet or hitting a button on a machine.

7a. - follow-up question from The_ed17 (talk · contribs). Combing through your earliest contributions, I see that on your second day of editing you tagged an article with {{expand}} [5] and !voted in three AfD's (citing WP:NOT#NEWS and notability) [6][7][8], and copyedited two entire articles [9][10]. By your third day, you added {{unreferenced}} tags to five different articles [11][12][13][14][15], copyedited two more articles [16][17], and voted in four featured picture candidates [18][19][20][21]. I'm not trying to say that you did, in fact, use another account in the past; I'd just like some further explanation on this topic, as I'm not sure that one can receive this amount of wiki-experience from just reading the policies and guidelines... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand how Wikipedia operates, it seems that micro-short articles need to be expanded and unreferenced articles require references, hence the Expand and Unreferenced tags. The WP:NOT#NEWS was not an original statement – I was echoing a statement made by User:Edison earlier in the discusson. The notability issues came by checking whether the articles were in sync with notability standards. The copy editing was rather elementary – I was just cleaning up the text. And for offering an opinion on the featured pictures – well, I liked the pictures, that’s all. :)

And as a P.S. -- Ed, you were the first person I conversed with on Wikipedia [22] - I appreciated your taking the time to lend a hand.

What I meant by the question was just how you understood how Wikipedia operates so soon after you joined, which, now that I think about it, is a rather hard question to ask as it was six months ago. :) You were/are most welcome for the helping hand! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

8. A new user, "AtheistPride" begins editing many religious articles to reflect the point-of-view that there is no God. What actions, if any, would you take to deal with this user?

A:It doesn't matter if the user is "AtheistPride" or "JesusLovesYou" -- editing that does not adhere to NPOV standards will be reverted and the editor in question will receive notices alerting them to the problems with their editing. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject, however, I am willing to devote extra time in conversing with the editor about the problem and how it can be resolved. After all, a new user may be unaware of Wikipedia's editorial protocols -- not everyone reads the instructions before editing. However, a continued course of intentional disruption that ignores proper warnings will ultimately result in the editor being blocked.

Additional optional questions from Steve Crossin

9. Do you, as a potential administrator feel that it is more important to abide by and enforce the letter or the spirit of policies and guidelines. Additionally, if a situation arose where policies ans guidelines conflict with a better solution that you could achieve by using common sense and administrative judgment, would you do so? If possible, please give an example.

A.First part of the question: in my opinion, FWIW, the spirit of policy is the letter of policy with an extra element of discretion added to it. I feel comfortable making a judgment call on whether a person is making an honest mistake or is up to intentional mischief – I am not a hardass personality, and I recognize that people make errors without realizing it. Second part of the question: That goes far beyond the spirit of policy, I believe. I would get second opinions from other admins before acting in an out-of-bounds manner that could easily erupt into a big fight and ill will. After all, my idea of "common sense" may not be shared by others.

Exceptional explanation. Best of luck. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from WarthogDemon who did not, in any way, paraphrase a question he's seen MrPrada use.

10. An article gets nominated for deletion. The nominator's reasons are that while there are several verifiable and reliable sources, there is no notability. The AFD goes through the motions and in the end there are 10 votes to keep. None of those who voted have said anything to disprove the nominator's claims that it fails notability. Should it be kept per WP:SNOW or deleted?

A.No notability, as in absolute zero? That would seem very unusual, especially if the article meets WP:V and WP:RS standards. And if I know AfD, it seems unusual for 10 straight WP:ILIKEIT arguments that ignore policy completely. If the AfD runs the full seven day course, which the question suggests, there is no need for the extra snowflake in closing as Keep. I don’t see a strong argument in this scenario to completely ignore consensus and Delete the article. The question is fascinating, and if this is based on an actual AfD, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Optional questions from KillerChihuahua

11. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?

A:I believe it is appropriate when reverting vandalism that was left in place before the page was fully protected.

11.1 (followup from Orlady). Do you really think that's the only time an administrator should edit a fully protected page?

A:I really think I should have cited the additional examples that WereSpielChequers noted in his Support statement. I must note that I have never been active in the WP:RFPP section and I had no plans to become involved there in an administrative capacity.

Um, where are these "additional examples that WereSpielChequers noted in his Support statement"? As for the relevance of the question, I believe there are plenty of types of situations other than WP:RFPP where an administrator might need to consider the possibility of editing a fully protected page. --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in but I think PastorTheo is referring to the following from WereSpielChequers support: other times when it can be OK to edit a protected page include when the warring parties still can't agree on the artists genre or drug addictions but want an admin to make the changes they are agreed on.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. When I used the Firefox "find" function to search for WereSpielChequers' input on this page, it didn't turn anything up because I didn't think to search for "ϢereSpielChequers". --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from decltype

12. I am sure you remember this and the subsequent AfD (which was a mess). Has your view changed on the matter, or do you still feel the subject should not be included in Wikipedia?

A: That was a wacky AfD! At the end of the day, however, the article was strengthened and Mr. Derrick's notability was confirmed. To me, that's a win-win situation and I have no reason to argue with the conclusion. Also, I later discovered the web site that issued the SPA call to arms for that AfD: [23]. What I thought was hilarious was someone over there said that "Pastor Theo is a dumb ****" -- anyone want to take a guess what letters were hidden behind those four stars? :)

Questions from Tony1

13. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy? (Critical response, please; I care more about your analytical skills than your political opinion WRT this issue.)

A:That is a very well written proposal, and the idea of having a majority of non-admins as coordinators is admirable. I am supportive of anything that will dial down the decibel level at the Administrators Noticeboard in relation to admin-related issues, and I believe we need an orderly resolution of this type of problem. My one concern is having an even number of coordinators, due only to the risk of a tie vote that might be seen as inconclusive. I would prefer seven coordinators instead of six, if only to ensure resolution instead of deadlock.

14. "I freely admit that I am not a super writer – I am more comfortable with enhancing existing work." Sure, no one expects super writing! But could you provide a few diffs that suggest you have the ability to use serviceable writing in negotiation? (I will understand if you can't locate any.)

A:I am afraid I will come across as obtuse in asking this, but what do you mean by “serviceable writing in negotiation?” What type of negotiation are you asking about, and how do you define “serviceable writing”?

15. I suspect you won't be inclined to do much blocking, but you may nevertheless be placed in that position. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A:IRL, I am a very easy-going guy. I know people get frustrated and say stuff they don’t mean – you are not a bad person if you lose your cool for a moment. The suggestion you raise is an excellent one, particularly if the editor in question has no history of habitual rudeness. I would encourage both parties to shake hands and put their spat behind them in the manner you describe. If the rude editor declines, I would issue a warning and keep an eye on his or her activities. I would only block if the rudeness were a true jaw-dropping tirade that encompasses, say, threats of violence or racially motivated personal attacks.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

16. I know you do a lot of AfD work, so I suspect this will be an easy question for you. What is your opinion about notability and how it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? Specifically, are there any specific notability guidelines you disagree with and if so why? To be clear, what I am looking for is your opinion of what an ideal Wikipedia and not a regurgitation of policy.

A:The notability guidelines are the foundation on which our editorial house is built. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a trivia site or a blog or a celebrity worship shrine. Our challenge as editors is to ensure the information we put forth would not be out of place in any academic reference text. I keep using "academic" because I view Wikipedia through that prism. The notability guidelines ensure we have academic order instead of information chaos. To date, I have been comfortable with the guidelines.

16a. If you could, please pick one group of people covered by SNGs (WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC, or a specific element of WP:BIO) and explain why you think the current guidelines are good and/or how they could be improved for that specific group of people.

A: As I stated in the previous question, I have been comfortable with the guidelines. The editorial parameters that are set in the guidelines are my blueprint and, so far, I haven't found fault with them. Thus, I am not able to offer specific suggestions for improvement because I’ve had no complaints with the current requirements.

16b. Do you consider any types/groups of articles to be "automatically notable" (given that the information is verifiable)?

A: I am of the opinion that every topic or subject grouping is notable, ranging from the loftiness of quantum physics to the lowbrow fun of professional wrestling. My focus is not the topic, but the contents of the individual articles that I am writing, editing and/or reviewing.

I apparently didn't make myself clear, so let me rephrase: The normal way notability is established is by being covered in detail by multiple reliable sources. There is a general consensus that this "in depth coverage test" isn't necessary for certain subjects, although the list of such subjects varies from editor to editor. Are there any subjects you personally feel are "automatically notable" merely by being verifiable, or in your opinion should all subjects be proven to pass the general notability guidelines. (Feel free not to answer in further detail if you feel your answers above already adequately cover the subject).

A From my experience, since I come across articles on subjects where my expertise is limited, I would be more comfortable if the article meets WP:GNG standards – if only so I can double-check and confirm the information is correct.

Additional questions from Gigs

17. How would you handle a WP:UAA report of a user named "Allah does not exist"?

A:I would put a {{uw-username}} tag on the Talk Page, add the username to the category on Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over, and try to initiate a direct conversation afterwards with the editor to point out issues that some people would have with that name.

18. You notice a user named "SPKCo" has created an article for "Sal's Premium Kippers", and has no other edits, what do you do?

A:First, I would check the article to ensure it meets WP:CORP standards. If it is fine, that’s not a problem; if it requires references, I would check to see if references are available and help copy edit the article. If it strictly spam that cannot be salvaged, it has to go. As for SPKCo, I would probably issue a Level 1 notice relating to WP:COI and a {{uw-username}} tag, with a personal note offering to help if the editor wants to contribute further to Wikipedia. If the editor had the name “Sal’s Premium Kippers,” however, I would have to issue a block since it is an intentional promotional name.

Additional questions from User:Peter Damian

19. Do you think the relationship between so-called 'vested contributors' and the admin community is a difficult one? If so, do you see it within your power as an administrator to help improve the relationship, and if so, how would you set about it? I admire the way you have occasionally given pastoral advice in this community, by the way.

Peter Damian (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A: I am sorry to answer a question with a question, but I require clarification on "vested contributors" -- without naming any individuals, please let me know what you mean by that phrase, and I will be able to answer the question. Thank you.

Thought I might offer a possible explanation. Vested contributors, while discouraged, are editors who have been here for a long period of time, and may feel that they are "above" other editors, and have exceptions to our policies. (I hope this is a correct enough answer). Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A: Thank you, Mr. Crossin, because I don’t recall seeing that phrase before. As I see it, that concept mirrors the famous line from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”: “All animals are created equal but some animals are created more equal than others.” Whether in a two-legged or a four-legged community, double standards should never be encouraged. But the blame for such a situation is shared between those who think they are above the rules and those who encourage them to think that way – after all, such behavior would not exist if there wasn’t some degree of tolerance to allow it to take root and blossom. In regard to Mr. Damian’s question, it would be within my power as an admin not to give support – either active or benign – to a two-tiered or three-tiered system where some individuals are encouraged to behave as if they feel they were created more equal than others. I like the concept of everyone being on equal footing, and as an admin I will operate from that playing ground.

General comments

• Links for Pastor Theo: Pastor Theo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Pastor Theo can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Beat the nom support. Yes, definitely. I find you to be a clueful editor, and I feel that you will be an excellent credit to Wikipedia. RFA is a lot like Hell Week, and sometimes RFA should stand for "Requests for Agony" but you're a strong editor. The RFA process will strengthen you. Basically, if you can succeed in this, you can succeed at anything. Best of luck, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   you don't know me very well;-)

   Right. Well, it was more a "beat everyone else" support rather than a "beat the nom" support, but..yeah :) I don't know you very well. ^_^ Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   My trademark is that I don't vote on my candidates until later... which means I've actually failed to support two three of my candidates in the past ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Of course! Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I was honestly surprised when I learned he had just been around since January; he seems so much more knowledgeable than that. I don't always agree with Pastor Theo in all discussions that I have seen him in, but I have always seen him discuss his point civilly and with justification behind his actions and words, which implies a strong sense of clue in the man. I'm happy to support him for adminship. NW (Talk) 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   Still staying at support, but I just want to echo what Iridescent said. There was a back story behind both Majorly and Malleus' posts, and I think that this post coming right after a reasonable explanation by Majorly should have been enough of a hint of that. So just a bit of generic advice to try to investigate matters a bit further before you act if you don't know the histories fully, especially because you have only been here 6 months. But otherwise, you still do seem like a fine candidate, so I will stay at support. NW (Talk) 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

4. No brainer. Sorry, Balloonman, I do not even need to read your nomination statement for the candidate. :) I've always thought of Pastor Theo as "the next administrator" (not American Idol :D) because of his civility and insightful commentaries on RFAs as well as other good contributions. (yes, I checked his contribution time to time in case somebody would nominate him) Well he clearly knows how things go within Wikipedia and is willing to help editors in trouble, so why not?--Caspian blue 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Very pleased to see Pastor Theo here on RFA. Everything's good here. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support; I was considering nominating him myself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
7. For sure Six months is enough to be clueful and show commitment to the project. He is, he has.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes indeed I've been very impressed by Pastor Theo's contributions and interactions about the place.--Slp1 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Support As per Balloonman who is one of the best and intense judges of Candidates and would have spent hours before noming the candidate.Also as per track see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user geting tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - A review of Paster Theo's contribution history shows no reason not to support. This is backed up by my own (admittedly limited) interaction with him, in which I found him knowledgeable, courteous and happy to collaborate with other editors. Balloonman's CSD endorsement is a good sign also. Euryalus (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

    He did have one A7 that I disagreed with, but on a whole, his CSD taggings were solid.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

11. Support. Solid contributor. Solid principles. Dr.K. logos 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Quality edits & trustworthy. I'm sure he'll make an excellent admin. Best of luck. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - I'm very impressed by his contributions and the demeanor Pastor Theo has displayed. I think he'll make an excellent administrator. Camw (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Pastor Theo's only been here for 6 months? From what I've seen of him, I would have thought he was here a lot longer than that. Perhaps that's just the impression I've gotten from him as an smart, friendly, reasonable guy. Not a hard decision here. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Seen him around often. No reservations at all as candidate would most definitely be a net positive with the mop. t'shael^chat 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support per answers to my questions and my basic wikistalking of his edits & editsummary. tedder (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support per answers to Tedder's questions. Had he not asked these, I would have asked similar ones myself. I am satisfied you will maintain NPOV and, as you say, Wikipedia's academic nature. You'll make a fine admin. Tan | 39 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I was apprehensive at first but after reading answers #4 and #5 and checking out some of his contributions I rest assured this editor is here for the right reasons, and answer to #7 shows he's got a clue. -- œ^™ 03:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. I'm impressed with his answers. Pastor Theo also was one of the few people who supported my first RfA, so I'd be a fool not to return the favor. Matt (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - your answer to my question shows thoughtfulness and rationality. More than happy to support. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I've always been impressed, very trustworthy. Royalbroil 03:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support regardless of said "major failing". I forgive thee; best of luck, Pastor! wadester16 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Balloonman rather buries the lead in the nomination; the candidate's being a Yankee fan, which earns just a mention, is, of course, prima facie evidence of unfitness for adminship, and really for life as well. Because I'm in need of good karma, starting a ton of Yankees tomorrow across my fantasy teams, looking for the team to rake against Jason Vargas, though, and because it is clear that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysyop(p)ed should be positive, I am compelled to support. Joe (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
24. I've seen him making reasoned arguments in discussions. -- Mentifisto 04:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Strong Support You'll make a great admin. You're one of the most civil and insightful user around here. (In all honesty I was going to ask you if you wanted to run this month, looks like someone bet me to it :) ) Icestorm815 • Talk 05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong Support as I've seen nothing but good from Pastor Theo. He's doing nothing but good for the project, and the tools will only increase how useful he will be. I think he'll make a fine admin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
27. ÷seresin 07:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
28. No need for words. Keegan (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Support As the Mets are struggling to get over .500, it's okay to root for the Yankees. At least it's not a Boston team. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I've bumped into the Pastor a few times, and had already made a note to support this RFA when it came up. But I've also checked and glad to see the clean block log, civil talk page and archives. You might want to expand your answer to Q11 though - other times when it can be OK to edit a protected page include when the warring parties still can't agree on the artists genre or drug addictions but want an admin to make the changes they are agreed on ϢereSpielChequers 08:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. No reason to believe you'd abuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. I think Pastor Theo's real-life experience would serve him well in the role of administrator. audit of deleted contribs shows nothing to worry about. However, I urge him to think about the implications of Q8. Pastor Theo blocked ThereIsNoGod (disruptive editing) may cause some eyebrows to be raised, even if the block is totally appropriate (as pointed out by dekimasu). decltype (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Support An absolute pleasure to support a dedicated quality candidate. Per Ballonman's nomination. Pedro :  Chat  09:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
34. No reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Support per Balloonman's nomination who says everything I could have considered to say. As a minor advice, you might want to use more descriptive edit summaries when tagging articles for speedy deletion, e.g. "requesting speedy deletion (A7)" instead of simply "A7". Regards SoWhy 10:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support No problems here. A good candidate. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support  Excellent contribs, even-tempered, clueful. --StaniStani  14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
38. per nom, per above. I for one am not much of an article builder and seldom discuss policy. We need more admins who are not "hardasses," who "devote extra time in conversing with the editor," and who don't brawl. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support – I like the answers to the questions, and the run-ins with him at AFD indicates to me that he has good working knowledge of the deletion policy. MuZemike 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support – I've only seen positive from this editor, and in general he possesses a nice level of clue. I already thought PT was an admin by his demeanor, which is a good sign. IMO article-writing is nice but not a requirement for adminship, and if an editor has an exceptional sense of what is good judgement with potential content disputes, it overrides those pretty-looking GA/FA credits, or lack thereof. Jamie^☆S93 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Support – His edits are always sensible, NPOV, and completely adhering to WP policies and guidelines. We need more admins like Pastor Theo – Shannon Rose 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Easily one of my stronger supports as of late. Candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in multiple ways: 1) candidate has never been blocked; 2) candidate is listed as a nice Wikipedian; 3) candidate is an article creator; 4) candidate is an article rescuer; 5) candidate has rollback (i.e. some admin trusted him enough to give him those tools); 5) candidate's fellows editors appreciate his edits as seen with User:Pastor_Theo#Wiki_Snacks and User:Pastor_Theo#Wiki_Honors; 6) candidate has earned some DYK credits; 7) candidate says to delete articles when it is reasonable to say so as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko; and 7) candidate says to keep or merge articles when it is reasonable to argue as such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila (Peanuts) (one caution here is to remember it is not a vote and so a reason is prefereable to just a stance), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Shakespeare (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination). Candidate is clearly not partisan or biased (again, good reasons to delete and good reasons to keep) so can be trusted to close AfDs based on these examples. How often can I cite SEVEN unique positives as reasons for supporting? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Seen him around AfD, seems like a reasonable guy. Answers to my questions were sufficient. Gigs (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
44. About Time. I have been waiting for this rfa for awhile. Good Luck! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Strong support. Something I call a traditional candidate: ~5K edits, general article work in the mainspace, Wikiproject work, and some healthy work in an administrative area. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
46. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
47. — Aitias // discussion 22:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Support, pretty obvious. Valley2city^‽ 22:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

    Unusual from me, given the weak content contributions, but everything I've seen of you recently has been sensible. – iridescent 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

49. Strong support. Very active and responsible editor with enormous contribution. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Support — Answers to questions demonstrate competency. If you had chosen a secular user name, with a few religious userboxes on your page, I suspect that you would not be questioned so much about hypotheticals. And with regard to the issue in the Oppose section about his name, any claim of bias that uses a user's name as its foundation should be met with appropriate amounts of laughter. —Animum (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    Follow-up comment: Answers to questions 11 and 11.1 are a tad concerning. I know that you say you don't plan on working in protection; but just in case, please give WP:PROT a read. —Animum (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

51. Support My encounter with this user tells me that he's civil and willing to learn.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Support: why not? South Bay (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Only wish this RfA had been put forward sooner. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support Very rational contributor; seems unbiased and dedicated to the project. Also, being part of the civility police is a good thing. ThemFromSpace 09:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Seems like a very reasonable person. While the declared Pastor-ness might have been a concern, it does seem to me that PastorTheo thinks about the separation of church and wikipedia which is good enough for me (we can't obviously leave our identities completely behind!). Of the various neutral concerns below, I think he/she pushed too hard on the Majorly RfA (it was rather unchristian, if I may be permitted the small joke!) but presumably that was a one time thing and I don't see a pattern here. The answers to the questions are excellent too. What's not to like? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Solid contributor who has left me with a positive impression of them. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - I know you're a pastor, but it would keep things much simpler if you could keep religion out of discussions. Aditya ^α _ß 15:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Support in spite of the major flaw. Clueful and polite editor who seems to understand policy. (FWIW, as an atheist I've had no problems at all with his editing.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. Thought he was one already. Jonathunder (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Was thinking of opposing until I read Friday's and Peters comment which makes me think maybe Ive misjudged. I have almost the opposite concern – that when you do criticise you dont always take care to ensure your criticism is constructive - as in the diff Majorly posted and your comment on Mr Bloom's RFA only yesterday. Most wont mind, but some will find such comments gratuitous and offensive – all the more so as you're a very well respected editor. For the encyclopaedia to be successful its important that folk are as nice as possible even when criticising – otherwise we'll never have the pleasant , collaborative atmosphere our work needs. Changing to support now looks like over 99% of your work is positive and I remember you being very supportative in the aftermath of unfortunate drama back in May. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Strong Support Definitely! I also think that being a 'civility cop' is a good thing, sometimes people need to be reminded. LittleMountain5 18:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
64. Superman Strong Support He wasn't an admin already? Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
65. Support, more admins are required that don't just pay lip service to our civility policies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC).
66. Support per Peter Damian. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Per nom and plus and even better he's a Yankee fan.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
68. Support an admin with interest in AfD who has support from all of the people above with such very different views is what we need. DGG (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
69. Happy to support. I've noticed for some time that his mainspace edits consistently uphold npov, reflecting his answer to Q4, and his work at XfD, etc., shows he understands and can be trusted with the tools. I had to chuckle at his answer to Q7, as one who's been known to re-read instruction manuals myself – even going so far as to add index tabs (sometimes).  JGHowes  ^talk 02:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
70. Support. Theo has been helpful and productive. He knows his way around and provides thoughtful rationale. I see little risk in granting him sysop status. Majoreditor (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Definitely an upstanding and trustworthy candidate, no worries. Mfield (Oi!) 04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
72. Support No concerns. Law _{type! snype?} 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
73. Very strong support You've helped me whenever I've requested an image for an article. Allow me to pay my respects by offering my support in return.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - Pastor Theo has about 4k edits, but they are quality edits. He has also started about 40 articles. I also analyzed his other edits, and they are good. AdjustShift (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
75. Support – Contributions demonstrate article building, thoughtful additions to discussions; clueful. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
76. Support I have no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. hmwithτ 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
77. Support - Will be a reasonable person with the tools. LadyofShalott 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
78. Support The pastor has class, style, and knows how to put a point across. And since when is it a crime to be a nice guy? Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
79. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
80. Support I don't see why not. --candle•wicke 01:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
81. Support The answer to question 3 did trouble me as disagreements will happen. (It's only a matter of time.) However, after looking at his contributions, I think that he would be able to handle any conflicts that may appear.Shinerunner (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
82. Weak support. Your positive contributions to the growth of Wikipedia (dozens of articles) are the most important to me in deciding whether to support or not, and for the "tldr" crowd, I'm supporting because you do a dang good job making the encyclopedia better. That said, I'll go on. :-) I think the diff provided by Iridescent (in the oppose section below from Majorly's most recent application for re-tooling), is very offputting to other editors, myself included. So a quandary has presented itself. I really don't think you'll be a "civility police" type person, nor do I think you'll hit people over the head as "morality police" because your username contains "pastor" in it. You haven't shown any malice towards anyone, I don't see any inclination that you'll start, and the fact that the "diff" is from the Majorly RFA which was contentious all around and got the best of a lot of people, I've decided to call it a one-off. You went there to call someone out for calling someone a name (but not really, it turns out), and you came off rather poorly in a text-driven community: condescention. But I don't believe that was specifically your intention. However, as an admin, you are going to get slammed with people deciding what you "mean" when you type things. The nice card won't work as well as I think you think it will work. Been there, bought the t-shirt. Hence the "weak" in the support. I think you'll do fine, but I also think you'll burn out, and start to become disillusioned (sp) with wikipedia and will slowly (or quickly) leave once an admin. We need content builders, and you strike me as someone very good at it. I think the tools will get in the way, actually. I'm supporting because I want to be wrong and that you'll be a good, honest, and fair admin of this website. I'm hoping you withdraw your request, to be honest, because I know it will drive you nuts to have the "extra tools", if in fact you use them. Keeper | 76 02:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
83. Support I support his canidacy, but I also wonder about his low number of edits. Since he has shown a varied backround, that concern doesn't matter since he has a reputable image on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Very solid contributions and good dealings with user. -download ׀ sign! 06:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Few mainspace edits, and a large percentage of those appear to be adding tags and categories, or adding and removing AFD and PROD templates (especially since your second month or so). Can't find much evidence of policy knowledge outside of deletion because almost all Wikipedia space edits are concerned with it (or RFA); almost no edits to policy-related pages or discussion of policies. Sorry, I just don't see enough breadth of experience here, and there's little to indicate how you would react to conflict. This is a little disconcerting to me, because you appeared to be intent upon shifting the burden of proof to the person who nominated your image for deletion, rather than showing that the image was compliant. In such a deletion discussion, Wikipedia's copyright policies are what is in question, and you appear to have equated "royalty free" with "public domain". Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   If I can please respond - the “royalty free” statement was my bad. However, my intention was solely to confirm Wikipedia’s policies relating to Vatican stamp imagery and copyright. I am a long-time stamp collector and I read the magazines and web sites relating to the subject. The Vatican City stamp program is a healthy source of revenue and it seemed incongruous to me that the Vatican would have a draconian copyright law relating to the reproduction of the images in its stamp program. However, I was unable to locate information specific to the topic, and I did not get any answer in my attempts to contact the Vatican’s postal authority. I just wanted confirmation on the subject. That being said, I was appreciative of Ww2censor’s explanation of Wikipedia’s image policies – I have no plans to do any administrative-related image policy work – and I have replaced the problematic image on the Vatican stamp page with a 1929 issue that is in the public domain. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   That's fair enough. I think you also might want to review your answer to Q8; it looks like it was asking what you would do, personally. If I was in such a situation and my username was "Pastor Theo", I'd let (or request that) another administrator deal with the user in question. For the same reason, I personally don't close AFDs as keeps in Japan-related topics, etc. Even if there is no actual impropriety involved, it's best to avoid the appearance that you are taking administrative actions in an area that involves personal bias. Dekimasuよ! 05:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   I thank you for sharing your concern. However, in AfDs I have nominated religion-based articles for deletion and !voted for the deletion of similar articles that are up for removal. My interest in Wikipedia is strictly academic -- I would've been kicked out months ago if I set up the revival tent and started preaching. Okay, that was last response -- I know I am not supposed to be down in this section too much! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   I don't mean to imply that you are biased. But such a claim could (and often would) be made by someone like the posited "AthiestPride", and it's best to avoid giving such a user ammunition. Dekimasuよ! 05:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   It's a good point. Appearances matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   So, by this logic, I shouldn't really be closing any debates then, either keep, or delete, for risk that I may "appear" biased by whomever "lost" the argument? Keeper | 76 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   I don't follow you. I was talking about something specific here: the forseeable condition that someone could claim a certain administrative action was based upon a conflict of interest. The validity of the claim is secondary; there are lots of administrators, so someone without the potential conflict of interest should be able to take care of the problem. Even Wikipedia:Administrators contains the line, "if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be substantively alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible." Dekimasuよ! 04:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   You have to look at Keeper's name...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   I understand that he was following the logic to the point of "Keeper shouldn't keep," and it appears that he disagrees with the line of reasoning (thus the scare quotes), but it doesn't appear to me that that hyperbole speaks to the more realistic problem presented by Backslash Forwardslash in Q8. That's what I don't follow. Dekimasuよ! 05:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, I was just using hyperbole. I always use hyperbole to express my point.  :-) I understand your point (and hesitation) completely Dekimasu. Just couldn't resist throwing a jab in there. Keeper | 76 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   (←) If personal bias determines a sysop's decisions, then yes, there most definitely is a problem; but a user's name does not satisfy the condition "[if] a personal motive may be substantively alleged." —Animum (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Changing from support. I hadn't realised you were this user. No more self-appointed Civility Police, thanks. – iridescent 00:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I have concerns about his level of clue. Specifically, he doesn't appear to understand that criticism is allowed. We have too many admins already who think that being superficially nice is more important than doing what's right. We don't need more of that. Friday (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) PS I specifically mean this diff. If Majorly thinks I'm a poor admin who should step down, he absolutely should say so. This emphasis on never being critical damages the project. Friday (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - very sorry but there are a number of reasons. Lack of awareness of an important issue that is tearing the community apart ('vested contributors' is a pejorative term applied to many content contributors - I have been called that a few times). Apparently thinking that being 'nice' is more important than doing what is right. Sometimes severe criticism is needed. And, no more 'self appointed civility police'. Again, I am sorry about this as you seem a very decent person. Peter Damian (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose I am honestly not convinced, after reviewing this user's contributions and history, that they have the necessary tact and understanding of how Wikipedia policy works (rather than simply what it says) to perform effectively as an admin. I am generally in agreement with several of the other oppose votes above, especially after reading the diff presented by Iridescent. Given how many admin-related issues today involve BLP and other content issues, I would also like to see more content contributions. Orderinchaos 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose due to concerns in the same vein as the those raised above. I've been a bit concerned for a while now about Theo's input to ban/block/unban/unblock discussions that have given me the impression he has a philosophical objection to banning and long term blocking and takes an almost obstructionist position to it without providing any realistic alternative solutions or addressing the rationale for the block or ban in the first place. For example, when we were considering the appeal of Eddie Segoura, the so-called "Exicornt Vandal", Theo advocated unbanning and referred to his ""day job"... provid[ing] counseling for individuals who have been released from prison and who are trying to navigate their way back into society" and advocated unblocking because "he has acknowledged his error," this regardless of the fact that Eddie refused to anser straight forward questions about recent activities and later admitted that he was also still socking. [24] As a qualified but non-practicing minister myself I appreciate Theo's position but I really believe that his attitude that "If [a user] is asking to return to the community, he should be welcomed" is impractical, unrealistic and potentially very disruptive, and having seen Theo participate in other ban/block/ discussions I fear that this is his general approach to Wikipedia. Certainly it is nice to be nice and to welcome back banned users who have reformed and sometimes it works out as a very positive thing (eg Root) but sadly not everyone is suited to this project, just as not everyone is suited to adminship, and to take a position that someone who has asked to return should be welcomed back as though they are a kind ofProdigal Son, regardless of whether they've reformed or not or even show any sign of wanting to reform, is, IMHO, a recipe for disruption. As Peter Damian says above, "apparently thinking that being 'nice' is more important than doing what is right". I also agree with the concerns raised above about civility police, content experience and policy concerns (and not just understanding policy but a willingness to enforce it even when it's not "nice"), all of which appears to me to reflect an attempt to extend ministry to the project in a way that I don't think is helpful. Theo is a very nice fellow and I know that he means well, so I find it difficult to oppose his candidacy but I just don't think this nomination is a good idea. Though I'll be very happy to be proved wrong. Sarah 07:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose nothing personal, but he's only been editing a little over 7 months, with only about 4k edits. I don't like to be picky about the edit count, but I don't feel he has the experienced enough. I would be willing to reconsider after more edits and more time with the project. As far as neutrality or appropriateness of his behavior; I'm not seeing any major problems. You seem to be a respectable member of the community. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   You have every right to consider that not enough experience, but I am somewhat disappointed that standards are moving in such a directin, considering that just a year ago, we were routinely passing people with that level of experience. NW (Talk) 14:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Say what? Of those four you cite, Xeno had 7800 edits at the time of his RFA, Soxred had 7,000, and Good Olfactory had so many (50,000+) that running the count for his RFA crashed the WannabeKate edit-counter then in use. – iridescent 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I was more referring to the time that they had been here. Anyone can rack up thousands and thousands of edits with (semi-)automated editing tools, but the editors who passed RfA last year had only been there for about 7 months, same as Pastor Theo. NW (Talk) 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose per lack of well-rounded experience writing articles, maybe down the road apiece...Modernist (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "well-rounded experience"? Grandmasterka 07:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'd like to see more than 2 articles with at least 20 edits...more than one article with more than 25 edits; and IMO more than 6 months experience; seems to me to need seasoning...Modernist (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose, per iridescent. Nakon 17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Completely agree with the points made by several above, escpecially Friday, Peter Damien, and Iridescent. There are already too many in positions of authority who see their role as forcing everyone else to be nice to each other. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My only encounter with Pastor was at my RFA, where he misinterpreted my comments quite significantly. I did not like the way he tried to draw attention to his false conclusion of events by formatting it in bold. I'd have probably opposed because of this, but it's only one poor act of judgement and some would probably take delight in claiming an oppose was a "revenge" vote. So it's a neutral. Please don't try to talk about things you clearly don't understand, because as in this case, you got it wrong. And it's not fair on an RFA candidate when you're drawing the wrong conclusions and making them stand out so others will draw the wrong conclusion too. The comment "Don't blame Malleus for your bad manners" was particularly insulting, as I did nothing of the sort. Majorly talk 11:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral A generally good and clue-ful contributor, but I am bothered by what I see as a "holier than thou" judgmental attitude (including making reference to his credentials as a pastor) that I see this user expressing in various places, notably in the comments he made on RfAs for me, Majorly (noted above), Ottava Rima, and Markhurd. I hope I'm over-reacting. Background: This user's name was familiar to me, so I looked to see where we have interacted. I smiled to see the diversity of the topics he's worked on. I see that he has done useful work in areas such as tagging useless new images for speedy deletion. I did see that he had made small contributions to several articles on my watchlist (like White Plains, New York) and I found that I am the one who promoted his first WP:DYK contribution (for a nice little article about a race horse). Then I found his RfA contributions, which are numerous. Most are perfunctory "support" !votes (seldom indicating reasons), but several of the opposes and neutrals strike me as "pulling rank' as a man of the cloth. That's a stance that Wikipedia doesn't need in administrators. --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Simply put, I have some of the same concerns as the two above me, and I don't feel 100% comfortable giving him the tools. iMatthew ^talk at  14:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral This is a really tough one for me, and the issues raised above, although not convincing enough to oppose over, regretfully prevent me from supporting. It seems you have the best interests of the project in mind, but I am concerned with your judgment as raised by Majorly and Orlady above. Timmeh 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral My only interaction with Pastor Theo was during Majorly's RfA. In it, I became concerned by his interpretation that "berating a long-time contributor" was inappropriate. As well as his oversensitivity to the berating, I was also concerned about the mention of the subject being a "long-term contributor": all editors are equal regardless of longevity. Although Pastor Theo avoided referring to WP:CIVIL, I am concerned about giving this user the ability to block others. However, competence at CSD and XfD attested to by Balloonman, PT's general cluefullness (which I think is demonstrated by his careful handling of religious articles to rule out suggestions of a conflict of interest), and his response to question one where he states his intention to work in areas of deletion rather than blocking means I do not think this a reason to oppose on its own. Despite this, I do not support giving the ability to block to someone apparently so sensitive. Since PT has apparently not been in any stressful run-ins with other users I cannot be certain how he would handle the situation were it to arise (and active admins do have to deal with a lot of abuse). Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Wanting to support, but reluctantly having to be neutral I really want to say support; I do. But the concerns raised in the other Neutral votes cause me to have doubts. I partly think that my doubts are biased - I've had no real interaction with Pastor Theo. Whether that increases or decreases the bias in my vote, I am not sure. I just know that I feel a little uncomfortable saying that I support, but that I would be being way too harsh in a vote of oppose. So in the end, here's my vote. -WarthogDemon 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral - most of the above doesn't bother me, but three of those actions I am uncomfortable with: "long-time contributor" is irrelevant in that situation and it worries me that this user is of a "seniority" mindset which is at odds with the Wikipedia community (in theory, anyway); "...Matthew 7:3-5 -- I think some people in the Oppose and Neutral sections need to look that one up." is pretty at odds with the candidate's above statement that he's not going to "set up the revival tent and [start] preaching." (pointing to Bible verses sounds pretty preachy to me); and the public domain stamp dispute just looks like stubbornness to me, the onus was on the candidate and that he never listened to this but continuously tried to put it on the other editor shows poor judgment in that instance. These are all minor mistakes, and I can't think of any editor who has had a better first 6 months (including me), but they're too recent for me to support. Success in this RfA looks likely right now, so I just ask that the candidate takes the oppose(s) and neutrals to heart. I encourage the candidate's response to my comments if he wishes, and won't consider it badgering. -kotra (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hello, Kotra. Since I am invited to respond, I will point out that my reference to Matthew came after previous comments in Ottava's RfA that brought up references to Catholicism and Martin Luther. Since the talk had already drifted into that subject matter, I saw no harm in joining in -- a review of the RfA shows I didn't introduce religion to the debate, and the full sentence (which is not quoted here and referred to the earlier talk) begins: "And I'm sure a good choir boy like OR will recall..." I've already addressed the stamp issue, which I acknowledge was my clumsy attempt to secure elusive confirmation of Vatican copyright laws regarding the reproduction of philatelic imagery. "Long-time contributor" is just my old-fashioned notion of speaking respectfully to someone with a positive track record. And, yes, I take all comments, both positive and negative, to heart. It would be rude to ignore concerns, especially when these concerns are stated in a sincere and intelligent manner. Thank you for sharing your observations. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for your clarifications, which were requested and should not be interpreted by others as badgering (probably an unnecessary disclaimer, but you never know!). Concerning the Matthew reference, I see the full context makes it better than if it were just a random statement, but I still feel that it it sounds preachy in the way it was directed to (unnamed) other editors, of whom there were probably some who do not even subscribe to the Bible (I could have been one of those had I participated there). As a possibly comparable example, consider if a Satanist quoted some behavioral advice from The Satanic Bible (at Talk:The Satanic Bible perhaps, for a similar level of context), saying you need to read it. Perhaps not quite the same, since you were vaguer in who you directed your comment to, but you may get the idea. Concerning the stamp issue, if that was your intention, I agree that it was a clumsy (and antagonistic, in my view) way to do it. I wonder if it would have gone better to simply ask them for help researching it. Concerning the "long-time contributor" thing, you may be right to have that old-fashioned notion, but I think the general view on Wikipedia is that we (try to) apply respect equally to everyone. Ideally, nobody would be berated, neither those with positive track records nor those without. Again, feel free to respond if you like, but if this goes on much longer it may be better to take it to the talk page. -kotra (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

8. I almost want to oppose this RfA as I have several issues which other users have pointed out. I have never seen the diff Iridescent has presented before, but it's particularly concerning. I do, however, feel that you have made good contributions to this project and haven't been uncivil if we ignore the aforementioned diff, and those two qualities are the ones I tend to oppose on most. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Mikaey

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (53/5/1); Scheduled to end 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Mikaey (talk · contribs) – It's been almost 4 months now since my last RfA, and I think I've learned quite a bit in that time. Probably the biggest area where I've been active is in programming -- I've written a number of programs that are designed to help out the Wiki in one way or another. For instance, you may know me from my bots, ListasBot and DefaultsortBot. ListasBot has helped to bring Category:Biography articles without listas parameter down from the biggest backlog on WP:BACKLOG (at ~334,000 pages) to a "mere" 48,000 pages. I've also just recently written AarghBot, which is compiling a list of cut-and-paste moves (WP:New histmerge list) -- a project which uncovered far more cut-and-paste moves than I would have thought when I started. I also wrote WikiBiff, a program aimed towards people like myself, who want to know as soon as I have new messages or someone changes a page I've been watching.

Why am I running for adminship again? There's a couple of reasons:

• First, I created quite a backlog with WP:New histmerge list. 14,500 pages and counting. I'd like to jump in and help get that list cleaned up. I'm sure Anthony Appleyard would appreciate it.
• Second, I'd like to get back into vandal whacking. I actually had fun patrolling the wiki and keeping it clean. However, I can remember several incidents where, especially in the wee hours of the morning, when I would report a user to AIV, then sit and revert that user's changes for another 10-20 minutes before an admin came along.
• I'd also do some new pages patrolling and work in CSD. I say "some" because I'll admit that I'm not the most experienced person in that area. I have the idea down, and most of the time, the pages I tag are deleted for the reasons that I specify, but on occasion, they are deleted for reasons other than what I tagged for, and sometimes the CSD is refused altogether. My plan in that area would be to keep "new pages patrolling" and "work in CSD" separate for a while until I get more experience with it -- e.g., I would look at pages that other people had tagged for speedy deletion, and only delete those pages if I agreed with the criteria for which they tagged it. Also, I would not delete pages which I myself had tagged for speedy deletion.

So, with that, I present myself here for my second request for adminship. Matt (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ...is it possible to refuse a self-nomination? Matt (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: See my statement above.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'd probably say that ListasBot is my best contribution. I've gotten a couple of barnstars for the work that bot has done, and I'm sure that WikiProject Biography (especially people like JimCubb) are grateful for bringing WP's biggest backlog down to less than 1/6 of what it was before. My bots in general are a testament to my cooperation with other users, as several of the tasks that I have received approval for are the result of suggestions from other users.

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

A: I have. I deal better with situations where I can take a moment to compose my thoughts, look at the situation from both points of view, and figure out what the best course of action is; and the fact that this is a wiki affords me exactly that. If anything, I tend to play it conservatively in situations where I could end up pissing someone off (and I'm constantly afraid of that happening). As an example, back in May, I got into an argument with another user, shortly after DefaultsortBot went into operation, because the user felt that the bot was creating more work for users (such as himself) when the bot was fed incorrect data to begin with. Although the accusation aggravated me, I stayed calm, put the bot's operation on hold, and developed a rationale that showed that the bot wasn't actually creating any more work than what already needed to be done. Other users also stepped into the situation and put their two cents in, which I was extremely grateful for, but at the same time, I didn't go out and solicit their input -- it just so happened that because I gave the situation some time to cool down, other people noticed what was going on and stepped in to help.

Very optional question from decltype

4. You seem rather humble about your knowledge in various areas. I see that you self-identify as an "intermediate" C++ programmer. If you have the time, feel free to examine this program. Is it well-formed? What, if anything, does it print?

A: Holy hell, that code is a mess. I think I'd have to say that no, it's not well-formed. Let's see here...

• The program doesn't do anything, because main() is an empty function.
• main should be either be declared void, or explicitly return a value.
• C::buf -- Arrays can't have variables/function returns as their sizes, because the compiler needs to know at compile-time how big the array should be, and that won't be known at compile time. Alternatively, C::buf could be redeclared as char *, and have memory allocated to it by the constructor.
• Constructors don't return values, so there's going to be no version of f() that will match for "f( T() )". "f( T )" would be better, but f needs to be declared inside of struct C in order for it to work.
• It's not always a good idea to use the compiler built-in macros (e.g., __cplusplus) for array sizes. Since a program is only supposed to check whether or not the macro has been declared, its value could be unpredictable.
• I've never been a big fan of using cin/cout. Beginner's stuff.
• I could go on, but looking at that code makes my head hurt.

Which compiler do you use? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim. Nominally 100% optional, but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A- I'm not sure that I agree with the decision to send it over to RFAR, because I don't think you could show that all other alternatives to settling the dispute have been exhausted. I think ArbCom will probably reject it on that basis. Had the case not been sent over to RFAR, I would probably be poking and prodding the user ignoring me to try and get him to agree to mediation. However, since it HAS been sent over to RFAR, I would respect that admin's decision (admins wheel warring over users edit warring = not good), and let that play out as far as it goes. I probably would submit a statement to RFAR to the effect of "I was asked to mediate in this dispute, but user X has been ignoring me". It's probably not a good idea to try to continue mediation while ArbCom is deciding on a case, since anything ArbCom decides will overrule the results of your mediation, so I would keep communication between myself and the involved users to a minimum during that process. Once ArbCom had rejected the case, I would probably give a stern warning to both users, telling them how closely they dodged the bullet (try to put the fear of God into them, if you will), and try to get them back to the mediation table. Had that still failed, some form of mediation may still be possible with just the one user; however, I would probably start up a discussion at WP:AN over what to do with both of them, especially the user ignoring me.

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A- I like Wikipedia mostly the way it is. There's not a whole lot I would change. I would probably change something trivial -- e.g., make the Vector skin the default (although I don't remember it being that screwed up the last time I looked at it... :-\)

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A- There's very few circumstances where direction from ArbCom is required to indef block a user. "Persistent vandalism" is probably the reason that I would use most, but community ban, positive SPI, and violations of the username policy would also be some other valid reasons to indef block a user.

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A- Well, as with ANY AfD, you have to look at the merit of the arguments, not just the number of them. Are the arguments along the lines of "I went and looked at every book I could find at the library that covered pirates between 1500 and 1700, and I couldn't find any mention of this pirate", or is it along the lines of "I LOVE this guy! Don't delete the article!"? Obviously, arguments of the latter type are going to hold less weight, and are more likely to be sockpuppets/meatpuppets. The process remains the same with a no consensus/delete decision, since "no consensus" defaults to "keep".

9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A- It depends on the outcome. There's not really a minimum needed for speedy keep/speedy close decisions, as long as it's valid under those criteria. For keep/no consensus/delete, I still don't have a firm number, but I like to be sure that the AfD has received enough attention to get an unbiased set of opinions. Generally, the cutoff (again, this is not a firm number) is somewhere around 5-6 valid arguments.

10.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?

A- I'm assuming here that we're talking about an article nominated under A7 or A9, since it probably wouldn't be worth one's time to look for sources on articles nominated under any other criteria (so in that respect, yes, it does make a difference which criteria the article meets). If it were me personally, my tendency would probably be to delete the article on sight. A7/A9 doesn't require backup with verifiable information from reliable sources, it only requires that some assertion of notability be made. I don't have the time (and I don't think many admins do, either) to go and research every little garage band that creates an article about themselves on Wikipedia to try and prove their notability. If we did, C:SD would be overflowing with backlogs. However, if the user asks why their article was deleted, I'm not entirely opposed to restoring and possibly userifying the page so that they can rectify that problem.

11. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?

A- There's not very many, but there are some. For instance, known long-term vandals (e.g., Grawp) should be blocked without warning. Users whose usernames are a violation of the username policy would be another. Users who are creating attack pages, posting legal threats, or violating 3RR might be blocked without warning or with only one warning.

Optional questions from KillerChihuahua

12. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?

A: When there's consensus to do so, or to revert vandalism that occurred immediately before the protection was put in place. Full protection is generally put in place a) for pages where vandalism or malformed edits could affect large numbers of users (such as anything in the MediaWiki namespace, or high visibility templates such as {{ambox}}), or b) on high-visibility pages, where large numbers of anonymous and registered users are edit warring on the page, and it would be counter-productive to try and block the individual users involved. Overall, full protection is used to protect the integrity and reputation of the wiki.

13. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?

A: I think that, regardless of the fact that the Keeps are trying to assert notability for two events, the person is really still only notable for the one event -- the fact that they appeared on Letterman was probably only because of the one event. Therefore, my close would probably be to merge it into an article that talks about the event.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

14. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion or exclusion of content on Wikipedia? Are there any current notability guidelines you disagree with? (To be clear what I am looking for here is not a regurgitation of policy, nor am I looking any specific answer. What I am looking for is an insight to the way you think in general, and specifically what you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of the content it covers.)

A: When I'm trying to decide whether or not something is notable, there's a couple of questions that I ask myself that help me determine notability of a particular subject. These questions don't override the actual notability criteria, of course, but they generally help me get on the right track: a) Has the subject of the article done something to ensure that it will be remembered by the masses, long after it is gone, and b) Would I expect to see an article about the subject in a paper encyclopedia? In an ideal Wikipedia, I think most of the content should be able to answer "yes" to both of these questions. As for whether or not there's any guidelines that I disagree with, no, not particularly, but I think that it tends to be applied rather loosely sometimes -- for example, I don't think that many of the Country X-Country Y relations series of articles (where Country X and Country Y have had no notable interactions) should stick around. (The question confused me a little bit, I hope the answer was along the lines of what you were looking for.)

14a. Sorry about not being clear... your answer was mostly along the lines of what I was looking for, but I would like a little more insight. When I said "Are there any current notability guidelines you disagree with?" what I was referring to was the specific notability guidelines (SNG) such as WP:FILM, WP:BIO, WP:CORP etc., or more precisely individual elements of those guidelines. (Bilateral relations is a propose SNG, not an actual SNG at this time.)

Thus, I will ask the following followup question. Historical, WP:ATHLETE is the most disputed SNG. Some feel it unfairly allows all professional athletes in regardless of actual importance to their sport, while others feel it makes it too difficult for amateur athletes to gain admittance. Do you think ATHLETE is fair (either in an absolute sense or in relation to other biographical SNGs)? Why or why not?

A: It's a good general guideline, but at the same time, it's a Catch-22. The way it's written now, it gives the go-ahead have an article about every Tom, Dick, and Harry who ever sat on the sidelines of an Oakland Raiders game. I don't like it personally, for that reason. However, if you rewrite the criteria to be more specific, then you start running into instruction creep. I would like to see the criteria improved upon (for example, "athletes are notable if they have actively participated at a professional level for at least one season (or one year, for sports that do not have seasons), or are otherwise notable under any other notability criteria"), but as I'm far from being a sports buff, I won't claim to be the expert on the subject.

Optional questions from Goodmorningworld, but refrain from answering at your peril.

15. You are the author of ListasBot, a program that… lists articles lacking … Listas parameters… … … sorry, I dozed off … … whatever that is? When can we expect ChicasBot, a Bot that lists articles lacking nicely turned out chicas?

A: Well, it's quite simple, really -- all we'd have to do is cross-reference Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people with Category:Women under 25, and...wait, we don't have Category:Women under 25??? Well, until someone creates that category and populates it, I suggest a nice Maxim as a substitute.

16. It totally burns me up that in the recent RfA, closed as unsuccessful, by user:Timmeh, no one thought to intone the magic line, at some appropriate point, We're going to need another Timmeh!!! And thus one of the rare opportunities in Wikipedia for mindless, berzerk hilarity was squandered. How do you propose to improve our efficiency in this regard?

A: MORE TIMMEH'S!!!

Questions from Tony1

17. I'm concerned about Ottava's Oppose comments concerning (1) your concentration on bots rather than manual editing; and (2) your knowledge of WP's policies. WP:CIVILITY is now the subject of a poll/discussion (see talk page); briefly, do you think the policy needs to be changed? What is your opinion of the WP:BAG approval process?

A: There's not a whole lot that I can say about WP:CIVILITY, I'm happy with it pretty much the way it is. I'd agree that it's probably underenforced, but my personal thought is that a little conflict now and then is a good thing, and I would rather that the policy were underenforced than overenforced. As for the bot approval process, I'm happy with the way it's written, but from personal experience, I can say that I wish more people participated in it -- I think that's the major thing it's lacking.

18. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy? (Critical comments, please: any suggestions for improvement, warnings of pitfalls?)

A: It's a good idea in theory, but the problem that I see with it is that people who are in an aggravated conflict with each other are generally not going to be receptive to the process, while people who are in a non-aggravated conflict will generally resolve their differences by other means. Therefore, I think the process would see minimal usage.

19. Are you willing to disclose your age, or at least your age-group?

A: I don't have a problem disclosing my age, but I do want to make it known that I am against the devaluing of admin candidates because of their age. I agree with the notion that people can be more (or less) mature than their age would indicate, and that age should not be a basis for determining a candidate's suitability for adminship. Having said that, I'm 27, and I have a wife and kid.

General comments

• Links for Mikaey: Mikaey (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Mikaey can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support; seen his work, should do fine as an admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Weak Support Candidate seems to have worked to address concerns raised at the previous RFA. While I think it's still a bit soon for the second RFA, I will not oppose it for those reasons. The candidate has shown that he is able to both reflect on criticism and work on issues that were raised, both skills invaluable to an admin. While I still have my concerns about this user's knowledge (especially when it comes to speedy deletion), I think overall it will be to our benefit to make him an admin. One can learn on "the job" after all. Regards SoWhy 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. It's hard to figure out a scenario where Mikaey would be able to build great bots, yet can't be trusted with the mop. tedder (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Weak Support, seen them around, they do plenty of good work; They're polite, helpful, run a nice bot, do better work in CSD then they make out. I trust them to use the bit properly, and put it to it's best uses - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. You do have a lot of automated edits (over 50%), but that's no reason not to support. Your bots are a valuable contribution to the project, and someone has to take care of the history merge backlog! I have no doubt that you'll learn the areas you're less familiar with "on the job". Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong support, per the mature and sensible behaviour exhibited at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3 where the user dealt very responsibly with concerns about his bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Never encountered this user, but nothing to suggest he won't use the tools properly. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Deo Volente.— Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Giants27 (c|s) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Bonne chance! Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Has shown he's quite good at things outside vandalism reverting, I'm especially impressed with the bots. Good work! LittleMountain5 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Looks fine to me. hmwithτ 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Majorly talk 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support-He looks great to me, barring that I'm missing something. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think you missing anything. =)America69 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

16. Support No issues. Good luck as an admin! America69 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - Best of luck.   JJ (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
18. I really like what I see here. You have improved from your last request, and your work with coding looks spectacular. You will be a great addition to the admin team. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support despite not liking the answer to question 10. Little expectation would abuse the tools. Saw no evidence of potential abuse. Dlohcierekim 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    Switch to strong per Damian and Malleous. Dlohcierekim 15:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

20. Support Here to help, clueful, trustworthy. No major concerns. Peter Damian's laughable "have something unpleasant" comment is truly that of an editor whose obsession is damaging him more than Wikipedia, and who has blown this whole process out of all proportion to reality. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - Tiptoety ^talk 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per Peter Damian. ;-) Never run across him before, but I see nothing in the first RfA to cause concerns; good, clueful policy statements; and a general feeling that this editor would be a good guy to sit down over a beer with and chat about programming. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Support, a great user and valuable contributor. Please do ignore Peter Damian. --Aqwis (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Good Contributor and the user has improved since last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. The candidate is quite helpful and productive and he seems to have a clue. His article-building experience is light, but he's cautious and unlikely to be a risk. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Extremely good answers, without necessarily saying I would have answered the same way. I hope he won't be so cautious as to delay too much his helping out where an admin is needed, using his very good understand of the basic rules. DGG (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Has shown sufficient dedication to the project and has given satisfactory answers to the questions posed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Good constructive editor. Has created some useful additions to Wikipedia. -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Support No reason not to. Timmeh 03:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
31. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. Has done good work with the bots, though doesn't always take good advice given by multiple people which would allow for easier access and tracking by admins seeking to do the work. However, I don't think the tools would be abused, and the advice not taken is not something which violates any guideline or policy, just a difference of opinion in the best method. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - won't abuse the tools. I particularly like the list of history merge candidates. Graham87 07:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Weak Support. The error rate is a bit high on your CSD work, but good work with the many G12's, so I believe the concerns from the previous RfA have been remedied. A10 is a little bit off in my opinion, otherwise good replies to many questions. Thus weak support. decltype (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) P.S I'm afraid I can't give you any bonus points for Q4, per my talk :)
35. Support - I was neutral last time as although I got a good impression of you I was not convinced you were experienced enough for adminship at that time. I think three to six months is a good time between RfAs and I am happy to see you back here again. I am impressed by your bot work and WikiBliff, the latter I may try out some time. I have looked at how you operate your bots and I have not noticed anything particularly wrong. Your page move fixing work and Wikipedia:New histmerge list is also good. I have also scanned your speedy deletions and they seem okay. Overall, I think you pass my criteria fine. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support No issues here. A great candidate. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Editor answered questions well, and seems to do useful work. --Kateshortforbob 13:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Glad to see you back at the RFA Mikaey, I supported last time, and I see no reason not to this time. Mikaey has a calm temperament and supreme understanding of policy, no reason not to support, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - Per nom, and previous interactions with user. Nothing obviously wrong with answers to questions. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. Excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Support More than happy with his work (and I think you should thank your parents for giving you such a great name!) ;) iMatthew ^talk at  18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Support  User's bots are valuable contribution to this project, and help clean up backlogs. Also appreciate answers to questions, and reasonable caution shown. --StaniStani  19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support per reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mikaey#Support, i.e. my opinion has not changed for the worse. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Support As usual, the above people have already said what I would like to say. Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Support per his snazzy user page. Seriously, though, after reviewing his contribs and reading through all the !votes on this RfA, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would make a fine admin. -t'shael^chat 06:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Able to handle the role. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Seems to be a quality candidate, unlikely to break the wiki. GlassCobra 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Looks good. Law _{type! snype?} 06:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Support User has a clue, and won't break the wiki. Complete gain by having him as an admin. Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
51. — Aitias // discussion 16:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Just don't delete the main page please =)--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    But... but... that's the best part! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

53. Support I agree. --candle•wicke 01:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sorry, but you seem mainly to be involved in the sort of highly automated editing where you will never need the extra tools. I am also not entirely happy with the tenor of your responses to people complaining about defaultsortbot [25], (since I think that it is important to understand that absolute error rates should be low for bots, not just relative error rates) but its nothing that I would oppose for, of itself. I wasn't able to see any article contributions in your last 2000 edits, but maybe I've missed something. Have you edited enough articles to have bashed heads with a stubborn (non-vandal) user and know how to handle it? Overall, I'm not seeing that the experience problems from the last AFD RFA have been resolved. You seem like a good and valuable editor, but not one who needs to be an admin at this point. Best wishes, AKAF (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose 'AarghBot' is a very appropriate name. These monstrous robots are a nightmare and anyone who uses them should have something unpleasant done to them (like fail an RfA, say). Peter Damian (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   ::Struck by bibliomaniac15, see here for rationale. bibliomaniac15 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   Malleus struck out Biblio's strikethrough. For discussion, please see the talk page to this RfA. NW (Talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I wanted to support last time, but I thought that you needed more time to show that you could handle adminship. Instead of working on articles, dealing with topics, etc, you continued your same pattern. Adminship requires a strong understanding of all policies and guidelines, and the knowledge of how to apply them. I feel that you have devoted your time to pushing buttons and lack the experience required to deal with situations that will arise as an admin. Sorry, but your prospects have seriously diminished in my eyes because of a lack of trying to improve in areas that were obvious weaknesses before. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose, because of the lack of insight demonstrated in the answer to Q17. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Ottava and Malleus. Tony (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral IMO administrators' signatures should match their usernames. Aditya ^α _ß 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   And how does this affect his ability to do a good job as an admin?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   It seems to be a personal preference. Note this is not an oppose, though. iMatthew ^talk at  18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   I see a lot of automated edits, especially with the bots and I am not sure you have proven you need the tools. I can easily be persuaded otherwise.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   I think automated edits are a good thing. The vast majority of our articles require some sort of maintenance work, and what better way to efficiently and accurately preform said maintenance than with automated scripts? And FWIW, Mikaey's bots have made a major dent on WP:BACKLOG. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'd be much less effective without Twinkle. More time to think through what I need to do and less time clicking and typing (and in my case, retyping). Dlohcierekim 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

About RfB

Shortcut: WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats, users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is 90%, those below 85% will fail and the rest are within the bureaucrat's discretion. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

---

There are no current nominations.

---

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Steward requests/Permissions.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.