Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 9 June 2009

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

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

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages 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, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). 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, or 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.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which 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 the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

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

Snowded

FINAL (2/8/1); Withdrawn by candidate; Ended 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC). -FASTILY 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Snowded (talk · contribs) – I am putting forward User:Snowded as my first nomination for administrator. I have watched Snowded's edits over the last year and a half or so and I've always felt that they would make a good admin. Often found watching and editing the articles and talk pages in the controversial Ireland area, Snowed has aquitted themselves very well in the face of the antagonistic nature of these articles. While Snowed has put forward the fact that they have Irish Republican leanings, this doesn't come through in the edits and manages to portray the edits in a very neutral and calming fashion. Their ability to help calm down conversations, not get involved in the heat of the moment and assist in mediating what I can personally attest to as a very difficult area of the project. As I said I've watched Snowded for a while now, and spoke with a couple of other users on both sides of these particular areas and got a thumbs up from them. So here is my nomination for someone who I think would be a great moderating force and someone the others can trust. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination and will post a statement and answers to the questions below (and any others) over the next couple of days. --Snowded 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and if I had known people would start voting straight away I would have waiting until I could answer the questions (including dealing with the Ayn Rand case where I wanted to talk with the Arbcom member involved before posting). That will take a day or so. --Snowded 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:

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

A:

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:

General comments

• Links for Snowded: Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Snowded can be found here.

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

Discussion

In general i think Snowded would make a very good Admin, he has shown over a wide range of articles that he is willing to contribute to wikipedia and act in a fair and calm way. However after many encounters with him over the past 8 months (since i joined wikipedia), i do have some concerns on how he would get involved with certain matters where there may be a conflict of interest. I intend to ask a few questions above and i hope Snowded will be prepared to answer them. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Should this have been transcluded? I see Snowded accepted but he seems to indicate on his talk that he was getting round to answering the questions? I see no discussion from him requesting transclusion? Pedro :  Chat  14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Obviously as the nominator for this editor as per my above listed reasons. Canterbury Tail talk 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - With the understanding, that he'll avoid the Ayn Rand article. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand#Snowded and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand#Snowded_topic_banned_and_warned are too recent for me at the moment. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
   • You know, for some reason I misread those dates and thought it was 2008. Darn it. I still feel Snowded has what it takes, despite this war that they have learned from. Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2. I have to agree with PeterSymonds here regarding the ArbCom case. Sorry, –Juliancolton |  14:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
3. As per the edit warring related arbcom case highlighted by Peter Symonds - simply too recent. Sorry. Also - err - some answers to the "optional" Q's 1 -3 wouldn't go amiss prior to transclusion to be honest.Pedro :  Chat  14:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose I too was thinking along the lines of PeterSymonds. Much too recent for me. -Djsasso (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose I also feel those events are far too recent. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Me too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Anyone with several ARBCOM cases either about them or related to them shouldn't be applying to be admins. Skinny87 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I agree with above. OtisJimmyOne 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, inclined to support contingent on answers to questions above, and no reason to believe that the candidate won't abide by RFARB. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Enigmaman

Closed as successful (147/6/5) by UninvitedCompany at 15:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

Enigmaman (talk · contribs) – I respectfully request the community's consideration and if you agree with me, your personal support in my nomination of Enigmaman to the position of administrator.

Enigmaman has been a prolific and dedicated editor since February 19, 2007 - amassing a total of more than 25,700 edits over that 2 year and almost 5 month period. Indeed Enigmaman has edited without break on each and every month of his tenure with Misplaced Pages, and has done so with an obvious appetite and relish for the success of the project. He is hard-working, experienced and effecting in vandal fighting activities as well as the checking of sock-puppet accounts; he has made more than 600 valid reports at AIV; and over 200 requests for page protection. He also participates regularly at various administrator noticeboards. Enigmaman has accumulated almost 10,900 edits in the projects mainspace, including appropriate assistance and direct input so that the two articles Sid Luckman & Félix Houphouët-Boigny, did reach GA classification.

Enigmaman is a keen assistant to other editors, and is named within the ranks of highly active users on the eastern side of North America. He in fact appears to be available at least part of the day, for most days of the week and from that perspective he will be a willing and available administrator if so assigned.

I am of the strong view that Enigmaman is a loyal, dedicated and admirable member of the wikipedia community - who despite having made mistakes like most editors do from time to time (and from which he has learned) - is now very suitable and ready to be entrusted by the community with the mop.

I again respectfully request your consideration of this application and I ask, if you are willing, that you please add your comments in support below.--VS 07:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. Enigma 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Co Nomination I think VS coves the basics pretty well. My conom is to highlight that I've had a chance to work with Enigmaman quite a bit over the last several months and I've found him to be a conscientious, hard working, and capable editor. He has sound judgement, something necessary in a good administrator, and he really cares about the issues and challenges facing the project. In short he "gets it", has a "deft touch" and is "not likely to blow up the wiki". I would be grateful if you would give him your support. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: I intend to patrol WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, as well as occasionally contribute to WP:SPI.

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

A: I primarily do maintenance work, so it's hard to pinpoint one or two particular contributions. I've helped maintain several lists, including WP:MISS, WP:AMDB, and WP:HAU. I did a lot of work with WP:AFC before the change in format last year. I'm proud of my work on Sid Luckman, and I helped Félix Houphouët-Boigny become a GA. I spent a lot of time proofreading and copyediting 1964 Gabon coup d'état, which also become a GA. While it didn't take a lot of article-writing ability, I'm most proud of my work fighting defamation on Misplaced Pages. For example, this is what Pauly Shore looked like before I began to edit it. If it can't be one of our better articles, it should at least not contain defamation and gross BLP violations. Additionally, after helping a number of new users withdraw their RfAs, I created a guide that became pretty well thumbed. Finally, I spent a few days editing Derrick Rose. While it did not earn a DYK or become a GA/FA, my focus is just to ensure that as many articles as possible are in a presentable state.

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 do not recall any significant conflicts since my last request for adminship.

Questions from Rootology

4a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Misplaced Pages project, including any not in use currently?

A: User:Enigmaman, User:EnigmaBot.

4b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?

A: N/A

4c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?

A: N/A

5. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: I have beliefs, as I'm sure everyone does, but they haven't interfered with my editing. I would recuse from such situations were they to present themselves in the future.

6. Are you engaged currently, or were previously, in any activities off-wiki which (under your "real name", or your online "handle") which, if made public, could potentially bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute?

A: Not that I'm aware of.

7. Are you over or under the age of majority?

A: Over. However, this is not something easily verifiable, with some exceptions.

8. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today? What works? What doesn't? If you had carte blanche to 'fix' the BLP problems your way, what would that be?

A: The scope of this question is far too broad. Misplaced Pages has had serious BLP problems in the past, as is well-documented. I believe further steps need to be taken to protect living people, but it's difficult to implement anything concrete because of the difficulty in getting consensus on any specific measure.

9. What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for WP:BLP subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year are coming to English Misplaced Pages in mid/late 2009?

A:

10. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall? If so, why? If not, why?

A: No, unless some fundamental changes are made to the recall process. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the recall system is not currently enforceable. Thus, any pledge to be open to recall is essentially an empty campaign promise that doesn't really accomplish anything. If I am made an administrator, it will be because a significant portion of the RfA community trusts my judgment enough to allow me access to the tools. I would ask that the same people trust my judgment in knowing when it's time to step down as well.

11. Do you feel that admins should be subject to all policies, and the repercussions for possibly violating them, as if they were any other non-admin user?

A: Yes. Admins are not above the policies. They are subject to the same policies every other editor is.

12. What has changed in you or with you since your previous two RFAs, to make previous opposers support now? (RFA #1, 84/32/2, RFA #2, 132/60/11)

A: Only previous opposers can answer that, really. They would have to reevaluate me and see if their concerns are now satisfied or not.

13. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A: Chocolate.

Optional questions from — Σxplicit

14. If granted administrative tools, would you be willing to make difficult blocks? Why or why not?

A: No. I'm not in a position currently to make difficult blocks, although I applaud the admins who are willing to consider making what are considered difficult blocks.

15. Is there an instance where you would indefinitely block a registered user without any prior warnings?

A: I can't think of any. Just about every case I can think of, a user deserves to be warned first, and only continued disruption after warnings would be considered a blockable offense to me.

Really seriously genuinely optional question from Stifle (i.e. no compulsion whatsoever to answer)

16. Are you, or have you been, involved with the website "Misplaced Pages review"?

A.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

17. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Please clarify the question. I'm not really sure how to approach this.

I was hoping to hear, for example, your thoughts about whether such rights as free speech and due process might translate into Misplaced Pages. For example, would you maintain the right of a Wikipedian accused of some transgression to be told of the accusation and given and opportunity to respond? Groomtech (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is how we operate. When someone is reported to a noticeboard for example, it's standard procedure to notify them on their user talk. If the thread creator does not notify the accused, it's considered poor form. Even blocked vandals have a chance to respond via their user talk, and administrators typically would not block someone reported to AN or AN/I without giving the accused time to respond (this doesn't apply to AIV and 3RR, usually, but you do see the time given on AN, AN/I, SPI, etc.). Free speech as outlined in American law does not really apply to the Internet. If the WMF wanted to make its own freedom of speech policy, that would be another story.

Additional question from Nakon

18. How has the policy WP:IAR helped and/or hurt the project. When would you find yourself invoking the policy and if so, would you do so explicitly or implicitly?

A:

Additional very optional question from Kotra

19. Scenario: A registered user is rapidly posting on many high-visibility pages the usernames and passwords of several dozen administrators, complete with detailed instructions on how to use these accounts to vandalize the Misplaced Pages interface, flood articles with shock images, lock up the server, etc. As an administrator, what would you do?

A: This poses a serious and imminent threat, so one would have to block first and ask questions later. There are times for action and times for waiting. Delete all the pages it created and block indefinitely.

Question from Tiptoety

20. What have you learned from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion?

A: I'm not sure how to answer this. Do you mean the actions that led up to the discussion or the discussion itself? Mistakes were made by several people, most notably myself, leading to a rather difficult situation. There was a lot written about it.

Sorry, I guess I could have been more specific. I am referring to the socking itself and getting caught. Tiptoety 18:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said at the last RfA, I learned that editing while logged out is a bad idea and one should not think they can log out and do what they want. Regrettable error. Enigma 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Lankiveil

21. What would you say should be done about a hypothetical user that had the following userbox on their user page:

This user believes that the so-called "holocaust" was a hoax.

Assume for the purpose of discussion here that the user has not made any edits supporting this point of view in the mainspace.

A: I would say that anyone offended by the userbox should consider politely asking the hypothetical user to take down the userbox.

Follow-up Question: What about if, after editors in good standing asked for its removal, the user refused to remove the userbox. Would it change your opinion if the user was vigourously campaigning for a holocaust denial POV on the talk pages of relevant articles, even if they still didn't post edits supporting this into the mainspace, nor broke civility rules? Lankiveil 07:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue of controversial and/or offensive userboxes has come up several times. The determination of various administrators has been that there is no consensus in favor of forcibly removing userboxes from a user's page. If they're espousing a certain POV on talk pages, I don't think that changes the decision. I recall that a few admins have deleted userpages (subpages in userspace, more precisely) if they found that the editor was not contributing much to the mainspace. However, I will not be making judgments on whether individuals are productive enough in the mainspace. So in conclusion, I don't think it's my place to be the judge of what editors may or may not have in their userspace. I'll let the noticeboards and other administrators make the decision. Enigma 17:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I find this question intriguing enough, that I posted my thoughts on the talk page.---I'm Spartacus! 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Tony1

22. 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?

A:

23. Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at WP:ADMIN should be set out in a codified and easy-to-read form on that policy page?

24. What is your view on encouraging an optional pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil, comprising the issuing by an admin of a Warning to the editor and a request to Apologise to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to Strike through the offending text (the WAS protocol), as an alternative to blocking? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases?

• Comment Tony, for your information Enigmaman is away for most of this weekend on business.--VS 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. My bad timing. Tony (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. My apologies, but I was away this weekend. I'm otherwise occupied right now, so I don't think I'll be able to give your questions the attention they deserve. They aren't simple questions. If I have a few minutes, I'll try and briefly answer them tonight. Enigma 03:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Enigmaman
• Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2
• Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 3

• Links for Enigmaman: Enigmaman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Enigmaman can be found here.

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

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I've been waiting on this for a long time. MBisanz 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
2. As co-nom. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I believe he's learned a lot from the previous RfA.--Caspian blue 15:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (addendum) The accusation of "bias" almost swayed me enough to switch my vote. However, from my observation, whenever the candidate faces "accusations" from others, he seems to be capable of handling disputes in moderate ways, so I'm still sticking here.--Caspian blue 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tan | 39 15:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong support WAY overdue. Should have been an admin after first nom. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Very happy to see you getting back on the horse after falling off a couple of times. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Definitely.--Res2216firestar 15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Enigmaman should have passed his last RfA: he does great work in dealing with sockpuppets, and I've been happy to answer the block (of vandals and socks) and protection requests he's sent to me. He'll make a great admin and I'm happy to support. Acalamari 15:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
9. (ec)Support I note past history. Will be, I believe, a trustworthy admin. --Anthony.bradbury 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Scarian 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Per my support on his previous RfA. J.delanoy_adds 15:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support My views since RFA #2 haven't changed. Good on you for having the stones and commitment to come back. rootology (C)(T) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Enigmaman definitely has the experience and temperament to handle the tools well, and he certainly could use them. 649 vandals reported and 238 requests for page protection? He will be a huge asset to the encyclopedia with the extra tools. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose - no Mediawiki namespace edits . –xeno 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) This is, of course, a joke, being that no one who has not previously had adminrights could have Mediawiki namespace edits (unless they had an admin do some pagemove jiggerypokery) Support, per general cluefulness and my support of his last RFA. –xeno 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    I can't believe I didn't notice that. I may need to reconsider my support... J.delanoy_adds 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

15. Support No problems. Good luck! Hiberniantears (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support as nominator.--VS 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. –Juliancolton |  16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Support – didn't get the chance last time. – B.hotep •talk• 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. No reason to Oppose. OtisJimmyOne 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. My opinion has not changed since I supported your first RfA. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - no problems that I can see. Shereth 16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Despite the ultimate lack of success, I was generally impressed with Enigmaman's behaviour at his previous RfA. The primary point of contention (a few ill-advised IP edits) was presented to the RfA in a way that seemed to completely maximise the drama involved. The RfA rapidly spiraled into a particularly malodorous drama toilet; but the candidate generally kept his head well and handled the situation in the mature and sensible manner I would expect from an administrator. His contributions have been generally excellent, and I've seen no further items to concern me: Enigmaman is a smart and clued-up editor who is long overdue a set of admin tools. ~ mazca 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Good luck! JPG-GR (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. No further drama since the last RfA. Axl ¤ 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support A hard-worker with a common-sense approach to BLP problems. Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. I supported the last one, and I see nothing since to change my opinion. I'm happy to less-verbosely support again. We need admins who are committed to quickly taking care of things such as RFPP and AIV. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

    As I added my Support before most of the Oppose arguments began, I'd like to comment.

    It's very dangerous to make assumptions and accusations about someone's motivations and alleged biases. If Enigma had a strong bias as alleged, surely his history of contributions would show a corresponding pattern of edits other than those related to one specific user. I find no such evidence. In my opinion, the edits in question are innocent and do not in any way violate wikipolicy. It appears that he was merely trying to improve the pages. As with any controversial subject, in some instances, the net result may be open to interpretation, but in all cases I believe there was a good faith effort at improvement. It's also clear to me that the user throwing around charges of wikihounding has not carefully read and understood WP:Wikihounding, as Enigma's actions do not demonstrate the necessary behavior and intent. Anyone who complains that Enigma's correction of a spelling error was part of a wikihounding campaign, citing as evidence the fact that he hadn't previously edited that article, simply does not understand how Misplaced Pages works.

    I am completely confident that Enigma will be a fair, unbiased admin and in that capacity will be an even greater asset to Misplaced Pages than he already is.

    Hmmmm, I said I was going to be less verbose this time, but there I go again.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

27. Support--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
28. — Jake Wartenberg 20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Strong Support I supported last time and held my support despite the "IP thing". Nothing to indicate I should not continue to offer support. Pedro :  Chat  20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong support - excellent editor with a good temperament. -->David Shankbone 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Strong support Heck yes! Helpful, kind user who will do nothing but good with the tools. :-) Meetare Shappy 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Excellent user Triplestop (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
33. Are you kidding? I actually thought that your last RfA would pass and I stopped watching it. Here's to that, have a mop and work. Keegan 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
34. Support 5 words. "He-know-what-he's-doing"Abce2|AccessDenied 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support -- Luk 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Support bibliomaniac15 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Support I just can't conjure up a reason not to support.--Koji† 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support He knows what he's doing. -download ׀ sign! 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
41. Support. Intelligent, clueful editor. He'll do good with the mop. Useight (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
42. Support as I do not find the allegations in the Oppose section to be convincing. I don't see any evidence the admin tools would be used to promote a POV or that they would be abused. ···日本穣 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
43. Strongest support — Enigmaman's previous RfA failed due to an incident that was way out of character. My opinion of him that I expressed at that RfA has not diminished with time, and I think he is eminently qualified for the role. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
44. Support: Plenty of tenure, contributes to a wide variety of article space, and to Misplaced Pages areas. Lots of WP:NPP work, dedicated vandal fighting, contributions look like quality work, answers to questions indicate high level of clue. Strong support from me. — Ched :  ?  23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - Kevin (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Bring him on! Hersfold 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
47. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
48. Clueful. —Animum (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. You deserved it six months ago. The way the last RfA was handled was unfortunate to say the least. Jafeluv (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. Impressive. Valley2city 00:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. Glad I caught this when live. I've always been impressed with Enigmaman's approach to Misplaced Pages - fair, steady, and with positive contributions in many facets of the community's overall efforts. Will be a strong asset to the project with the techical abilities that come with adminship, and has the temperament and demeanor to handle them well. Keeper | 76 01:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
52. Support I opposed the first RfA because of lack of depth with policy--an objection no longer the least relevant. I supported the second, in part because he handled the situation as well as a person could in the circumstances. Cerrtainlu I support now, on the basis of present work and understanding of WP. DGG (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Third is the one :) -- Tinu Cherian - 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Willking1979 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
56. Support — Michel Mapaliey (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
58. Better watch out, you are likely to end up on Friday's essay as an example wherein the opposes grew tired of opposing... but I wanted to nominate you for your last (failed) attempt, thus I guess that should be good enough for support today.---I'm Spartacus! 03:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Would make an excellent admin. -t'shael 04:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Competent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
61. Support I like most of the answers to the question and see nothing to indicate the user would abuse the tools. AniMate 09:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Good Candidate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
64. Yes, definitely, especially per your response to Q10. Sure, AOR can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, but I dislike the idea of saying "Sure, I'll be open to recall" just to get support. Enigma can know that when he passes, it's because the community trusts him, not because of making, what he quite correctly called an "empty campaign promise". So kudos to you there. And, another thing. Kasaalan (talk · contribs) alleges you have a bias, well, based on their edits to this RFA and a quick glance at their contributions makes me think that this user is just snotty because Enigma disagreed with them over a few edits. Maybe that's not the whole story, but in my opinion, Kasaalan should take the log out of their own eye before they try to take the splinter our of EnigmaMan's. Steve Crossin /_{Help us mediate!} 12:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
65. Support per last RFA and my support there (#65). Should have passed that one. لennavecia 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    What a coincidence! :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

66. Support. A decent editor, who has committed himself well after his second chance. No answers to questions suggest any issues with being granted adminship. I'm just sorry that this again threatens to be taken over by drama. haz (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
67. Support per nom again (increase to strong see below.) Dlohcierekim 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    Increase to strongper Dendrodge, whose standards are quite high. Dlohcierekim 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

68. Support and good luck $). Gruznov (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Excellent candidate, insightful answers to questions. Nevard (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - editor has said s/he would not be comfortable with making difficult blocks and we need more admins like this who are instead willing to take a consultative and holistic approach. Coldmachine 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Per my Support in candidate's previous RfA.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
72. Support I've seen him around AfD, there is nothing that concerns me here. Tavix |  Talk  18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
73. Support a decent edit count -shouldn't have problems being trusted with the tools. Dr. Blofeld 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - Unconvinced by the oppose arguments, OK with his answers to the questions, no further concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Incredibly unconvincing opposes as usual, so supporting. Majorly talk 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
76. Strong support: Yes, I am back at RfA, with my annoyingly long, complex, and useless logs. Anyway, support per User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Enigmaman (2). Dendodge _T\ 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    Looks like great work to me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

77. Support purely to counteract David Fuchs' oppose. Adminship should not be seen as an award for prolific content contributors.—S Marshall /_Cont 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
78. Per my response to Fuchs below, as well as per Majorly and S Marshall. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - I've further reviewed the candidate, and I'm sure I can trust him. Good luck,  iMatthew :  Chat  20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
80. I acknowledge, but am unconvinced by, the opposition offered below. I've no other concerns. Support. AGK 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
81. Support No reason to believe the tools would be abused and the opposes do not appear to me to be convincing, indeed they read like more of the same. -- Mattinbgn\ 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
82. Support per S Marshall and Garden. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
83. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
84. Support a good candidate --Stephen 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
85. Support, good candidate. Also noting that 19 questions is really pushing it guys. Please don't start playing 20Q with the candidates again. Wizardman 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    Well, 4-13 are from one person alone. :-\  iMatthew :  Chat  01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

    We can certainly split the questions into section A, B, C, etc. And if that's not enough, we can have follow-up on the follow-up to the follow-up response. =P OhanaUnited 04:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

86. Strong Support I was truly impressed by how Enigmaman handled his previous RfA, and am pleased to see that he's improved even more since. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
87. Support No-brainer (I don't mean the candidate!) --John (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
88. Support - per much of the above; allegations of pro-Israeli bias are IMO unfounded. I too would have substantially cut down the content of the article in question due to the undue weight given. Parsecboy (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
89. Support. I co-nomed Enigmaman last time and I will be supporting him this time again. OhanaUnited 03:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
90. Support Great user commited to Misplaced Pages and has an outstanding track and had actually supported him in his previous RFA but later changed to oppose .The user has shown great commitment and has only improved since the last RFA.I assume Assume Good Faith that the user will not user his tools his Isreal-Palestine content disputes and will use Unvolved admins in these disputes and every user has a POV whether it is in Chemistry,History,AA,India-Pakistan,China-Tibet and so on and hence opposes cannot be based on POV as than everyone editing in conflict areas will get excluded.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
91. Support. Looks to me like the candidate is patient and willing to learn from mistakes. ZabMilenko 05:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
92. Support. Nice answers. I think he is ready for the mop! ax (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
93. Support. Gifted with clue and cool under pressure - a very good combo for the mop. Shell 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
94. Support I think Enigma's been around long enough for us to have a sneaking suspicion he's dedicated to the project, and warrants a mop, which I think will prove to be a net positive. I do share Fuch's concerns about audited content but not enough to oppose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
95. Support - Supported last time around. — R 15:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
96. Support - I believe he has clarified his response to Q15 in his reply to Nakon. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
97. Support Icestorm815 • Talk 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
98. Support Looks great. Good luck! Ray 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
99. support I have some slight concerns about him maybe letting his POV get in the way but overall things look good. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
100. WP:100 time! One two three... 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
101. Support Thank you for clarification.  Chzz  ►  00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
102. Too-bad-I-couldn't-have-nominated, non-hesitant SUPPORT: Long overdue. Good luck with the tools!--It's me...Sallicio! 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
103. Support absolutely. Have interacted with MysteryMan on many occasions, all positive. StarM 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
104. Support grace under pressure. He's earned his mop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
105. Support Strong user who will use the tools for their prescribed purpose and to help clean house. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
106. Weak support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. On the positive side, the candidate has never been blocked and as stance in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture (second nomination) was reasonable, but I am not sure what to make of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frisco Centennial High School (2nd nomination) in which the candidate nominated the article and then a couple of hours and posts later also adds a bolded "delete" comment. Was that an accident or something? Plus, being a "target for vandalism" cannot be a valid reason for deletion, because then pretty much any article on any major politician (not to mention many many pages) would have to be deleted as a target for vandalism. But hey that was a year ago, so, I'll give the candidate the benefit of the doubt due to the above-mentioned positives. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
107. Support Am confident any potentially marginal edges of shadows of hints of POV will get jumped on basta. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
108. Support Don't see any problems here. ThemFromSpace 05:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
109. Support - answer to Q15 is no big deal - it was a rather open-ended question, so we can't expect him to not miss/not think of something. We all miss stuff, guys; cut him some slack. There were only 21 questions there for him to answer. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
110. Support Bit of a pile-on perhaps, but good answers to the better questions, good all-round editor and no indication of likelyhood to go mop-mad. GedUK  09:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
111. Support No issue that would make me oppose Corpx (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
112. Support per nom. Durova 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
113. Support(Could have sworn I already did but don't see a !vote up here!) Of course. Hardworking editor who will make a fine admin. No worries from this corner. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
114. Support A great all-around editor and good answers to the questions. No problems here. Good luck! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
115. Support, very helpful user. This is, as stated before, a looooong time coming. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
116. Support - change from weakly in the last RfA. As long as he reveals this POV or bias, I am confident he will be a fair admin. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
117. Support What can I say that hasn't been said? Enigma's a good, helpful user, and his adminship is long overdue. Kimu 01:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
118. Support. Fully qualified candidate; no concerns. I find the opposers' rationales unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
119. Support Of course. Burner0718 02:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
120. Support""" I love the answer to number 21. Shows a clear level head, and focus on the contributions. --Adam in MO Talk 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
121. Support Always have trusted Enigmaman, always will trust him to be a fine administrator. — RyanCross (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
122. Support - new name to me (because I still retain some of my shiny-newness), but I would trust this editor as an admin. Don't see anything to worry about in the opposes. Bigger digger (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
123. Support Per S Marshall's idea here. To counteract David Fuchs' oppose. (This vote probably isn't needed now, so this is just a symbolic gesture) I wouldn't have opposed anyway (probably would have been neutral). Aditya _ß 08:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
124. Support, a bit late and I doubt you need it now, but I believe you'll do a good job. Jozal 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
125. Support I'm pleased to support someone who I consider to be a truly dedicated wikipedian, committed to improving the site, who will make the most of adminship, and can be trusted with the tools. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
126. jumping on the top of the pile-on support - KrakatoaKatie 23:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
127. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
128. Support Late to the party, yadda yadda ydadda. He'll be a great admin. Thingg 01:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
129. Support It's about time! Steven Walling (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
130. Support (again).  Frank  |  talk  13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
131. Support Can be trusted with the tools. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
132. Support. Seems trustworthy and diligent. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
133. Support. I supported last time, so that's my default position this time. The issues raised by Kasaalan in the oppose section gave me pause, but having looked through Enigmaman's recent edits, I don't see any real evidence that's he's some kind of POV pusher; his only bias seems to be against vandalism and in favour of improving Misplaced Pages. I believe we can trust him with the admin tools. Robofish (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
134. Support. I was neutral last time with the hope of being able to support without reservation on the next go. I'm happy to have that chance. --Moonriddengirl 02:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
135. Support assuming I have not done so already. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
136. Support No problems here! --Siva1979 05:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
137. Support A decent editor and a dedicated fighter against vandalism. Good luck !! Tkalisky (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
138. Why the hell not? Pmlineditor   11:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
139. Support per myself last time. I just noticed I had not !voted here before, which explains why I'm this late ;-) Regards SoWhy 11:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
140. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
141. Support I trust Enigmaman to not let his personal views affect his judgment as an admin. hmwithτ 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
142. Support as I do not have any concerns that Enigmaman would abuse the tools. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
143. Strong Support Enigmaman is a conscientious editor who sorely deserves the tools. There's no such thing as a pile on after the last RfA. Danthecan (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
144. Support - Thought the user was an admin to begin with. I see no reason that a mop and bucket shouldn't be issued to this user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
145. Strong Support It is definitely time! Enigma has shown he has the knowledge, and the experience to become an excellent administrator. Learning from past errors is something everyone has done along the way, and Enigma has shown he's addressed all concerns voiced in the past. Kasaalan's objections and talk page discussion honestly come across to me as some sort of vendetta against Enigma; I have seen nothing that proves Enigma has pushed any sort of point of view, and the "serious conflict" Kasaalan claims to have had with Enigma seems to be his conflict, not a mutual conflict. One of the edits Kasaalan claims is biased, this, is actually a valid WP:BLP removal. That information had no source (and wasn't relevant to the article anyway), and the person is still alive, so Enigma did the correct thing in removing it. I have absolutely no qualms about entrusting Enigma with adminship, and I believe he will make a most excellent addition to the current administration team. Ariel♥Gold 10:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
146. Final day of Rfa support My second pile-on of the day, unusual, but I don't hang out here at Rfa much. I supported in Rfa #2, both pre and post drama, and since then Enigma only has gotten better. Congrats in advance. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
147. Strong Support Should already be an administrator. Well-rounded editor; one of the best Misplaced Pages has to offer. Alio The Fool 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The user has an ethnically Israeli-side bias (racial, religiously or both not sure) in his edits and actions for Israel-Palestine articles. He request of adminship for anti vandalism etc, which are not directly related to page edits, so my objection might not be strictly related. But again an admin should be outmost neutral in his edits too.

   5. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas? A: I have beliefs, as I'm sure everyone does, but they haven't interfered with my editing.

   I can argue, it interferes with user's editing.

   • Example case: Yeshiva Torah Temimah pedophilia scandal cover up attempts by user (scandal for wikipedia)
   • User removes big content for "this is not an article about an alleged pedophile"
   • Nominates the article for deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yeshiva Torah Temimah AFD nomination by the user for a Jewish school's article which contains pedophilia (child sex) scandal to remove it from wikipedia.
   • User "shortens" the "allegations" which is actually a big trim
   • User removes The Forward (a weekly jewish newspaper) article link, that criticizes pedophilia (child sex) scandal of jewish school, for it "is not a source" (sorry, that is not a source)
   • There are other edits in the same manner, undoes and removals by based on user's own personal thoughts to remove criticism in articles somehow related to Israeli oriented Judaism (There are other Judaism approach and teachings that objects Israeli state's "official" approach and even Israel)

   Note we had some serious conflict with the user recently, so you may also consider that with my review, though we had the argument because of my allegation in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) Kasaalan (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Please be accurate. The link I removed was this. I'm sure you can see why. Enigma 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Link has apparently moved; I'm 99.5% certain this is the new URL (but being unfamiliar with the original, there's going to be that .5%). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Link moved, and the new URL is the one I posted for sure. You can tell by the date and title easily. How do you think I found the new URL of the article (note: by google). But when you remove the link with "sorry, that is not a source" quote and not replaced it (because you didn't like the content), that is not a good policy. Also you deleted a huge part you didn't like, and it was reverted by other users you nominated the article for deletion because you didn't like the allegations about the school. My claim is that you are not neutral to jewish and israeli based articles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Do you have any other examples of this claimed non-neutrality, beside this one conflict dispute you had with him observed him in? For the record, I see no problem with this edit under WP:BLP, which is one of our singular most-important policies. rootology (C)(T) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Unrelated content discussion moved to talk here. I would like my question answered here on the RFA: does Kasaalan have any examples of Enigma's supposed bias that could affect his role as an admin? I'm not asking for sources to back up your editorial stance, I'm asking for diffs and edits by Enigma that demonstrate a pattern. rootology (C)(T) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Cover up attempts of a scandal like this is something to be discussed about. He claims, the link was dead. But couldn't he find the "actual" link by a simple search. It took below 5 minutes to find and wikify all the relevant and mentioned reliable secondary sources for the coverage. It may not be against rules, yet it doesn't fit to the wikipedia spirit either. Why didn't he bothered to google the link, if only the 404 link was the issue. There was some systematic deletion approach in that article for the scandal.

   While in a perfect world, people would look for the link, they are under no obligation to do so. I find it a little disenginuous to call removing a dead link a cover up or bad faith or anything. I would call it a good faith edit. You found it, and by your own admition took you five minutes. Many edits are done quick and on the fly without thinking about them---especially when removing bad links. So far, what I've seen looks more like a search for reasons to label Enigma a pro-semite with an agenda than actually providing evidence towards that end. The more "evidence" you provide, the less I'm buying your stance. I see more edits in line with Good Faith edits that you disagree with, BLP issues which you disagree with, and WP:UNDUE which you disagree with. I am not seeing a pro-israel/pro-Jewish push.---I'm Spartacus! 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   To read rest of the my claims and proofs which moved by admins as its getting "excessive" You May Follow the link which includes cover up for a Jewish Rabbi school's pedophilia scandal, systematic deletion of British MP Sir Gerald Kaufman's criticism from Israeli politicians Tzipi Livni and Eitan Livni pages', Misplaced Pages:Wikihounding#Wikihounding for my edits during 1 week. Kasaalan (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Who removes my bold text, which is not seen in edit history exactly? Seriously whoever it is stop it or make an public explanation. Kasaalan (talk)

   That was done by Evula, a bureaucrat, here, and bureaucrats do have the authority to do this. I have reinstated Evula's removal. rootology (C)(T) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose, per Q15. If someone creates an article, for example John Q. rapes children, they should be immediately blocked without warning. AGF only goes so far. Nakon 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   I was not thinking of attack pages. I see your point and I know that some admins would take that approach - in my case, if I came across such a page, I would speedy delete it under G10 and warn the page creator. A repeat and I would block indefinitely. Enigma 22:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Not sure who or what you referred. Also how you would sentense the users who tried to cover up a pedophilia case like that with a systematic deletion approach from wikipedia, "for it would look bad on a particular religion or rabbi's" at best AGF. The case should be either standalone or into the school's page by various second party reliable source coverage were already present. Kasaalan (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Enigmaman is simply responding to an example point of view about "when to block" made by Nakon. Nakon is not talking about a real case as you suggest but rather a fake page designed to attack that has been created by an editor, and where that editor may or may not require immediate blocking. In any case such an article should be deleted.--VS 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Was the comment out of sudden, or refers to any particular one like Yeshiva Torah Temimah Kasaalan (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Kasaalan - as I said above - yes his comments are not related to any single article, nor is the question by Nakon. Can you please take any further personal comments about Yeshiva Torah Temimah to the talk page so as to retain the constructiveness of this RfA. Thank you in advance.--VS 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per lack of strong audited article contributions. 1964 Gabon coup d'état, which the user listed above, quick-failed its FAC because hunks of the article were run through Google Translator. That kind of ad-hoc scholarship is not a quality I would like to see in an admin, and while Enig is not a significant contributor listing such a possibly erroneous article as a prime contribution gives me pause. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Should be noted that Enigmaman's work is unrelated to the FAC or the translation; as he states above, his edits were copyediting. Still, I'm not sure why he noted it as a significant contribution; as his edit summaries make clear, his work was relatively minor and consisted of 5 CE edits that made about as many changes in the text. Nathan 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   You are correct. I noted it because the article did later become a GA, and since I don't involve myself in the GA/FA processes, there aren't many articles that I had been involved in editing that got promoted. I will make a change to my answer. Enigma 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   Can you please clarify why you feel that a user's content contributions are relevant to this discussion of whether he will use the admin tools properly, if granted them? Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   First and foremost we should be here to build the encyclopedia's quality. Clearing backlogs and doing administration is all well and good, but it's a secondary mission derived from maintaining content. Heavy article building and going through FAC is often an indicator of temperament as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   Administrators, by accepting the nomination, are putting themselves forward to work in the technical bowels of the encyclopedia, blocking those who intend to make it worse, deleting that which does not add value, and protecting that which has been broken. This work in no way requires article building and I fail to see how, for examples sake, a janitor is going to fund the company. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per evidence of bias presented here. We already have too many admins who stand by and do nothing about POV issues in articles, as long as the material suits their POV, WP:IAR. Enough. Unomi (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bias issues. Cannot trust or support at this time. Vodello (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Bias issues + POV concerns = does not have my trust with the tools granted to admins. TharsHammar and 00:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Bias issues, per the above 3 opposes. If you can demonstrate why this will not be a problem in the future, I will happily change to support (drop me a note so I check back)  Chzz  ►  15:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
   Happy to change to support, following responses from the candidate  Chzz  ►  00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   • Oppose I prefer not to award power and authority to someone who appears not to be interested in the rights of other users. Groomtech (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   To be fair, your question (particularly the word "rights") is very open to interpretation; asking for clarification on your meaning doesn't necessarily mean one is disinterested in the rights of other users. Perhaps only they may not have given them that particular label, or they take them as practical, common sense truths without having ever thought deeply about them as you may have. -kotra (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   It's also not an "award". Bigger digger (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   If it matters, Groomtech opposed before Enigmaman asked for clarification. — Σxplicit 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   So they did. My bad. Still, there were a ton of questions this time, and it's perfectly reasonable to take more than three days to answer when seven are available, no disinterest in the question's subject necessary. Anyway, I'll stop badgering. -kotra (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Withdrawing my oppose now there's an adequate response (though disappointed candidate apparently hadn't considered the matter beforehand). Groomtech (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

I don't know, I see a few things I don't like. I'll come back later on.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral for now - I came to this page ready to immediately support based on my knowledge of this user, but the terrible answer to Q15 (especially from someone who wants to help at SPI, how can you not think of indef blocking an obvious sockpuppet) leaves me neutral for now. Oren0 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Oren, please see Enigmaman's further answer to this question at #2 in the opposes. Enigmaman might come back with a further view about this point but - I don't think his answer or view of the question was in his mind directly related to socks.--VS 06:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   I was not referring to obvious socks. I do have a lot of experience in checking for socks. Before the changeover was made to SPI, I helped clear out a lot of SSP cases at a time when they were piling up without getting the needed attention. I could've answered the question better, I suppose. Enigma 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Would like to wait and watch for now Renaissancee (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now - probable support, but would appreciate further clarification on A15 by way of A19. -kotra (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC) - regretfully remain neutral due to several minor nitpicks, particularly terseness of explanations (in editing, not just in these RFA questions), the events leading to the last RFA's failure, and other minor qualms. Also would have preferred some mention of how/if they would deal with the compromised admin accounts in A19. Nothing big that leads me to oppose, though, and I wish them the best of luck with their obviously impending doom adminship!. -kotra (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   As an administrator, I can't handle compromised admin accounts by myself. In the past, if an account is suspected to be compromised, it's discussed on AN/I and generally a checkuser is asked to look into it. If the account is determined to be compromised, a steward would usually be the one to deflag the admin. As a fellow admin, all I could do is block the compromised account, and that would not prevent the account from taking administrator actions. I'm not sure what I could do. Enigma 03:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation. That is exactly what I meant: starting an AN/I report (assuming one hadn't been yet created), notifying stewards, and/or other similar measures. Sorry if my "as an administrator" was misleading; I meant "as an administrator as well as an editor". I still remain neutral, but I appreciate your explanation. -kotra (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral, because of a poor answer to Q15, compounded by an even poorer answer to User:Nakon's Oppose; we ought not to be cutting any slack at all to those who create blatant, obvious attack pages against living people, period. The answer to Q21 was somewhat better, but not good enough to bring me all the way into the Support column. Lankiveil 11:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC).
5. Neutral. It's not very often that I place myself in this section, but I simply can not make up my mind in this RfA. I wasn't too satisfied with the answer my question (number 15). For example, an account with these contributions should be blocked on sight, without a single prior warning, as it's nothing more than a Grawp sock. I'm also a bit concerned about the bias issues brought up in the oppose section. I do feel that Enigmaman has contributed plenty to Misplaced Pages and has more to offer, but these issues are things I simply can't ignore. — Σxplicit 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Colds7ream

Final (79/3/6); Closed Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:13:21 (UTC) by Avi

Nomination

Colds7ream (talk · contribs) – I would like to put myself forward for consideration as an Administrator on the English Misplaced Pages, in order to allow me to contribute to the project in the extra ways the admin tools allow. I've been a member since December 2005, and I believe I've made contributions that have positively added to the project. For instance, I am involved in the operation of WikiProject Human spaceflight and help out regularly with WP:NPP, account creation and, more occasionally, WP:XfD. Most of my edits are in the article namespace, particularly in the area of spaceflight, where I participated in the upgrading of Shuttle-Mir Program to FA status, in addition to helping raise International Space Station (on which I'm actively participating in a push for FA), Salyut 6 and STS-74 to GA status. I'm also a member of Wikimedia UK, am in the process of assembling Portal:Human spaceflight, and participate in a lesser capacity on Commons. I've had access to the rollback tool and account creator status since February. Colds7ream (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: I'm intending to use the tools in support of my NPP and XfD work, deleting items meeting the CSD rather than just tagging them, and being able to deal more effectively with users abusing these areas of the project. I'd also like to make use of the tools in support of my main article subject area, solving issues with, say, persistent vandalism or users violating 3RR. I'd also like to help out in areas of dispute resolution.

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

A: I feel that the work I've done on Shuttle-Mir Program and International Space Station represents the best of my work, as it is an area, content addition, that I most enjoy and feel offers the most contribution to the project - I also take some pride with my other work in support of WP:HSF.

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 been involved in a few conflicts, for instance a discussion related to the accuracy of a graphic added to International Space Station, in which, having been unable to reach a consensus with the other editor involved, I requested a third opinion and the dispute was resolved as a result. Also on the International Space Station theme, there was recently a discussion with regards to English variations on the article, and, following a number of reversion battles between various editors, I opened a discussion on the talk page, and, when that failed to form a consensus, converted it to a RfC. The issue was solved as a result of that. As far as stress goes, the area of the project that causes the most anxiety is probably WP:FAC - I find that it can be a high pressure area, but invariably offers something constructive to either a user or an article, one way or another. On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that I edit Misplaced Pages because it's something I find enjoyable and rewarding, and, if I find myself growing stressed about anything, there's always the option to go and watch a few amusing clips on YouTube for a while. :-)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

4. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I suppose the main right of any Wikipedian is to freely make constructive contributions to the project without receiving abuse from editors opposed to their changes, suffering unfairly from blocks or otherwise when making beneficial changes on a controversial topic, and generally being treated with respect and friendliness by the rest of the community unless they have proved themselves to be unworthy of it. As far as this is concerned, I would uphold these rights by ensuring that (1) any editor abusing another should be engaged in discussion, and, if continually abusive, have other sanctions made against them, (2) an editor making an edit in good faith should not be chastised for it, even if the change is ultimately reverted, and (3) by aiming to keep any conflicts between editors non-abusive. I am also a firm believer in WP:BOLD, and consider that every editor has a right to follow it, as I feel it is what drives this project forward. As a result, I would aim to support any editor being bold and making a change that improves the encyclopaedia.

Questions from Rootology

5a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Misplaced Pages project, including any not in use currently?

A: The only account name I have ever used, with the exception of the odd IP edit or two back in the day before creating my account, is the one I am currently using.

5b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?

A: n/a

5c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?

A: n/a

6. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?

A: Personally, I feel the policy as it stands is a good one, for various reasons; firstly, and most importantly, the Siegenthaler incident represents what occurs, both inside and outside the project, when we don't get BLP articles correct - a negative press is something the project neither needs nor wants, and inaccuracies in BLP articles can really stir up a storm. Secondly, whilst it has not occurred yet, there is always the chance that someone subject to an inaccuracy in a BLP article may well call legal proceedings upon the project with regards to libel; this is a situation that has not been encountered yet and, as a result, no-one can know exactly how it would pan out, but I think it's important that we never find ourselves in this position in the first place. Finally, it is one of the central pillars of the project that we keep all our articles verifiable and accurate, and we should aim to maintain the exacting standards of the BLP policy elsewhere - nevertheless, I feel strongly that these are even more important with BLP given the repercussions that could be possible, and that the policy is a good one.

7. What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for WP:BLP subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year are coming to English Misplaced Pages in mid/late 2009?

A: I personally voted in favour of the trials, largely because of the points I made in response to the previous question; whilst the whole point of the project is, of course, to allow anyone to make changes, in situations where such changes could land us in legal difficulty, etc, the boundaries, I feel, get somewhat fuzzier. As a result, I feel the flagged revisions could well represent a powerful tool, but that they should only be used in subject areas, such as BLP, where they are absolutely necessary. Such an arrangement would, I think, offer us the best balance of the free speech we all hold so dear here and protecting the existence and reputaion of the project in the future.

8. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: I do, and I am. For instance, I am a serving member of the British Royal Air Force, am a medical student and hold fairly strong atheistic religious views. As a result, I have not and do not intend to engage myself in areas dealing with religions or other people's beliefs, nor in any articles regarding, say, criticism of the bombing of Dresden or Abortion, as my views would likely lead to a conflict of interest and bias when editing. Basically, I steer clear of any topics in which I could possibly get emotionally involved, and intend to continue in this manner in future.

9. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall? If so, why? If not, why?

A: I believe I would be - administrators are, after all, intended to help the project potter along smoothly, and, if the project members are unhappy with an administrator's actions, said admin should be held to account one way or another.

10. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?

A: I do - any actions made which result in damage to the encyclopedia or its community are damaging whether they are made by an IP editor or a member of the Arbitration Committee, and as a result I strongly feel that all editors, including administrators, should be subject to the same guidelines with regards to blocks; administrators can hardly expect other users to follow the guidelines if they themselves disregard them with impunity.

11. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A: 'The next big thing', I guess - whether it be a gadget, technological advancement or political idea, I do sometimes find myself being dragged along in the bandwagon for a while before taking a step back and acting in a less obsessional manner, which probably, on occasion, means I'm not exactly the best conversationalist in the world. :-)

Optional questions from — Σxplicit

12. If granted administrative tools, would you be willing to make difficult blocks? Why or why not?

A: I would - although I have revealed a lot about my life out there in the world on my userpage, I generally feel that if you're getting abuse from vandals, you're doing something right, and consider it more an encouragement to continue. :-) The main reason, though, would be simply the principle of the thing; we're all here to do a positive thing, and no-one should have to suffer abuse because of it; abusive editors need to be dealt with, end of story, and I'd be more than happy to do so, and deal with any fallout in a manner not dissimilar to WP:DGAF.

13. Is there an instance where you would speedy delete a page despite a {{hangon}} tag?

A: I suppose the only situations where I would ignore such a tag would be if the article blatantly constitutes CSD G1, G3, G5 or G10, and as a result is blatantly not going to be improved by subsequent editing, or if the tag has been present on the page for some time (say, a week, for example) without any argument being put forth on the talk page. In other cases, articles meeting CSD can generally be improved by efforts from an involved editor, particularly if other tags are added to the page to inform them, as to what work needs to be done. For instance, a page seemingly meeting A7 may have a reason as to why the subject is important added, or a page in the form of an advert could serve as a basic foundation for a full article about a company.

Optional questions from User:Oren0

14. In your answer to Q4 above, you state that "an editor making an edit in good faith should not be chastised for it." How far does the assumption of good faith carry? How would you deal with an editor who makes large and disruptive changes, apparently in good faith, and does not respond to messages on talk? Is there ever a circumstance where you might block an editor whom you believed to be acting in good faith?

A: I think that the good faith ideal generally persists until an editor proves themselves unworthy of it - for instance, if an editor makes an edit in good faith which is later undone for violating a policy, this action and its reasoning is explained to them on their talk page, but they engage in an edit war of repeatedly inserting their change and having it removed, then it can be presumed that some alternative action could be taken. Also, of course, if an editor signs up and immediately starts creating attack pages or vandalising BLP articles, then I think it can be taken as read that this editor is not acting in good faith. As for blocking en editor acting in good faith, I suppose this could occur if, for example, an editor begins to make sweeping changes to a well-established article (for instance an FA) without engaging in any dialogue on the talk page, and continuing to act in this manner after requests to not do so; for instance, in March of this year, an editor arrived on the ISS page and began to make large-scale changes in this manner (see Talk:International_Space_Station/Archive_6#FAC and the two following sections and User_talk:Colds7ream/Archive_1#ISS_grammar...). Had this editor continued making such changes, which they clearly believed to be improving things, yet were disruptive, I think some sort of blocking action would have had to be taken. As it was, the situation resolved itself, but had us worried for a little while.

15. Many administrative tasks require an "uninvolved" administrator. What does involvement mean to you and why is this important? Can you give an example where you might find yourself too involved to perform a given action?

A: As far as I'm concerned, ivolvement means having made major contributions to a certain article, holding strong beliefs regarding the subject of an article, or, most importantly, representing one of the opposing sides in, for instance, an RfC. It's important not to get dragged into discussions regarding outcomes in one of these situations due to the fact, simply, that a conflict of interest may cause you to act in an unfair manner or one whuch otherwise does not benefit the project - it's a similar arrangement to the rule in medicine which states that you may not give medical treatment to a relative, as you become too emotionally involved to do the job objectively. In that situation you can request another doctor, and here you can request the asistance of an uninvolved editor; one who does not have anything invested in the subject and who can make an objective decision on it, taking appropriate actions as a result.

Questions from Stifle

16. Regarding the policy section WP:IINFO, can there be an article which violates this principle without matching any of the entries there?

A. I suppose that the policy, given its relationship to WP:NOTE, means that an article about, say, a short-lived TV series, would not need umpteen sub articles detailing every aspect of filming, crewing, etc. about each of its episodes - such subarticles would be a collection of indescriminate information. Essentially, any topic, which, whilst meeting all the other pillars of the project, is not of any great importance or notability, would violate the spirit of the principle whilst not necessarily violating its letter.

17. As an administrator, you will have regular cause to interact with images and the non-free content criteria. Choose one of the following NFCC: 1, 2, 3, and 8, and explain what it means to you.

A. I'll try NFCC 1 - this, the one which stipulates that fair use pictures with a free alternative may not be used. This is implemented for various reasons, fo instance ensuring that any non-free images comply with the fair use law in the USA, giving the project some legal stability. In addition, the policy means that images used in the project can mostly be used by other projects freely, which is, of course, one of the founding principles here - that all the project's content be free as in free speech. Ensuring that images with free equivalents are not used helps to keep the majority of the files free for use, and encourages editors to go out and create an image of something which does not have a free equivalent available. This, of course, builds up the database in a beneficial manner, and keeps the use of non-free images to a minimum.

18. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Misplaced Pages?

A. As far as I understand it, hardly ever, as an image of a living person by definition violates item one of the NFCC policy. The image would have to have some content of extreme historical importance to remain in the database.

Additional optional questions from decltype

19. (updated with new question decltype (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)) As an admin, you come across this new article (in article space). You take a minute to think about what to do with it. In the meantime, another NPP changes it into the current revision. Now what do you do?

A: I think that what I'd do in this circumstance is recover the text from the original version (which is a constructive contribution) and place it on the talk page of the user who wrote it, alongside a welcome template (as it can be seen from their edit summary that they are a new user) and a message thanking them for their contribution, but that (a) information needs to be properly sourced, and (b) that very small articles like that don't generally survive on their own. I'd round off the message with an invitation for them to add it to a section in a the relevant parent issue once they can locate a good reference for the addition - after all, we don't want to be scaring off new editors who clearly want to make a positive contribution to the project. Finally, I'd execute the CSD deletion of the page.

Additional optional questions from FingersOnRoids

20 What is your opinion on the snowball clause? In what situations do you feel that it should be used? Should it be used at all?

A: I think that the clause itself can be a useful method of reducing the massive backload of work that the project currently has, which is, of course, a major drain on resources and editor's time. However, I do feel that it should be used only in cases where it is blatantly obvious that it need be called - for instance someone tagging an article under one CSD criterion when it is in fact dealt with by another one. In this case, removing the CSD tag and replacing it with another is a waste of the time of all involved, and so it could just be speedied. In cases where, for instance, an editor proposes a page change which is unlikely to gain overall support, though, I do feel it's important to go through the process of building a consensus, partly to ensure that the editor doesn;t feel as if they've been dismissed out of hand, but also because the result may turn out to be one that people didn;t expect. Basically, I like the clause in cases where acting otherwise would be overly pedantic or accepting of a totally ridiculous suggestion (say, changing the layout of the main page to solely show a picture of a teddy bear), but otherwise consensus should be allowed to run its course.

Additional optional questions from Lankiveil

21. What would you say should be done about a hypothetical user that had the following userbox on their user page:

This user supports the Iraqi resistance.

Assume for the purpose of discussion here that the user has not made any edits supporting this point of view in the mainspace.

A: I suppose in a situation such as this, you'd have to take a pragmatic approach. Everyone's got a right to express their views, whether other people think such beliefs are unpleasant or not. Such values are the root of a democratic society, and, whilst Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, we do hold the ideal of free speech somewhat dear. As a result, I'd be inclined to not take much action, so long as the editor refrains from making controversial edits in the mainspace, as such mainspace actions would (a) possibly lead to a violation of WP:SOAP, (b) generate a conflict of interest and (c) likely lead to a number of editors being offended/upset and a massive flame war erupting on the talk pages. Other than that, I don't think an administrator can punish someone for expressing an opinion on their talk page, particularly when you bear in mind the fact that Misplaced Pages is not censored either. Of course, if said editor started spreading this opinion around other areas in violation of WP:SOAP, some action would likely need to be taken. If action were required, I'd likely start off with a few talkpage messages before even beginning to think about administrator-dependent action.

Additional optional questions from Wrad

22a: Do you agree with this proposed wording change to protection policy?

A: I don't. As far as I can see, the original wording change in this thread would be overly restrictive, preventing an admin from, say, protecting a page they've been working on when a set of vandals comes along and starts repeatedly blanking the page, or some other nefarious deed (see the edits that lead to this discussion, for instance). As far as I can tell, this particular scenario should have been plenty dealt with by the uninvolved administrator rule, and a restrictive clause such as this would just make everyone's life more difficult. Personally I like the wording change proposed in the thread by User:Nihonjoe, which merges the Protection policy nicely with the uninvolved administrator rule. As a side note, I do feel that you, as the user who originally suggested the change, shouldn't have had the difficulty you did in getting the issue dealt with in the first place.

22b: As a follow up, if you ran into an admin who was not using the tools appropriately, what would you do?

A: Well, first off I'd set up a thread on their talk page, reminding them of the policy with respect to involved administrators, and requesting that they refrain from making any admin-only actions until after a consensus is formed. If they didn't stop from their disruptive actions, I'd probably do as you did, and make a Request for Comment, i.e. an administrator recall. If you look at my answers to questions 9 & 10 above, you'll see further details on my opinions on the matter of disruptive admins.

Additional optional questions from Jeromeplacec

23. How old are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromeplacec (talk • contribs) 15:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A: I'm twenty.

General comments

• Links for Colds7ream: Colds7ream (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Colds7ream can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Colds7ream before commenting.

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js Soxred93 edit counts posted on talk page.  Frank  |  talk  20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support; no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. A few borderline CSDs from several months ago don't bother me. –Juliancolton |  20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support, I believe he would be a good administrator. As another editor active in his main area of interest, I run into him quite frequently, and I think I have only ever had one serious issue with his editing (which was a unilateral page move made over a year ago and which has now been resolved). His work on the ISS article demonstrates commitment and attention to detail, which I feel are important qualities for administrators. --GW… 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support He has a couple iffy CSD's early, but those are long ago, and he has to have learned tons more by now... Until It Sleeps 21:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per my comments at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Colds7ream (my opinion is largely the same). Best, --A Nobody 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support I'll assume the presence of a belly button. Renaissancee (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support as I see no evidence the tools would be abused or misused. I recommend taking it slowly at first, though, until you are sure of yourself in situations you may not completely understand. ···日本穣 22:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Looks good, just be careful on speedy deletions in the beginning. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Support No reason to think he would misuse the tools. --t'shael 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - Per exchange below and Mal's diffs that I trust are fine. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support OK. Meetare Shappy 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Looks great! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Support, candidate looks fine. Wizardman 02:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. I see no issues that will impede Colds7ream's ability or willingness to correctly use the tools. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Colds7ream having use of admin tools will improve the flow of work on articles where we share an interest. (sdsds - talk) 03:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Needs to get a better grasp on some CSD issues (A7 for actor in notable show, A1 with context, G3 on non-obvious hoax (probably just non-notable), and of course as mentioned from 2 months ago, A7 with reliable sources and A7 on professor at notable university). Judging from the other contributions though, I trust the user to learn from those mistakes and to read some of the CSD related essays (like WP:FIELD, WP:WIHS, WP:10CSD or WP:A7M) before venturing in that area (and asking more experienced admins in that area for advice when needed). Regards SoWhy 06:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Air force? Enemy air force? guess my topics will be on the receiving end. Anyway, go ahead. NVO (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. excellent editor, I see no evidence the tools would be abused or misused by the user. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Why the hell not? Pmlinediter   08:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support No reason not to. America69 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
21. SupportHas the experience. --Abce2|AccessDenied 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. Going from memory, CSD work has been very good. Agreed with SoWhy. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support No reason to believe the tools will be abused and what Stifle said. rootology (C)(T) 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support good editor, sound of mind. will not abuse the tools. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong Support per above. Good answers. meets my standards. See no reason not to. Dlohcierekim 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Sure. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Support – Answers to the questions look good, and a spot check of recent contribs also look good. Break a leg! MuZemike 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Support-Reliable, trustworthy contributor, good luck! Dotty••|☎ 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Support, good background and has enough experience with policy to get started, and is willing to learn from mistakes. Mangojuice 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 23:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. He's not perfect, but nobody is. My recommendation is that you don't dive in too fast, though. Useight (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support, excellent answer to my question. No indication that user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC).
36. Support, lots of experience, calm and collected. Looks like they will learn the ropes quite well. John Vandenberg 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Support per above, should make a great asset, no reason to think he would be a bad admin ⊕Assasin Joe 14:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support, No reason to Oppose. OtisJimmyOne 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
40. I remember him clearly, very friendly and has a excellent temperament. ceranthor 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
41. Support – I haven't had any interactions with the user, but he appears to be trustworthy and I see no reason why s/he would misuse the tools. American Eagle (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Definitely.--Res2216firestar 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
43. Support, People learn from their mistakes, I trust this user with the tools. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I can support. MBisanz 20:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
45. Support SoWhy has brought some legitimate concerns, but the candidate's contribution generally looks good to me.--Caspian blue 20:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
47. Weak Support I dont see a reason for not supporting -- Tinu Cherian - 07:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
48. Support - Looks good to me. Holler if you have questions...there's plenty of advice to be had if you need it.  Frank  |  talk  10:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - Looks ok to me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - From my interactions with ColdReam, I'm glad to support him in his request for adminship. (X! · talk)  · @623  ·  13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Looks good to me. hmwithτ 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Looks good. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. Good answers to the questions. I see a net positive. — Σxplicit 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Excellent user. Triplestop (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. Good candidate. --Carioca (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Have come across several times, good edits, impressed with answers to the questions. KuyaBriBri 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
57. support Things seem to be in order here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
58. Support per my prior interactions with the editor. He will make an excellent admin, just be sure to read the manual first. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
59. Support per above. One two three... 06:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
60. Support No problems here. --Siva1979 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
61. Support He was always busy on anti vandalism which is a real problem these days. Jeromeplacec (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Overall track record looks good, though I concur with the recommendations to take it slow at first. GlassCobra 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Good grounding and sense of the role everyday users play. I don't necessarily agree with every word, but I like where he ends up. ~ Amory (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Some pretty good answers to questions. I like him. shirulashem (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
66. Support User has been around since March 2006,civil and believe user will show more discretion in CSD in future.See no scope for misuse of tools and feel project will only gain with user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
67. Support. Generally good contributions. Just please brush up on CSD criteria. Axl ¤ 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Took the words out of my mouth, Fastily :) YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. You'll do fine, solid track record. Keeper | 76 18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
70. Support - Colds7ream has only about 1200 article edits, but some of them are high quality edits. I analyzed his edits to Shuttle-Mir Program, and some of them are pretty good. AdjustShift (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
71. Support You don't learn without making some mistakes and acknowledging them. He'll do fine. KrakatoaKatie 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
72. Support I'll admit that I'd rather see more edits to work with, but what I can see looks like quality. Candidate appears to have a good grasp of policy and guidelines, and the answers to the questions were very good. I can't find a reason to oppose. — Ched :  ?  01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - would make a great admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
74. Support, will do a great job. Jozal 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
75.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Can't say we've met before, but you seem like a good candidate, no reason not to support. Hersfold 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
77. Support — Michel Mapaliey (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
78. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - nothing wrong here. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose - For misunderstanding of A7 here and here. CSDA7 needs to be accurate. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC). Changed to support. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state that, following these misedits, I took the time to study in-depth the criteria for all CSD proposals, and, I hope, am making more appropriate proposals as a result. Colds7ream (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I will take that into consideration - if an admin could verify the appropriate tagging of A7 after these incidents, much obliged. And no, because they were deleted does not mean they were accurate. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I will verify 1, 2, 3, and 4. Malinaccier (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - per q.13, this user doesn't mention ignoring hang on tags for G3, G10, or G12 cases.Fingers 15:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, that's my mistake - I did in fact mean G for those items in which I stated A in my answer to q13, and will edit the answer to reflect this correction; many thanks for pointing it out. As for G12, I maintain that, if, for instance, an editor has copied text across and intends to use it as basic starter information for an article, if they ensure that the information is fully removed when their editing is completed, and as a result such articles may be saved, if sufficient evidence that an editor intends to make these changes is given. If, on the other hand, the given reason is not legitimate, I would of course ignore the hangon tag in that circumstance. Colds7ream (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there, I would rather delete and leave a note on the creator's talk page saying that if they wish to recreate, they may do so, but only if they do not use copyrighted text. However, now that I see that it was just a simple typing error, and you do have a grasp on when to ignore the hang on tag, I will move to Neutral, pending further look at your contribs.Fingers 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A candidate cannot go unopposed :P Until It Sleeps 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
#Oppose - I have only ever seen Colds7ream while he has been working on WP:ACC. However, I feel that he often acts too hastily in these cases. One case where I can point to, though I cannot remember what # this was, was when User:Soap reserved a request, then unreserved it while he went to go follow up with the requester via email. However, instead of asking Soap why he unreserved, Colds7ream simply ignored the log, which was plainly visible to him, and instead created the account, which now contains a spelling error. In addition, Colds7ream recently "had tool access suspended by FunPika because: "Inappropriate closures of several requests most recently including #30752". Sorry about this ACC-only evidence, but this was more of a gut-instinct oppose because I feel that Colds7ream would act too hastily as an administrator. NW (Talk) 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - I have to say that some of my ACC decisions haven't exactly been brilliant, but those were largely due to a misunderstanding of what extra powers I had with my account creator status. As for the Soap incident, I don't remember that particular request, but I believe its not an error I would make again in the future thanks to experience I've had with the tool since. I would also like to point out that I fully intend to reapply for access to the tool. Colds7ream (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My access has now been restored. Colds7ream (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(conflicted) "* FunPika Approved, User 422 (Colds7ream) at 2009-06-04 22:15:16." aka unsuspended. Also, usually when a request is unreserved it is fair game for any one to reserve/handle again I believe. In that case I think that Soap keeping it reserved would have been the best idea. FunPika 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume some good faith here, and hope that you won't repeat these mistakes. Please do remember that you can take your time and act slowly (I should probably remember some of this myself :) ), in any area of Misplaced Pages that you work in. With the work that you have done, I don't suppose it is necessary to oppose over something that isn't as important as some of your other work. NW (Talk) 12:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Symbolic Oppose for CSD issues. To be honest, I think Colds7ream knows his stuff and is likely to make a good admin; but since this is passing anyway, I hope he won't mind me registering my concern here about his judgement with speedy deletions. The CSD criteria are extremely clear and precise for good reason, and it's essential that any admin who intends to work in this area knows them well enough not to make mistakes; as a bad speedy-deletion may not be noticed by anyone but the creator of the article, and they may not know how to contest it. The links provided by Wisdom89 above and Kingpin13 don't give me sufficient confidence that Colds7ream knows exactly what he's doing in this area. I apologise for my lack of trust, and very much hope it will prove mistaken. In the meantime, I would suggest that Colds7ream makes sure he's certain of all the CSD criteria before he gets the chance to press the delete button. Robofish (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

   Of course (although I was kinda getting used to the idea of an unopposed request... ;-D) - I think that I definitely need to consider the issues brought up here with my CSD tagging, and take them as an opportunity to improve my knowledge in an area where it needs to be stronger before I go on an inappropriate deletion rampage. I am and will continue to take the advice put on here with reference to reading materials, etc., and definitely make sure that any deletions I do make agree with the letter and spirit of the CSD criteria. Colds7ream (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Symbolic Oppose. Although it is not a requirement, I like to see a respected member of the community prepared to nominate the candidate. As far as Unopposed goes, please go slowly and remember that 60 or 70 votes here is in no way a mandate. Best of luck. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC))
3. Oppose Numbers 10 and up should be written as numerals, not spelled out. Keepscases (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   ...? –Juliancolton |  16:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   The implication, I believe, is that it should be Coldssevenream seeking adminship. ~ Amory (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   And he also provided "twenty" as his age (and was becoming too excited about going unopposed). Keepscases (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   This is pretty much the worst rationale for an oppose in the history of Misplaced Pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

   Really, were number semantics all you could think up?--Koji† 00:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   If I were Colds7ream, I'd take this kind of oppose as a compliment - if that's the best that can be mustered, then this AfD ain't too shabby. ~ Amory (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   AfD? ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I suppose everyone's entitled to voice their opinion - still, thanks for the messages of support, folks! Colds7ream (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Will not abuse the tools, but needs a few months more experience. -download ׀ sign! 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

   Er... he's been around since 2006. He's never been a particular high counter on edits per month, if you're meaning based on that? rootology/equality 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

   My opinion is that more activity is needed, especially if a candidate is using Twinkle and Friendly. Best, -download ׀ sign! 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral - Switched to neutral after the candidate corrected his answer, will take a further look at contribs before supporting or opposing.Fingers 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I probably would have supported, but the answer to Q6, while not "wrong," is missing the key part. Yes, lawsuits and PR are important, but the real people we affect with our articles and the idea of "basic human decency" are the most important reasons behind the BLP policy. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now, mostly per SoWhy and Mr.Z-man. How we affect the lives of real people is an order of magnitude more important than the public image of "the project". On the positive side, candidate seems to have the right temperament, and has contributed positively for a long time. Unfortunately, the answer to Q19 was not quite what I wanted. decltype (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, may I ask what it was that you were after, please? Colds7ream (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   A small hint: Did you examine the article's history? decltype (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   It's already been merged? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   Yes. Basically, your deletion of the article would constitute a GFDL violation, because the original author is no longer attributed. decltype (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral I was the one who asked FunPika to check out the account creation tool problems, and I would suggest that in the future Colds7ream makes sure to read the rules and guidelines before doing whatever he may be doing. Prodego 01:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral , per some of his CSD-related work, not having looked over much of his other stuff, and mainly because I can't see deleted edits to view his other work in this area, I'm goin' neutral, rather then oppose, but thought I should bring it up for the benefit of the nommed and "reviewers". CSD area is quite important (to me), especially if the user plans to work around there, so here goes: (all three recent) This is slightly disappointing, CSD#A7 makes it clear that A7 doesn't apply to schools, he removed this after another user pointed this out. This page clearly does not meet CSD#A1, which only applies to very short articles, which this isn't. Not as bad (in my opinion) as the other two, but CSD#G3 does only apply to blatant hoaxes/vandalism. If the user plans to "delete" under speedy deletion, I suggest they read the whole CSD page (again). I was also put off by this is where he removed "vandalism" using HotCats, without checking the page history (which if he had done he would have realised the the bot owner wanted that category there). - Kingpin (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

About RfB

• WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also 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 somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

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

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

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

Nihonjoe

Final (54/24/14); closed 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) as no consensus to promote. -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – I've been an active editor of Misplaced Pages since September 2005. Since May 2006, I've been an active admin here and participated in a wide range of admin activities (Xfd, CSD, DRV, the occasional AIV, etc.), as well as participating in various policy and guideline discussions which caught my eye, and participating in RfA and RfB discussions (though more often than not, I don't always weigh in on all discussions even though I do follow them quite regularly). I also follow the discussions on WT:RFA regularly even though I only rarely offer an opinion there. I have also helped with OTRS issues, regularly answering questions sent in via email, as well as beginning to help with permissions messages (I wanted to make sure I knew what the process was before handling any of them).

I've made edits on too many language Wikipedias to count (I have accounts on over 200 of them), and I'm in the middle of a major contribution to expanding Japanese coverage on Wikisource (it's a lot of work transcribing a book!). I've also made a decent number of contributions to Commons, including moving many properly licensed images from the Japanese and English Wikipedias to Commons so they can be used by all WMF projects with access to Commons.

I was last here at RfB over two years ago. During that time, I have greatly expanded my knowledge of policies and guidelines, and helped (as noted above) in discussing potential and actual changes to them. I have a solid understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and a solid understanding of what it takes to be a good admin. I believe I would be a solid bureaucrat as well, and humbly offer my services as such. ···日本穣 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. The criteria to promote are for the bureaucrat to review all the comments and information within each discussion and then determine the consensus based on that discussion. While the general consensus is that candidates with 80% or more support will generally pass an RfA, this is not always the case. It's very important to make sure the discussion is thoroughly reviewed in order to determine the consensus and weigh all the arguments given in the discussion.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. In such situations, it's important to review the discussion even more closely in order to make sure to gain a solid understanding of the consensus of those participating. In highly contentious nominations, this can sometimes be difficult and take some time, but it's important to make sure all arguments and concerns are understood so that correct determination of consensus can be made. Along the way, it is important to make sure any decision is backed by solid information about why the decision was made so that any questions regarding the final outcome can be properly and thoroughly addressed. When people raise specific issues regarding a particular outcome, it's important to treat their concerns with respect and answer them in a direct manner, without any sidestepping of the issues.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. As stated above, I have several years of experience applying those policies and guidelines, and I think I have applied them with fairness during that time. I have participated in numerous talk page discussions across all namespaces (some more than others), and I try to work toward amicable and reasonable outcomes. While I certainly don't agree on everything with everyone I've worked with (I would be concerned if I did), I try to work through any disagreements and come to some sort of conclusion which is acceptable to everyone involved. This requires give-and-take on the part of everyone involved, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I am certainly not perfect, but I apologize when I'm clearly wrong and I try to be friendly and work with others in a generally positive way. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, and that's my main goal here: to help make Misplaced Pages the largest and best encyclopedia on the planet.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, or at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard where such discussion would be transparent?

A. Yes to the first, and yes to the second unless the issue being discussed would unnecessarily invade the privacy of the individual concerned. These cases would likely be extremely rare, though.

5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. Yes, and I regularly visit all of them. As stated above, I tend to lurk more than participate in the discussions on the associated talk pages unless I have strong opinions one way or the other. I think, for a bureaucrat, it's more important to closely observe such discussions than it is to constantly participate in them (though I have no problem with those who do constantly participate).

6. Do you pledge never to promote a person with whom you are affiliated?

A. Yes, as that would be a conflict of interest.

Optional question from Dank

7. You mentioned "candidates with 80% or more support will generally pass an RfA, this is not always the case." Are there any RFAs that got 80% or more where you would have recommended "no consensus"?

A: I don't know that I have any specific discussion in mind. The "80%" is just a general observation which is generally true.

Optional question from Aitias

8. Please explain how you would have closed the following discussions:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Orlady
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Smith609
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Rootology
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cirt
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Zedla
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Number 57
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_3
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Everyking_5
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Aitias 2
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Avraham_2
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Ral315
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Quadell
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3

A: Well, seeing as I !voted in some of them, I'll have to defer to the decision made by the closing 'crat on these as my opinion is very clearly in the discussion itself: FlyingToaster 2, Ryulong, Everyking 5.

For the Orlady discussion, I think this was very close, and I think the closure could have gone either way and been valid. I probably would have closed it as no consensus, but I respect Anonymous Dissident's closure as valid.

For the Smith609 discussion, this one (again) was very close and the closure could have gone either way. In this case, I would have closed it as successful for the reasons expressed by bibliomaniac15.

For the Rootology discussion, this one (again—you seem to have picked a lot of them like this) was very close. In this case, it was closed with reasoning that we need to forgive editors who have shown they are turning over a new leaf. While I agree with this idea, I also find many of the comments voicing concern over how soon it was after he was unbanned to be compelling and I likely would have closed it as unsuccessful due to how close it was, how serious the raised concerns were, and how recently he was unbanned.

For lustiger seth, this one is difficult. He basically needed the tools for development-type reasons (working with the WP:SBL), If it weren't for the admin status on dewiki and meta, I would have closed it as unsuccessful without any question at all. However, as he has been working on the same issue on other wikis, and has been trusted with the admin bit on both meta and dewiki, I agree with the reasoning given by Deskana in closing the discussion as successful.

I agree with the closing comments from WJBscribe on the Cirt discussion, and I would have closed the discussion in the same manner.

I would have closed the Zedla discussion as no concensus, and I'm concerned at the lack of any closing comments at all on this discussion. Due to the extremely low participation in the discussion (55 total participants who expressed opinions), I don't think there were enough people expressing support for the nomination to make a valid successful closure decision.

The Number 57 discussion was a difficult one. While some of the concerns raised by those opposed to the nomination, there was clear evidence of canvassing against the nominee (whether those doing the canvassing thought it was canvassing or not). I think this one could have gone either way, and while I likely would have closed it as no consensus, I can understand how it could also be closed as successful. No closing comments on this one concerned me as I think that any potentially controversial closure should have a clear explanation of why the final decision was made, as well as the thought process behind the decision.

I would have likely closed as unsuccessful the LessHeard vanU discussion as I do not believe a sufficient support was shown to justify a successful closure. This discussion was very close, however, so I do not fault the successful closure.

I remember the Carnildo discussion quite well. I would have closed it as unsuccessful as there was very clearly no consensus for a successful closure despite the various attempts at reasoning offered by Taxman and others. While bureaucrats are given some leeway when making decisions which are close calls (such as most of the ones listed here in this question), I do not believe this closure fell anywhere near the leeway allowed for such closures.

I would make no changes to the unsuccessful close of the Aitias 2 discussion as I don't believe adequate support was shown to support a successful outcome. The concerns raised in opposition were valid and carried a lot of weight in this discussion.

The Avraham 2 was close, as noted in the Bureaucrat discussion (which I think was a very good idea in this case). If I had been participating in that discussion, I would have closed it as unsuccessful as well. I think the reasoning offered in the linked discussion is very well thought out and a valid interpretation of consensus.

I agree with the closure of the Ral315 discussion. While bureaucrats have some discretion interpreting "close" discussions, I don't believe this discussion falls within that "gray area". I don't believe sufficient support was shown for a successful close.

On the Quadell discussion, I don't believe sufficient support was shown. While I believe many of the oppose opinions were somewhat weak, I think this was offset by the number of support opinions which offered no explanation for the opinion. Therefore, I don't believe sufficient support was shown for a successful close.

I agree with the reasoned discussion on the closure of the Riana discussion. The oppose opinions expressed were very clear and valid (as opposed to being frivolous), so they carried a lot of weight in the final decision. I believe the the issues raised in opposition were significant enough to support the unsuccessful close of this very close discussion.

The Andrevan3 discussion was a close one, and could have been closed either way. I would have held a discussion with other bureaucrats (such as those used in some of the other discussions mentioned here) in this case in order to determine proper consensus. I think this one was close enough to warrant such a discussion.

That was a lot to go through, and I hope I've answered the questions sufficiently. It's difficult being asked to second guess previous decisions made, especially on discussions which were quite close and could have gone either way. ···日本穣 07:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

9. I noticed that nine of the RFA !votes you've cast recently were on the 7th of May, in one case only two minutes apart. How much research would you expect an RFA !voter to do on a candidate before participating in an RFA?

A. I would expect someone to review the comments already posted in the RfX, as well as review the contributions and interactions of the candidate. The timeframes you mention are a little misleading as I tend to look through everyone and then post comments. I generally take notes while I'm looking through someone's contributions, so it's fairly quick and easy to refer to the notes and express my opinions on several in quick succession. ···日本穣 17:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from Keepscases

10. Do you believe that Breaststroke is an appropriate Misplaced Pages user name? Why or why not?

A: As it's the name of a particular type of swimming movement, I don't see a problem. I can see why some people might read possible offensiveness into it, but unless a name very clearly violates WP:UN, I don't see a problem with it. ···日本穣 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

11. Day 1 of an RFA an editor opposes with a particular rationale, and a number of other editors oppose per that editor. On day two that editor shifts to support, but five days later at the end of the RFA there are still 12 opposes per from editors who don't appear to have revisited the discussion since the editor they are opposing per changed position. What weight do you ascribe to those !votes and in which direction do you count them (in this hypothetical example there are 88 other !votes, 69 supports and 19 opposes)

A: It would depend on what the original reason for opposing was, I think. If the original reason for opposing was due to some misunderstanding which was cleared up, then I think the "per so-and-so" opposes would necessarily carry less weight due to no longer having a valid basis for the oppose. If, on the other hand, the original reason on which they based their opinion was a legitimate concern which was not or could not be adequately addressed and resolved—and therefore could still be a factor in the opinions expressed by others—I think they would still carry the weight. Without a specific example, though, it's difficult to make a determination. In this case, as in any other which appears on the surface to be close to successful, I think it would definitely warrant much more careful consideration of all of the arguments than a discussion which was obviously and overwhelmingly one way or the other. Then, once a decision was made, I would include a well-reasoned statement explaining the thought process that led to the decision. ···日本穣 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from Gavin Collins

12. Why do you archive so many discussions on talk pages of topics which are the subject of edtioral disputes? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A: Gavin, that's a disingenuous question and you know it. I archive old discussions which haven't been touched on for months. Just because you think a discussion which has had no posts for over three months (or seven months) is still active doesn't mean everyone is going to see it that way. Now, if you have a real question that has something to do with bureaucratship, feel free to add it here. ···日本穣 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from Pmlinediter

13. In an RfA, say 70 users Supported, 50 Opposed and 5 were Neutral. However, most of the opposes are very weak, such as "He mistakenly tagged an article with A7 a year ago" or "This user's last RfA was only 3/4 months ago" and most others are "Per User:____". How would you close such an RfA?

A: RfAs are not about percentages, so I'd have to evaluate the discussion based on the actual discussion. If you want to see some real examples, please review the big list above ("Optional question from Aitias"). ···日本穣 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from Pmlinediter

14. An RfA ended with 60% support and 40% opposes. However, the main issue raised was by an user who was:-a) a sock puppeteer (discovered after the RfA was closed) or b) an account created few minutes before the RfA was started and most other opposes are per him. What would do in such a situation. (I'll prefer an answer individually to both parts).

A: RfAs are not about percentages, so I'd have to evaluate the discussion based on the actual discussion. If it was shown that one or more of the participants was a sock, then that would be taken into account appropriately. The same applies to a possible SPA. If you want to see some real examples of what I'd do, please review the big list above ("Optional question from Aitias"). ···日本穣 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from Ax

15. What are you willing to go through to have this position, bureaucrat?

A: The normal process, just like any other potential bureaucrat. If there is more to your question than that, please clarify. ···日本穣 10:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This answer is okay. Awaiting your answer to my other question.

Question from Ax

16. Why should I vote for an Oppose?

A: I'm sorry, but I do not understand your question. Please clarify. ···日本穣 10:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If I opposed your bureaucratship? What do you think Misplaced Pages will be missing?

Thank you for the clarification. I think Misplaced Pages would be missing out on someone who has an excellent grasp on what bureaucrats do, as well as a fair-minded bureaucrat. I think my answers above, especially the ones to Aitias' questions, show that I understand the applicable policies and procedures, and have a good handle on how they should be applied. The main points of a good bureaucrat are whether they understand how to determine consensus (which I have shown that I do) and whether they have a good grasp on the applicable policies, guidelines, and procedures (which I do). ···日本穣 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe
• Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 2
• Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 3
• Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4
• Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion

• Links for Nihonjoe: Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Nihonjoe can be found here.
• Promote Nihonjoe (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• Editing/admin stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Has the needed experience. -download ׀ sign! 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. You are an extremely experienced editor and administrator which leads me to support. The only worry I have is your lack of actual participation at WT:RFA and on RfAs themselves. I will assume good faith and believe that you are lurking, though I hope you will take a more active role at RfA in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per Malinaccier. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Strongly: my interactions with Nihonjoe have always been positive, and I have no problem with him being a bureaucrat. Also due to what I said here. Acalamari 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Switched from neutral. Sure; seems trustworthy upon further evaluation. –Juliancolton |  23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support as candidate has never been blocked and as in the literally dozens of AfDs the candidate closed in which I commented, only 4 closes were incorrect, so judgment overall is sound and thus would probably trust to close other consensus reaching discussions such as RfAs. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Support per A Nobody and Malinaccier. tempodivalse  00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Support — I have several reasons to believe that this editor is suited for the bureaucrat tools. 1) Long-time editor and admin who has a proven track record of thoughtfulness and fairness; 2) Active participation in XfD indicates that Joe (if it's ok to call him that) has solid experience in determining consensus; 3) Answers to the questions indicate that Joe has a decent understanding of the role of a 'crat and will not promote a candidate without thoroughly thinking things over; 4) Not so much a reason to support in itself, but participation at WT:RFA is not, in my honest opinion, a good criterion to oppose an RfB over. Very few things are ever accomplished on that page — the discussions revolve around generally trivial issues that mean very little in the scheme of things. I lurk there too, and I also rarely participate in discussions unless they are interesting enough to me. But back to the point, Nihonjoe is no fool, and I'm pretty sure we can trust him not to break Misplaced Pages as a 'crat. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   But there is a key difference. People know that you are a lurker because you participate on occassion. I lurk on ANI and sometimes get dragged into discussions I wasn't planning on joining. It happens. Nihonjoe's last post to WT:RFA was on June 1... 2007. That combined with the fact that prior to May, he had only partaken in two RfA's in the previous two years. He's done nothing to demonstrate his views on RfA/RfB or any of the other 'crat areas.---I'm Spartacus! 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't realize it had been that long since he made an edit to the talk page. I'm a semi-active contributor to that page, commenting when I see something that catches my eye. I certainly trust Nihonjoe enough for the role, but then you do have a point — it's hard to really be able to assess somebody's understanding of a role when they have minimal experience in areas related to that role. It doesn't seem very likely that this RfB will pass considering the opposition, so it may be moot for me to change to neutral or oppose. I guess it should be considered more of a "symbolic support" for this editor in appreciation for all he's done to make Misplaced Pages a better place, otherwise a somewhat weaker support considering his lack of experience (didn't realize he lacked that much - I don't do really in-depth analysis's of candidates, because it would take too much time for me). Master&Expert (Talk) 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

10. Support Joe appears to have an excellent track record as an editor and an admin. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Not a controvercial admin as far as I know. Also an excellent track record. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support, passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Not too convinced, but have no big reservations. Support per answer to Aitas' question. Pmlinediter   08:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Support (Changed from oppose) Activity in the bureaucrat-related areas is entirely irrelevant, if one has the only quality that's relevant for a bureaucrat — good judgement. Given Nihonjoe's answer to my question (Q8), I have no doubt at all that Nihonjoe possesses this quality. Thus, I'm happy to support. — Aitias // discussion 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Absolutely. Nihonjoe has a clue, and as evidenced by his answers appreciates and employs nuance and critical thinking. Not being a WT:RFA groupie is also a strong plus, given that 90% of the conversation there is either about DougsTech, spillover from IRC/WR, or some combination of the two. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Response to Aitias' question demonstrates plenty of clue. Candidate does not need to be part of the bi-monthly "NOT ENOUGH CANDIDATES HOW DO WE MAKE MORE CANDIDATES HERE ARE MY IN-DEPTH IDEAS OH GOD WAIT NOW TOO MANY CANDIDATES HELP" screeching freak-outs to understand the underlying principles of consensus. In fact, I propose that his distance from the WT:RFA crowd is in fact a good thing - there is such a thing as caring too much, and getting sucked into various ideacliques is very counter-productive to the Bureaucratics' role as neutral third party observers, rather than biased second party participants. Most of the really awful, questionable, or "merely" controversial Bureaucratic decisions seem to have a common undercurrent of cliquery - "this is close, but you're my buddy, so as long as there's some support, I can brush aside the criticisms without really personally addressing them" reduces "gauging consensus" to mere "counting heads". I'm surprised so many of the opposes here seem to be arguing the opposite. Badger Drink (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Shouldn't be a problem.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Largely per Badger Drink. wt:rfa is a tedious fairground ride where the same dreary fads and revelations come round every couple of days or so. Only the neurotic or the narcissist would resolve to leave his stamp in every discussion there. In the absence of any substantive reason to distrust him, Nihonjoe looks an excellent candidate for bureacratship. Flowerparty 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support All opposes as of this edit are only about what the nominee is currently involved in. He/she has no problems, and I don't see a reason to not support. Renaissancee (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Sure. — Jake Wartenberg 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. Total trust in his ability to react calmly and fairly to drama. Total confidence that he won't cause drama himself. Long, consistent record of involvement in the project. While the opposers are discussing recent involvement in RfA, I have difficulty understanding why anyone would doubt Nihonjoe's understanding of what RfA entails or doubt that he could perform the job well. Dekimasuよ! 01:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support No issues, user has exhibited fair judgement. --Maverx (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. I think users hold bureaucrat candidates to ridiculously high standards. I disagree with most of the discussion below in the oppose section, also noting a significant amount of hypocrisy within a few of the opposition comments when reflecting the behavior and actions of the corresponding users. But that's all beside the point here. I've seen Nihonjoe around and trust his judgment. The user hasn't done anything that anybody has deemed unacceptable or in poor judgment but are just complaining about what Nihonjoe hasn't done. While this should definitely hold some weight in such a venue, I believe people are giving it too much weight. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
24. I think I supported last time. It's been so long I don't remember. Yes, please. Keegan 04:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support, trustworthy admin, good answers to the questions and I think will be a good judge of consensus. Dreadstar † 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support per M&E, Stifle, and Aitias. --Philosopher  04:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Since you were here since 2005, I see no reason for opposing given the 3+ years of experience. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Support No issues here. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - I originally had reservations about this request due to some of the issues pointed out below, specifically a lack of active participation in the areas where a bureaucrat is likely to be most important, ie. RFA and related pages. However, I find I am swayed by the argument that good judgement is, ultimately, the most important qualifier for the "position" and based on the answers above and a little additional research it looks to me like the candidate does indeed possess the required good judgement. One need not be a policymaker to be a solid enforcer of policy; one need not be an active participant in the discussions to be a good judge of their outcome. Shereth 15:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Support It shouldn't matter whether or not the candidate is active in the particular field in which he wants to work. As long as he has good judgment, he deserves to be promoted. The answers to the questions convince me Nihonjoe has good judgment in bureaucrat areas, so I see no reason to oppose. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I've seen him around a lot, I wonder why others haven't. And in every case I've thought his contributions were good and rational. I don't see reason why a bureaucrat should need to have had significant participation in RfA. So basically: good editor/admin and I don't find the oppose arguments relevant. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Support has my full trust. Durova 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Fully qualified and admin actions have been outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
34. I support because I see good work and plenty of clue, and feel I can trust Nihonjoe's judgment, but I also support for the reasons Badger Drink mentioned. There was a recent query on the talk page regarding criteria for RFBs, and I almost added one of the qualities I look for in a b'crat: disinterest. Nihonjoe shows traits of DGAFism when it comes to RFA, and that is something I consider suitable for this very particular job. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Opposition is far from convincing. Perceived inactivity is a relative thing (inactive by what gold standard?), and I think Nihonjoe looks trustworthy. Let's assume good faith here. Steven Walling (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Support I'm impressed with this user. Pzrmd (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Am impressed by the editor's responses to the questions and particularly by his responses to the oppose votes. Well explained, forceful, and no pandering. Just what we need in a crat. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Weak support - I think that your answers to Aitias' question show that you know what you are doing, but it would probably be better if you had more edits in crat areas. J.delanoy_adds 23:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support per answers to Question 8. t'shael 00:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
40. Support per not enough... Nevermind. Looking through the diffs and contribs, I find only positive contributions to Misplaced Pages. The candidate shows the desire to improve, protect, and defend our site. I think the answers to the questions are honest, forthright, and of quality content. I see no reason to oppose this. — Ched :  ?  04:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I see no problem with this admin. I think he is willing to learn and sort things out if he becomes a bureaucrat. ax (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
42. Support No problems here. This user has my trust. --Siva1979 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I see no reason to oppose. This admin has exhibited fair judgement.--Bukubku (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I have looked through the opposes and neutrals and well, frankly, I find them quite unconvincing. This user has shown a desire to improve and learn from past mistakes and will probably make an excellent crat. Good Luck! -FASTILY 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Fair and trustworthy admin. Oda Mari (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
46. Support There seems to be this mantra that an admin must have a high enough drama mongering level before he or she can be considered for bureaucrat. Thankfully, this admin has no interest in such BS. I have full confidence in this candidate. Vodello (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
47. Support – User is trustworthy, capable and will be an asset with the extra tools. American Eagle (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
48. When are you guys going to get it? He could talk about RFA all the time for all I care, and still lack good judgment. But he doesn't he has excellent judgment, and is wise to stay clear of WT:RFA. I think Joe will make an extremely good and influential bureaucrat. ceranthor 12:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - No reason to oppose, looks a great candidate. SD5 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. Looks good to me. OtisJimmyOne 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. I read and considered the oppose votes below, most of which appear to be variations of Majorly's rationale, and I respectfully don't agree with them. When Nihonjoe says that he has actively observed RfAs as a lurker, I believe him. About the allegations of bias by Caspian Blue, please consider the source of that accusation before putting any credence in it. If you want to know more about what I'm talking about, just leave a note on my talk page. Cla68 (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. I'm not very convinced by the opposes. Spencer 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
53. Support He has my trust for quite some time now. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
54. Support   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. You simply are not very active at all in the areas you wish to work - namely RFA, which is all that matters really (I don't care for clerking at CHU, or hanging out at bot requests - it's RFA that is the most contentious area). It's all very well watching them, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to take part, but I don't believe I've ever really seen you (at least recently) get involved, which shows a sign of interest. Sorry. And please don't just get active on RFA just for the sake of passing RFB next time, because that will be frowned upon by many. Either you're interested or you aren't, and you just don't seem to be. Majorly talk 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Per Majorly. Lurking is one thing, active participation is another. I am struggling to remember any valued input at WT:RFA and WP:RFA - and for a bureaucrat, that's just not a good sign. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 23:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

   Most bureaucrats don't hang out at WT:RFA and comment on everything. The most important thing for a bureaucrat is to be aware of the discussions and any change in consensus on policy, guidelines, and procedures so that any actions are in accordance with current policies, guidelines, and procedures. As I said, I tend to lurk and only comment when I have a really strong opinion on a particular topic. Most of the time, others have already stated an opinion which matches my thoughts on an issue, and theirs is generally better worded than mine would have been, too. ···日本穣 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

3. As noted by Majorly, you don't seem to be active at RFA and related pages. If by your third request for the shinier tools, you still don't seem to have shown a consistent and well-grounded interest in RfA and its processes, this RfB only looks like hat collecting. Sorry, but I do not trust your judgment. ÷seresin 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   #Per the points explained by Majorly, Wisdom89 and Seresin above. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Changing to support. — Aitias // discussion 12:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   Also, please note that I might reconsider later on in case of an outstandingly good answer to my question. — Aitias // discussion 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know if my answer is outstanding, but it sure took a while to review all those discussions. Thank you for the opportunity to review them. ···日本穣 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Per this and this, you've never edited WT:Bots/Requests for approval or WP:CHU, and others have mentioned the RFA situation. I don't think you've made a case for what you'd be doing as a crat. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   Also, I see no username blocks in the past 3 years, and no edits ever to WP:UAA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   What does blocking (of any sort) have to do with being a bureaucrat? I've done several hundred blocks in my time as an admin (see the stats on the talk page if you're interested). UAA has nothing to do with bureaucrats as any admin can block someone for breaking username policy. CHU is where bureaucrats would work, and I've not really made many edits there as the work is handled by bureaucrats and I've rarely seen it needing a ton of attention (meaning things seem to generally be under control there). ···日本穣 02:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   UAA has quite a bit to do with bureaucratship. 'Crats are expected to be intimately familiar with the username policy, so they can make accurate calls at CHU. –Juliancolton |  03:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, yes, but blocking has very little (if anything) to do with it. Unless the people mentioned at UAA are brought up at CHU, I don't think bureaucrats come into the picture (again, as any admin can block someone breaking the policy or direct them to CHU should they wish to change their username. Username policy is fairly straightforward, too (at least I see it that way). ···日本穣 03:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   The username policy is actually quite complex (I say that as someone with ~1000 edits to UAA and about 500 associated blocks). And indeed, blocks demonstrate sufficient knowledge in the area. –Juliancolton |  03:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   Username blocks and/or edits to WP:CHU or WP:UAA would demonstrate knowledge of WP:U, which takes quite a while to learn thoroughly. I'm a little concerned that you say above that you're ready to help out at CHU when you have no practical experience with anything username-related, and that you want me to trust you at CHU with no evidence. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose I expect a crat to be very well-known in the community and to firmly have the trust of the community. I don't have an opinion about Nihonjoe since I've never heard of him/her before, so from my point of view I don't know if either point is necessarily true. I have much higher expectations from a crat candidate than an admin candidate. I expect a crat's contributions have already told their story of why they should be a crat without having to do any research. Sorry. Royalbroil 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, we must not edit the same articles that much, or participate on similar pages. Given that there are over 2.9 million articles on WIkipedia, and over 16 million total pages across all namespaces, it's not unusual to run across other editors (even admins) who you haven't heard of. I suspect that will happen more and more often as the encyclopedia continues to grow. Feel free to review my contributions as I feel they do speak for themselves. Thank you for your comments. ···日本穣 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   Editors here are expected to research candidates for RfA who they're unfamiliar with. Is it really a valid reason to oppose an RfB without research if you aren't personally familiar with what the candidate has done? We're talking about someone who has been an admin for three years, has performed over 5000 administrator actions, and has over 50000 edits (including policy discussion and adding a great deal of content). If he hasn't made waves, I would instead see that as a positive attribute and a likely indicator of neutrality in future RfAs. Dekimasuよ! 10:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

6. I'll be honest with you, looking over the oppose rationales from your first two RfB's I have to say I'm shocked... some of those reasons were pretty lame. That being said, there was an undercurrent in them that said, Joe doesn't have experience in the areas where 'crats work. He doesn't work there and doesn't have a footprint in them. You've run for 'crat twice, you've been told that you need experience in the areas where crats work. You claim to monitor RfA/RfB's so you should know that people want to see experience in those areas, yet you haven't prevailed it upon yourself to gain that experience? I was going to pose it as a question, why? But I decided that if you really wanted to work in these areas, then you would have gained a some experience therein. You would have taken to heart the comments from previous RfB's questioning your preparation for the tasks at hand. You would have taken to heart the objections posed to others who have failed their RfB's. The fact that you have not done so says that you didn't listen to the community's voice when it speaks or you don't care. Looking at your edit history, I see somebody who is incredibly silo'ed in his edits. 80 plus percent of your edits relate to Japan. Almost all of the AfD's I saw you involved with were on Japan. If you exclude the month of May, where you participated in a handful of RfA's, you've only been involved in 2 RfA's in the past two years! I'm sorry, but if you are interested in a job get some experience and desire to work those jobs. The fact that you have virtually no experience in any of the areas where 'crats work has me wondering why you want to be a 'crat?---I'm Spartacus! 08:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   So in order to "have experience", I need to post a lot to WT:RFA, or participate in every/most RfA and RfB? I don't think posting comments on that page or posting a comment to every RfX shows any more knowledge of how the process works than posting an opinion on an AfD shows knowledge of the AfD process. There are people here who oppose every candidate for no reason, or for bizarre reasons such as "we have too many", or just because the person is feeling contrary. I don't think these people have a true understanding of the process or they would be posting a valid and more specific reason and actually trying to determine if the person was familiar with a wide range of policies, guidelines, and processes. The processes involved in acting as a bureaucrat are fairly simple: review RfX discussions to determine consensus and then close the discussion accordingly; review requests for username changes to determine if they are within policy and then respond to them accordingly; and reviewing information on bot requests and information and recommendations presented by the BAG regarding pending bot requests and make the changes in bot status accordingly. The job of a bureaucrat, in almost every way, is far simpler than that of an admin. The only difficult part is determining consensus on particularly contentious RfXs (the other parts are pretty straight forward, IMO).

   Yes, the job is fairly straight forward, but you have shown no interest in any of the areas where 'crats work. Zero. You've shown no desire to acquire experience in any of these areas, despite the fact that that the issue was brought up at your last RfB and at most of the failed RfB's over the past year. If you had been paying attention to the previous RfB's you would know that having demonstratable experience/exposure to 'crat areas is expected. You also missed an important part of being an admin/crat in your above description and that is to listen to what the community says. The community has spoken generally (and specifically to you) about what the general expectations are, and those general expectation include garnering a token about of experience in the 'crat areas BEFORE gaining the tools. The fact that you refuse, doesn't speak well to your listening to what the community presents before you. I might be able to over look a lack of experience in somebody submitting their name to RfB for the first time, those candidates are the one's who might not have contemplated running for it, but decided to give it a go nonetheless. The fact that this is your third attempt, indicates that you've given this some thought, but still refuse to listen to the community's expectations. The fact that I can't see any reason, based upon your past edit patterns that you need or want the use the tools, makes me wonder why you want the 'crat hat? Let me draw a comparison to RfA, on occassion people will submit their names for RFA, and state a desire to work in a specific area. Now if they explicitly state they want to work a specific area, there is an expectation that they have some experience in that area. Otherwise the community cannot judge them. Similarly, if there is no experience in those areas, the question becomes how sincere are they about working there? And how many of them actually perform work in those areas after they get the bit? If there is no involvement before hand, what are the odds of continued involvement afterwards? I just don't see you working in 'crat areas. Finally, you make an argument that posting to crat area talk pages doesn't make one really qualified, then you cite the example of a person who opposes everybody with "we have too many." Well, your argument fails because we know those people don't understand the communities guidelines/expectations, We know that they have bizarre or generally unaccepted philosophical positions related to these tasks. We know that because they are involved. With you, we have no clue as to how you weigh various issues at the various 'crat areas because you have zero experience there.---I'm Spartacus! 14:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   To sum it up, I don't think posting a lot of comments to the talk page or to a lot of RfXs necessarily means the person in question has a good grasp of the applicable policies, guidelines, and processes, and I know the processes very well as I've had years of experience working with them and applying them as an admin. Stating that I have "virtually no experience" in these areas is just not true. Rather, the criteria you are using to assess my knowledge and experience is based on what I believe is faulty reasoning. If you have specific questions which you think would accurately determine my knowledge and experience, feel free to add them above and I will answer them. ···日本穣 09:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, let me redact, you have no demonstrated experience in any of the areas where 'crats work and no demonstrated willingness to work in those areas despite previous RfB attempts where this issue was raised?---I'm Spartacus! 15:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose First, let me say that as an admin, I don't see anything wrong. But after reading Majorly's oppose v!ote, I am swayed to oppose. Sorry. America69 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Lack of visible experience in the areas 'crats work in. Nihonjoe, posting at RfA, T:RfA, all the rest might not show that you know the policies, but it provides a way for the community to check you know the policies - the same reason we wouldn't give a user with 500 edits the tools. Yes, they might be excellent edits, but with such a small number it is difficult to make sure that the person grasps all the relevant policies. Of course, if you spent time around RfA, you'd know this. I note that a similar point was brought up in your last RfB, and that this is a point you have obviously failed to address. We wouldn't promote an admin who failed to address points from a previous RfA, yet alone a 'crat. The problem with your attitude (well, the main one, there are several) is this - as a bureaucrat, you will be required to judge community consensus in RfAs, weeding out opposes based on complete bollocks and making a decision when consensus is on a knife-edge between "yes, we want him as an admin" and "no, we don't want him as an admin". The idea that a prospective admin or 'crat should be experienced in the areas in which he or she wishes to work is an accepted one, and I don't like the idea of RfA yea/nay decisions being made by a man whose opinion of what is or is not needed for a potential admin or bureaucrat runs completely against the grain of what the community feels. I've probably phrased this all rather badly, but I hope I got my opinion across. Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   oppose per Majorly, per Dank. And yes, more participation at WP:RFA, WT:RFA and WP:BN would give us a better idea as to how you think about RFA. It would increase your exposure. The more people know you, the more people know if they want to trust you with more buttons. Also, supporters need only agree with the nom statement. They do not need elaboration on their rationale. What purpose is their in endlessly detailing all of the candidate's finer qualities? Opposers need to offer indicators as to why the supporters are off base, so we generally need something more to go on for an oppose. The only time supporters need to comment further is to counter oppose arguments. My sense from the answers is that you would raise the already high bar for RFA. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   The purpose of detailing a candidate's finer qualities is so that, in close calls, the Bureaucrats can make a more fair assessment of the candidate. In closures that are in the gray area, details provided by the supporters (and those in the neutral zone) are just as important as details provided by the opposition when Bureaucrats are trying to determine consensus. Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   In addition to KT's point, I have no problem at all with flowery supports for respected editors at RFA or RFB, especially after it's pretty clear that someone won't pass, it's good for the morale of the candidate and everyone else, too. Nihonjoe is certainly a respected editor. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   The most important things in a crat are integrity and trust of the community; so ask yourselves, does Nihonjoe have that trust? Number of edits is less important, more important is the quality of those edits. When closing a gray area RFA/B, regardless of which side it is closed on, someone won't be happy. The question is, can that crat put forth a sound rationale for why he/she closed it that way; so ask yourselves, can Nihonjoe do that? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, and vice-versa, how much the candidate trusts the community. The candidate came to the RfB community a couple of years ago, and they said not yet, he needed more experience with RfA. Look at what he's done over the past two years; did he trust the judgment of the community? If someone fails RFA, does the exact opposite of all the feedback they got from the opposition at the RFA, then runs again, should they pass? - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, most of the previous opposes were comments like "It's too soon after the Essjay issue" and "it's too soon after your previous RfB" and "We have too many bureaucrats". While there were a few that recommended participation in WT:RFA, I still maintain that active participation in WT:RFA does not equate understanding of how RfX works, with the same thing applying to commenting in RfX discussions. I've shown above (very clearly, I believe) that I completely understand the RfX system and applicable policies, guidelines and procedures. Others here have commented that they believe I'd be very even-handed and fair (even many of the opposes), so I think opposing simply because I haven't posted a lot at RfX discussions or on WT:RFA is a bit disingenuous. I encourage you to look at my record. I'm certainly not perfect, but there really is no doubt I understand everything applicable to doing this particular job. ···日本穣 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   Of the 14 oppose votes in your 2nd run, 4 said that you would make the wrong call on promoting Danny even over 100 oppose votes, one had a problem with your statement that COI could be discounted at RFA if it was admitted, 1 didn't like your sig (heh, things don't change much do they?), one said "per my standards", one said "per the other votes", and the rest said that you didn't have enough experience or hadn't distinguished yourself at RFA. I don't think this was a rough or an odd crowd; those sound like fairly standard objections to me. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

   Struck vote to reduce pile on. Dlohcierekim 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose with regret. Potential bureacrats should have demonstrated thought leadership in WT:RFA and at WP:RFA. I haven't seen that from you. I'd liek to see you step up your involvement here, like Avi did after his first RfB. Majoreditor (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose as I have found your attitude and behaviour at Talk:Dan Willis (author) to be disconcerting and, at times, bordering on the biziarre when it comes to discussing basic concepts such as notability in relation to articles which you have created or edited. I have had to resolve to mediation in order to discuss this issue with you in a civil and reasonable fashion. I don't think you are sufficiently sober or level headed person to be taking this responsibility. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    This whole issue revolves around you refusing to accept that discussions which haven't had any input for three months or seven months (respectively) are likely not going to continue to get any response. As the discussions took up a large section of the talk page, I saw no reason to to have them there and so archived them, making sure a link to the archive was left. You, however, refuse to allow the discussion to be archived as you don't like the result of the discussion. You brought in mediation because of your refusal to accept archiving of very old and ignored discussions. If you want to continue to the discussion, feel free to continue it there, as there's no reason to bring it here. ···日本穣 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Lets assume for a moment you were 100% right on the issue of Dan Willis, so we can set aside our disagreements about that article. What is of concern to me is your incivility. Until I came across this article, I don't think I had ever corresponded with you or had any disagreements with you in the past. However, something set you off on a series of personal attacks & . You even went on to attack an independent third party editor who responded to a request for a third opinion on the matter. I have had many disagreements with a lot of editors in my time, but frankly I have never come across an editor who has been this uncivil. I cannot readily explain this, because I don't remember being uncivil to you and I think I was quite polite under the circumstances. It may be that there may be some other reason for these attacks - perhaps you thought that my challenging the quality of the article was an afront or brought you dishonour. Please explain. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    That looks Nihonjoe's another COI issue and RS matter to me. The article and the photo were created/taken by Nihonjoe at some convention. In the same category, the Blp article, Bradley Williams does not have even any "reference". I wonder Nihonjoe even correctly understand V and RS policy either given his creation of a "marginally notable" writers in U.S.--Caspian blue 13:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

    There is no COI. I have met both in passing at that convention and that's it (which Gavin.collins knows, but refuses to accept). They aren't my close friends, and I've never seen them outside of passing them (and obviously taking pictures of them) in the halls at a convention. Please remember to assume good faith. Dan Willis has been determined to meet the requirements for notability (even if only marginally). As for the Williams article, that was just created as a stub and I haven't ever had time to go back and properly flesh it out. If you don't like the article, feel free to nominate it for deletion, or better yet, try to improve it with references. ···日本穣 03:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

    I doubt there are any COI issues to be discussed, and I am sure Nihonjoe is familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines as anyone here, including WP:CIVIL. Regardless of the merits of the articles he has created, Nihonjoe has serious anger management issues that he needs to address if he is to develop normal healthy relationships with his fellow editors. He has to accept that his actions will always be open to challenge and he can't make other editors accept his point of view even if he is right. I think ignoring the reasonable arguments of an administrator and then attacking him demonstrated his poor judgement in this respect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose, basically per Majorly. I can't see anything seriously wrong with your contribs, but I also can't recall any significant input you've had into anything around RFA recently. Lankiveil 09:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC).
12. Oppose, per Majorly re the low participation in this area (we need active people), and also low participation on other wikis. Furthermore, "go to hell" over on jawiki is inappropriate. John Vandenberg 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure how low participation on other wikis has anything to do with this discussion. As for the "go to hell" comment, that was just me getting frustrated with a psycho Japanese editor who was mad at me for blocking him here. He refused to leave me alone even after being asked to do so multiple times, and as it was late at night and I was tired, I snapped at him. I've said multiple times that I'm not perfect, and that likely wasn't the most effective way to deal with the issue. I did finally get him to stop, though, by getting one of the admins there to tell him to stop his harassment. ···日本穣 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Involvement in other projects is an indicator of experience and wiki-maturity. People who are not active on other projects have only one set of experiences on how to manage wikis. The smaller wikis are great playgrounds for people wishing to try new approaches and develop proposals that would not succeed here due to English Misplaced Pages being a slow adopter.

    Resorting to "go to hell" on another wiki is part of the concern about lack of experience on other wikis - I doubt you would have said the same thing here, no matter how annoyed you were. You would have reported it to ANI; likewise, you should have engaged a local jawiki admin when you felt unable to deal with the situation. It is very common for people from other projects to look at the list of crats to find someone able to help them with a complex problem. Perfection isnt required, however our crats should be respected abroad. John Vandenberg 23:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

13. Absolutely not because of the candidate's distrust issue, WP:Incivility, WP:COI and WP:Neutrality and other concerns that admins generally do not carry with them, as well as his obvious lack of B'crat activities, and his not enough vision. I know that by addressing my vote here at this time, at least some editor, my long-term ardent fan would "coincident" appear to support the candidate after me, but here I am. Usually, I do not vote for obvious WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW cases or RFA/Bs with below 70% support except in few occasions like this. This is obviously not gonna be successful for the legitimate concerns that I'm Spartacus!, Jaybdv and others correctly have raised in the oppose section. "The most important things in a crat are integrity and trust of the community; does Nihonjoe have that trust?" That answer is "Absolutely not". That is just because of the fact that I and the candidate had very bad experiences with each other, but also because of the issues addressed in the first sentence. I felt odd at his "sudden (maybe re)participation in RFAs" since May but his suddenness proves to be a pavement for the RfB as Majorly pointed out. Given the candidate's history, the candidate does not have a patience to try himself to get the community high expectation in specific areas such as Checkuser, or Arbitrator aside from B'crat. He used to be a Checkuser clerk but quit for whatever reason. He ran for RfB previously twice, but did not try "hard" to get the (narrowly RFA/B) community's approval for two years, but suddenly reappears for getting the new tool as insisting that he is "qualified". Also his ArbCom election pages show low voters participation compared to other candidates. It is also interesting to note that his project members opposed him to become an Arbitrator. He had trust issues back then and still has.

    Moreover, he is one of "a couple of admins" that made me very frustrated over the Adminship system and acknowledge of Misplaced Pages's failure. He let sockpuppeters harass me, so I started to learn how to request for Checkuser. Also I began participating in RfA to prevent other "uncivil/rude" or "unqualified" editors from becoming admins in spite of my limited English. For a while, I did not understand why opposers have to give "good rationales" all the time to supporters who merely say "per nom, or "support" without any distinctive rationale. So I conflicted with Balloonmoon (now as I'm Spartacus!) and WJBScribe (why I mention this? Because my fan has rehashed this over and over as denying to look at the relationship between them after then), but if the two run for RfB/ArbCom, well I can happily support them because they've earned my "trust" through the time here and at Commons even though the former's RfA-philosophy is different from mine. However, Nihonjoe is poor at handling/meditating disputes, and criticism and has ownership issue regarding "images"/articles taken/edited by himself. If you ask "look who's talking?" Well, I'm not an admin. I've met many uncivil admins, but at least none of them do violate COI unlike Nihonjoe, so I respect them as "admin" despite their human nature. Look at his latest blocking log on 114.164.204.239 (talk · contribs). That has something to do with Jayvdb's diff. Although I think the anon's edit reminds me of some sockpuppeter that I've known, Nihonjoe was an "involved admin", he should've brought it to AN/ANI.

    He may be a good editor in some narrowed areas and be trusted by "some" members of the projects to which he has dedicates. However, he has been frequently accused of "biased' and "partial" by many editors from East Asia who are working with him. That is not because he behaves "neutral", but because his view is arbitrary and inconsistent. Moreover, when he gives "3RR warning" or others to editors in disputes, he only gives "one side" because the other side is either his friend or his friend support the other. Another COI example, this is what Collectonian (talk · contribs) filed against Nihonjoe Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive350#Concerns of admin abuse by Nihonjoe (To stop the stupid reverting by Collectonian) Jan. 2008. And see his block of Collectonian on 13 February 2009. I've disagreed with Collectonian's deletionistic view at AFDs, but the two frequently edit together and dispute or agree, so he should've not taken the case. Moreover, Nihonjoe spread outrageous claim to some users and even via offline as if that were a truth. I know it and he knows it. If you want to know about it, you can ask me. My initial conflict with him stems from his such attitude.--Caspian blue 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for participating. However, you have several misleading or outright false statements here. I've never been a checkuser clerk, ever. I don't have a personal project, so there's no such thing as "my project members" as I'm a member of several different projects here. I have never let sockpuppets harass you. Regarding the block log of 114.164.204.239, that was some Japanese editor who refused to play by the rules and was therefore blocked here. He continued to be abusive after being blocked, going so far as to harass me on the Japanese Misplaced Pages as well until I got an admin there to get him to back off. There was nothing "involved" about it as he was simply a vandal, so he got blocked. Yes, I've been accused of bias from editors on all sides of specific issues, but note that it's been from all sides of those specific issues. Since I mainly deal with Japan-related issues when it comes to Asia, I'll note that on Japan-Korea issues, I've been accused of bias by both Japanese and Korean editors, on the same issue, so I think I'm doing pretty well if I'm getting it from both sides. When 3RR warnings are given, I give them to anyone who has actually violated 3RR; if that happens to be one person, no matter which "side" they are on, they get the warning. As for your concern about "outrageous claim" being spread, I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you have any idea what I do offline. You have never given me the benefit of the doubt, and have been in my face since the first time we interacted (back when you were editing under other names). I've tried to be fair, but when you refuse to work with anyone who disagrees with you, that makes it difficult to come to any sort of consensus with you. ···日本穣 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    I apologize for my misunderstanding of you as a "former Checkuser clerk", but given your "vigorous contributions" to the Checkuser field", and your "strong refusal" to apology for your unwarranted allegation, I thought so. However that confirms me that your allegation spreading even via offline in March, 2009 can never be justifiable nor forgivable. You are required to have a higher integrity and morality than ordinary editors. However, you have failed to show me anything. You've closely watched articles that I and other editors, including your friend Oda Mari (she is also biased and edits war, but I try to think of her as "a fair editor" for her project) and sockpuppeters have edited. However, you did not do anything to the endlessly block-evading sockpuppeters such as Azukimonka, Michael Friedrich, Pabopa, and too many socks and even other harassers. I've tried to work with you and to get over our past, but you've given huge disappointments and even made false accusations about me several times. As I said, you're the reason I started participating in RFAs and relying on RFCU. You're still making false accusation here, DROP IT. I changed my name "once" via CHU, and never used a sock. Whenever I asked your help, you've coldly sneered my asking. Given your answer, you have obviously no understanding of what CHU works too, one of B'crat's working areas. I have many disagreement with others, but "none of admins" frequently violated COI or BLP user policy unlike you. Your block of Collectian is a good instance.--Caspian blue 17:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    We're just going to have to agree to disagree as you never agree with anything I post. I don't know what you mean by "vigorous contributions to the Checkuser field" as that's not something I've ever written (nor would I as it makes no sense). I don't know what "unwarranted allegation" you are talking about, either. Every time I encounter you, you are in the middle of some storm or another. I don't specifically watch any articles just because you are editing them; if I'm watching an article, it's because I have some interest in it. I haven't heard of Azukimonka or Pabopa, and I've only been peripherally involved with anything to do with Michael Friedrich, so I'm not sure why you are angry at me for anything regarding them. As for the rest, that's all your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I'll be happy to drop anything to do with you as soon as you do. I've gone out of my way to not be involved in anything regarding you or any articles you are actively editing, so I think I'm doing my part to try to avoid any issues with you. While you are welcome to participate in any RfX, I would have thought it obvious that you might want to try and avoid an obvious conflict and not participated in this one. This is the last I'm going to say on this issue. ···日本穣 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    You're artfully evading the topic on your "offline contact" and "use of other names" to bash me for your wishiful thinking. If you had behaved nice to editors in "dispute with you", many editors would have not easily accused you of being a "biased admin" and "unfair admin". Fairness does not mean that you're "fair" to your friends/project members. Moreover, no, you knew them, because whenever they stalked me and tried to initiated edit warring, you appeared to the articles. I asked your help many times, but you never cared to listen to but always uncivil responses. Sadly, I only see you've been in the center of "squabbling with others" for your ownership issue on your image, and your edits. So we may see what we only want to see. You're welcome to run for bureaucratship any time, but I have a right to state what I've seen from you because bureaucratship is one way to reconfirm your admin ability--Caspian blue 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    The criteria for RfBs and RfAs are quite different (although they may overlap in some regards); therefore, RfBs are not in any way, shape or form admin reconfirmations. Kingturtle (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the input, so I can learn a new thing. Therefore, we can say RfB is one way to evaluate candidate's admin ability and to review "the trust from the community".--Caspian blue 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

14. Weak oppose due to the fact that he said he would work at XfD. I am an active editor over there and frankly I've never heard of him. A check of contribs confirmed that he really isn't that active over there. If someone wants to be a 'crat, I feel they have to be active in the areas that they say they are going to work at. Again, not THAT big of a deal, but enough <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">to where I won't support. Sorry. Tavix |  Talk  17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'm curious what you mean by "he said he would work at XfD". When did I say that? Also, I've done quite a lot of work at XfD, though I it's mostly with speedy deletion and closing discussions rather than commenting in them (though I do that as well, and not just in Japan-related discussions). I've done admin work in quite a number of areas over the last three years since I was made an admin. ···日本穣 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    To be fair, in my RfA I said that I'd like to participate in WP:RFPP, yet in the two and a half years since, I've barely touched the area. Sometimes people get involved in areas that they had no initial interest in, and very rarely can you accurately guess what you'll be doing in X number of months. Just throwing that out there, not trying to weigh in on one side or the other. (this is also assuming that your "said he would work at XfD" comment is based on his initial RfA) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    Ditto but substitute DYK for me.---I'm Spartacus! 19:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

15. Oppose No offense, but when I see your name I remember seeing it in some sort of arguments or civility issues in the past; I don't have diffs or links offhand, but I see some of the other !votes above mentioned civility as well, and I think a 'crat ought to be relatively pristine. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose Further to Majorly's comments, I am struck by the inappropriateness of the answer to Q.5; you were not then a Bureaucrat, so there is no reason to simply observe and not involve yourself - and participation would likely give reviewers a better understanding of your working knowledge of judging such issues.I am further concerned that you are requesting 'crat flags for a third time, and seemingly without really addressing the issue of non-participation noted above and in the failed requests; my impression is that you do not believe that the participation issue is valid and the concerns expressed are therefore negligible. I also wonder why you wish to aspire to the office if you are not seemingly concerned by the issue raised here and previously(edit comment; I should have simply said, "Per User:I'm Spartacus' response." instead of what the foregoing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    Well, as I indicated, I don't believe it's appropriate for me to "close" discussions in which I've participated. No, I wasn't a bureaucrat then (or at this time, for that matter), but since bureaucrats don't close discussions in which they participate, I'm doing the same thing. I think my comments on the others more than make up for recusal on the others. ···日本穣 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    (ec) To be honest, I don't really understand this rationale for opposing the candidate. Do we really want a bureaucrat who demonstrates participation by making comments in WP:RFA or WT:RFA just to get the <script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>buttons? This editor has been around for a long time and it should be fairly easy to judge whether or not they can be trusted to go with consensus rather than their own point of view which is pretty much what a bureaucrat has to do (in re RfA). The way I see it, the candidate believes that he is a good judge of consensus and gives the impression that he'll abide by consensus and doubts about these factors are legitimate. But, reasons given for !votes in RfAs say nothing about the ability to discern or abide by consensus. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

    I shall try to explain to the both of you my concerns regarding participation; without the candidate making comments in Requests (other than when they have "strong opinions") it is difficult to judge whether their grasp of policy is as comprehensive as it might be - 'Crats are supposed to weigh the arguments in close run Requests, and the greater weight is with those whose comments are more in line with policy and practice, and it would be preferable to have examples of Nihonjoe demonstating an understanding of the nuances of the environment. To add to that, I am further concerned that this lack of appetite in getting involved has been noted previously and another request for flags has been made without addressing the issue around which the last request failed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

17. Oppose It seems to me that it would have been possible to construct a case that not taking strong stances at RfA and not having your own criteria could have made you better able to be an "honest broker" on behalf of the community. Being neutral on these issues could make you better able to do the crat's job of weighing arguments and speaking for the community. You'd probably need to be able to point to a history of doing just that, for example a substantial body of work closing discussions and weighing consensus at AfD. Of course to make that case, you need to grapple with the opposing argument. It seems to me, you have chosen instead to reject the entire opposing argument, just insisting you do know the procedures. I accept that. But that isn't really enough. We need to know you will be able to understand how to read the flow of a discussion and to come to decisions that both sides will usually see as fair. That involves being able to understand where both sides are coming from and address their arguments in a reasoned way that is free of rancour. (I don't think Dank was being "disingenuous" or that Sparatcus is guilty of "faulty reasoning".) That you haven't been able to do that in the discussion here speaks volumes. Dean B (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Please review my unfortunate interaction with Nihonjoe here. Nihonjoe did not follow the speedy deletion policy. Did his speedy deletion really improve the situation? It should have been clear to him that I was intending to expand the article at that time. It is interesting to see that the majority of administrators who commented at that ANI agreed with Nihonjoe's stance. However that stance is in contradiction to the speedy deletion criteria. Perhaps the cohort of administrators as a whole are tacitly changing the speedy deletion criteria to suit their own standards? In any case, Nihonjoe made two bad calls (firstly the speedy deletion itself, secondly closing the deletion review). I don't trust him. Axl ¤ 11:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

    I knew that there was at least one time where I questioned Nihonjoe's actions. Axl approached me on my user page. My response to him was, "Was it a good speedy deletion? No... his speedy was dubious, but he tried to rectify it by userfying---which in my book is acceptable. People will make bad calls, but he didn't blow you off. Userfying (IMO) is a preferable method to recreating---if it was improperly speedied once, you might end up wasting more time defending the article than building it against the next speedy deleter... He closed a DRV that he probably shouldn't have... but not worth making a big deal out of. In short, work on the article and move on." (and for once the use of ... in my writing actually means I've removed some text!---I'm Spartacus! 12:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

    You are misrepresenting the facts here. The speedy deletion was entirely appropriate (as noted by several other admins there), and well within policy. It wasn't even controversial. The DRV was closed because the article (such as it was) was userfied to allow you to work on it, so there was no reason to keep the DRV open and I closed it per WP:IAR. ···日本穣 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

    No, while I defended you at the time, I the speedy was not "entirely appropriate" nor was your closing the DRV. I didn't think it was worth getting worked up on because you did userfy the article and you close was questionable. I just didn't think it was worth getting worked up about, but in no way should that be taken as this was in fact an A3 deletable article.---I'm Spartacus! 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

19. There are other (albeit not currently nominated) candidates more active in the areas that bureatcracy requires activity in. In RFAs, opposes are often given for not being active in XFD or being involved in patrol at all, and I think that applies here, albeit with different areas being the issue. Esteffect (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose. When I see a new candidate at WP:RfA, I not only expect them to have knowledge of our policies, but to be active in the areas the plan to work in. As a candidate for bureaucratship, I expect the same. Nihonjoe has not demonstrated that, leading to my oppose. — Σxplicit 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per evidences shown by User:Axl OhanaUnited 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose While i don't doubt that he "lurks" at CHU and RFA like he claims, he needs to have documented experience in those areas. Triplestop (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose per above and I don't think Nihojoe is a right person for the job because he does not act neutral.--Historiographer (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose - I sat on this all week. I just can't support. I'm sorry Nihonjoe, but I feel you are just not ready yet.  iMatthew :  Chat  18:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

You seem like an excellent and experienced administrator, and I've seen you around quite a bit. That said, I share Majorly's concerns. Judging by your contribs you've only been active at RfA for the past month or so, and before that, you rarely ever participated in 'crat-related areas. While I don't view this as something to oppose over, I'm afraid I can't support. Hence, neutral for now. –Juliancolton |  23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've participated quite a lot more than that (having been here for 3½ years and all, with over 50K edits), but until the last month or so, I'd had a long spell where I didn't have the time to participate as much as I'd like (due to heavy involvement in creating and improving the actual encyclopedia content of the site). I still watched the page and read through may of the noms. Recently I've once again had the time to participate as often as I have in the past. So, yes, in the recent past, I haven't participated as much, but I have plenty of experience in this area. ···日本穣 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but should this request succeed, will you still visit and/or participate in RfA? –Juliancolton |  23:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I won't close any RfAs in which I participate, either. :) ···日本穣 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good then, moved to support. –Juliancolton |  23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral Can't make up my mind. Meetare Shappy 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral: 'crat tools are not necessary for editing/creating content which is what this user seems focused on right now (as above answer to Juliancolton, emphasis on editing skills, and lack of 'crat related experience inc. on WP:RFA demonstrate). Coldmachine 07:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral (leaning to support) I have no doubt in my mind that this candidate can continue to be impartial and objective as a crat. What I do mull over though are the points raised by the opposing !voters. I went through the candidate's (great) contributions but I could not find a single comment made to WT:RFA, although RFA is an area they want to work on (while I know that WT:RFA does not have the best reputation, it is useful to evaluate one's knowledge of that area). I did notice the candidate !voting is several RFAs though. But while I agree that adminship is not a big deal and one important question is whether the candidate for it might abuse the tools, I do not see much help for the candidates in !voting support only based on these two aspects (while it might be flattering for the candidate to know that you trust them, it's not really feedback they might find useful). That said, I really cannot evaluate the candidate's knowledge in the crat related areas (especially RFA) at the moment but I hope they can provide further insights by answering further questions (like Aitias' question #8) (stupid edit conflicts, still, I'm not convinced yet, will think about it further...). Regards SoWhy 08:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
   Addendum: I knew something was bothering me and Axl found it. I remember that discussion well and it was just 2 months ago. Being bold is nice and good but the way Nihonjoe handled the DRV is not how I want an admin to behave. The deletion was outside policy (as Amalthea remarked correctly) and if this were an RFA, it would be reasons for concern. But to close the DRV about one's own actions oneself is simply too "bold". DRV serves to discuss whether an admin's actions were correct and it should not be the same admin closing his own DRV if they are not willing to undo their actions. Userfying is not an undoing, it's essentially saying "my deletion was correct but here is the article to work on it until I like it". Nihonjoe might see closing the DRV as natural but he should not have made that decision because he was clearly convinced that his previous actions were correct as well. The point is that an admin and much less a crat should never do anything that even looks like they were using the tools to their own gain. Defending such actions as boldness misses this essential point. It's not enough to lead me to oppose but it's enough to keep me from supporting. Regards SoWhy 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   You can see my contributions to WT:RFA here and here. While I haven't posted a lot of comments, I have participated when a topic catches my eye (which isn't all that often, apparently). You can also find comments regarding me here and here. I don't think regular posting on WT:RFA is necessary to understand how the process for RFA and RFB works. I've participated in enough of them and followed the discussions enough over the last 3+ years that I understand the process just fine. It's really not all that complicated a process despite what some people seem to think. ···日本穣 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   It might not be complicated but standards and expectations, as well as sentiment, at RFA have changed significantly since 2007 and I just cannot evaluate if you are "up-to-date" (so to speak) on those changes based on your contributions from 2 years ago. Regards SoWhy 09:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, as I've indicated here a few times, I regularly follow the discussions, but see no need to post regularly if I have nothing to add which hasn't already been posted. If you wish to remain neutral, that is your choice, but I want to make sure you are basing your opinion on something other than a perceived lack of knowledge or experience. I understand that the RfA process has changed since 2007 as I've been here on the site that whole time and I've followed the changes. I don't think I'd call it "significant" though, as the basic process has remained mostly the same during that time. ···日本穣 10:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, that is the point, since you have not contributed in that area since 2007, I really have nothing to evaluate you in that regard, thus I will remain neutral until further discussion here or elsewhere convinces me to !vote another way. I might ask you some questions, too, once I figure out, what to ask that is. Regards SoWhy 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral You appear to have very good judgment demonstrated in the answers to the questions posed but you don't seem to be using your admin tools very much so why would you need even more tools? The opposes are also convincing. In the end I don't think it's enough that you wouldn't abuse the bureaucrat tools, you have to need them and plan to use them. I'm only commenting because I put a good bit of time into evaluating the information and deciding not to make a decision is harder than making one. Drawn Some (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   As he's requesting them, I'm sure he plans to use them. Also, User:JamesR/AdminStats indicates Nihonjoe's used the tools over 5000 times, which is more than about 85% of the admins. And a lot of the ones higher than him are infamous for those higher totals; a certain amount of forbearance could be seen as a positive trait. Dekimasuよ! 02:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral, leaning to support Per SoWhy ⊕Assasin Joe 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral, leaning to support I'm not sensing any major alarns as much as community consensus that more experience and heightened familiarty is needed so I could also be swayed. -- Banjeboi 08:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral I'd like to support, but am dismayed a little by interaction with Axl and application of speedy deletion there, sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Moral Support? :) I've interacted with NihonJoe before (reference question #12 above) but I don't know him that well, nor am I really sure what a 'crat is or does. :) BOZ (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

   Bureaucrat = "An administrator so bland that they haven't managed to upset anyone." –Juliancolton |  01:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

9. Neutral Once needs to listen to messengers, not shoot them. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Can't decide, and so going neutral to voice my thoughts: I feel that the candidacy is a tad weak, but would concede that the candidate seems to be an unproblematic and active administrator. This one is a difficult call; I suppose he'd be an okay bureaucrat—and I'm thus not minded to oppose—but I don't feel I can confidently support for now. Nothing personal: you seem like a nice chap. AGK 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral I can trust Joe that he wouldn't do anything crazy if he was a crat, however the lack of involvement in crat areas concerns me to the point where I cannot support. Best. MBisanz 21:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Neutral - Not enough experience in bureaucrat-related areas, but you're a good admin, so I do not wish to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral Read as moral support! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral Almost--Abce2|AccessDenied 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Misplaced Pages: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.

1. Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
2. Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
3. The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
4. Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
5. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors

• Unsuccessful requests for adminship
• Successful requests for adminship
• Unsuccessful requests for bureaucratship
• Requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages adminship