Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship 

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance).


Requests for adminship sections
Main page
| watch
Active nominations for adminship and bureaucratship.		 Talk page
post | watch | archives
Bureaucrat noticeboard
Discussions related to RfA		 Past nominations
Successful RfAs
Unsuccessful RfAs
Successful RfBs
Unsuccessful RfBs
Nomination data
User rights log		 Nominate
To nominate an editor		 Related reading
Administrators
Bureaucrats
Guide to RfA
Arguments to avoid
Admin reading list
Admin how-to guide
Current admin count: 1,573 (list all)
Shortcuts:
WP:RFA
WP:RFB
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

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

Contents


About RfA

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

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.
Decision process
Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is gray.
Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.
Expressing opinions
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions.

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 09:28:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Steven Fruitsmaak

Voice your opinion (talk page) (27/1/2); Scheduled to end 21:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stevenfruitsmaak (talk · contribs) - A Wikipedian since 2005, Steven is an expert and long-term contributor on the subject of medicine. He has a broad range of experience, from creating and improving articles, anti-vandal work, to being an active contributor to AfD discussions. Admin tasks should present him little difficulty since he is already an admin on Wikinews. Polite, patient and approachable, Steven is a pleasure to work with and an excellent candidate for administrator. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: accept Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep it short and let my user page, answers below and contributions speak for themselves. I became active in 2006, and I don't know if I have a "great deal" of experience in AfD, as Tim Vickers said. I just recently started to become more active on the medicine-related deletion discussions. In addition to my work on Wikipedia, I'm an administrator and accredited reporter (press card holder) on Wikinews (recently shifting more attention back to Wikipedia). Whatever the outcome here, I'm in no hurry, and there will always be more than work enough on health topics in Wikipedia. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Reworded, you just keep appearing on my AfD watchlist! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I mostly intend to work with images: since I move a lot of images to Commons, I could delete these directly and perhaps help with WP:IFD. I'm mostly the article writing type; I haven't needed WP:AIV in a long time because few vandals have crossed my watchlist recently, neither have I been around pages needing protection recently.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: These are mentioned on my user page: I haven't created any specifical featured articles (although I'm a maintainer of the featured Portal:Medicine), but I take proud in several articles such as gestational diabetes, transient synovitis, cystatin C, solitary pulmonary nodule etc. I was one of the driving forces behind WP:MEDMOS. I'm also quite proud of my work on other Wikimedia projects; via Commons and my Wikinews press card, I can provide images for Wikipedia.
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 can't remember any stressful conflicts or edit wars I regret (and I hope not too many will emerge during this RfA . User:Desarda comes around every once and a while, adding his research to hernia-related articles. I had a little discussion recently on irritable bowel syndrome and UpToDate but not to cause any stress.
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
4. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
A: They are advised against solely for the purpose of cooling down (imaginably simply leading to more anger).
Optional question from Aqwis
5. What are your views on our civility policy?
A: The fact the we are a community interacting via text alone most of the time means that a minimal amount of civility and wikiquette is needed, together with assuming good faith. I think it's equally important not to feed the trolls when being confronted with incivility -an attempt at de-escalation is a lot more likely to be successful. I like the English way of dealing with stress, which involves large quantities of TEA. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xenocidic

6. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.
A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Steven Fruitsmaak

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

Discussion

Support
  1. As nominator Tim Vickers 22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Looks like a fine candidate. And we need more users working in images. :) Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Naerii 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom tabor-drop me a line 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - Per the answer to question 2, if only for WP:MEDMOS. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Plans to help with images, and we need more admins willing to work in that area. Trustworthy nominator as well. Acalamari 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Another good user with experiance. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support No concerns here. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong support - I've only ever seen good things from Steven at WP:MED, where he's a regular and dedicated contributor. I looked through his talk page archives and was blown away: consistently polite and friendly; de-escalating potential disputes with grace and skill; adopting and welcoming newcomers, encouraging them to get involved, helping with their questions; long, thoughtful, friendly responses when people come to him with potential problems; lots and lots of great collaboration. Very impressive! delldot talk 23:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Supporting this nomination, as I find no reason not to do so. S. Dean Jameson 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support. Per answer to Q.1. - no burning need for the tools, obviously the right type to give them to per everything else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support. Looks great to me. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. Most definitely. Right attitude, great experience, and (though I realize this has nothing to do with Wikipedia) is a trusted user at Wikinews. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. No concerns here. And I love admins who write articles and know image policy (or want to learn it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2008
  16. Support Definitely. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support rootology (T) 01:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support I didn't see anything to make me !vote oppose, and we could always use more experts. Leonard(Bloom) 01:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Weak Support per my guidelines on how I vote and the fact that I didn't dig too deeply into his edits. From what I saw everything looks good.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support. Looks good all around. We're always in desperate need of more admins with knowledge around specialized subjects such as medicine. Also, the trust of WikiNews counts for something in my book--shows an ability to function within a community. --JayHenry (t) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. The image work specifically got my attention because of some recent confusion (discussed here) about how duplicates of commons images were being tagged for deletion and their uploaders notified. An image specialist admin will be an immense help to the project. — Athaenara ✉ 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support, excellent editor. JC Petit 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support fine and competent contributor, the demure response to an anti-fence sitting question notwithstanding. :) Protonk (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support per Tim. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Looks like a great editor.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support More image admins are always helpful. GlassCobra 04:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  28. Magic 8-ball says Support Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support I trust him enough to ask his opinion on image sourcing and licensing, why wouldn't I trust him with the tools to delete said images. Also per his excellent commons essay on images. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  30. Writes articles (zomg). —Giggy 05:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support. I often notice this editor doing good work. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  32. Strong support Finest administrator material. Strong work and experience as an editor, fair-minded, polite, intending to do genuinely useful work. Mr. IP (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose — Can't get off the fence and give a straight answer to a simple question. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Here's a simple question for you: Is there any potential answer for which you would not have opposed? user:Everyme 04:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
See his response here for the explanation, and Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Remove discouragement of cool down blocks from the policy here for the RFC on changing the wording on cool down blocking. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
  1. Neutral per answer to Kmweber's question. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per user Juliancolton. --LAAFan 03:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral Per Q4. Although nothing would make Kurt support the nom, it was intriguing to read a particularly tentative response to an anti-fence sitting question. I think it is an interesting question, but only in that form. In other words, the underlying question is fatuous, but the answers are revealing. Cool-down blocks are not a burning issue and the administrator's knowledge or ignorance of the current consensus on them is not that important. But the way the question is phrased "are they ever appropriate" is almost designed to lure out a heterodox answer. I might be tempted to say, "the community says no, but c'mon, guys, we all hand them out, right? Right?" or "Never in a million years, even though they might be a good idea" or some other infelicitous response. Likewise "this is a stupid question" would probably go over like a lead balloon. But back to why I'm neutral. I think treating this meta-question at face value puts the respondent on a bad path, but he would be better served simply saying "no". Protonk (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Nuts to that, I just finished looking over this guys first 600 contributions. Switching to support. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla

Voice your opinion (talk page) (29/1/0); Scheduled to end 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla (talk · contribs) - I submit myself to the community with humility so that I may be considered for one of its most humbling privileges. During my last 15 months of continual editing, I've had the immense pleasure of assisting newbies and established editors in any way possible, and it is in that spirit this request is made. After 6,000 contributions and nearly 2 years participating in XfDs, naming conventions, featured content discussions, vandalism protection, an arbcom debate, and collaborating extensively in friendly discussions and controversial subjects, I feel my experience and knowledge has made this request the next logical step in my desire to better serve the project. As explained here, I have had two accounts with the same name due to a password debacle in November 2007; the edit count above is a combination of these two accounts.

I am grateful for this opportunity and look forward to the opinions of the community. Thanks to everyone who chooses to participate. Okiefromokla questions? 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept, of course :) Okiefromokla questions? 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Sporadically throughout my time on Wikipeda, I’ve taken part in deletion discussions and have formed a confidently firm grasp of deletion criteria, so I plan to help with XfDs — albiet cautiously at first. I am, by far, most experienced with fighting vandalism and have managed vandals with firm resolve and borderline vandals with a strict policy of assuming good faith until the last possible moment. I've been a regular visitor to AIV and will spend much of my time there. Handling speedy deletions and requests for unblock are also high on my priority list. Okiefromokla questions? 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: There are disputes, discussions and deliberation at every turn on Wikipedia, but the purpose of the encyclopedia rests with its articles, and I take pride that my priority has always been the no-drama, no-nonsense collaboration and writing process that is poured into every great article. For me, the highlights of my “wiki career” are, without doubt, the two featured articles to which I have contributed the most: Oklahoma and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Okiefromokla questions? 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have certainly been involved in disputes during my time here, but I believe I have handled these with professional poise, understanding, and a cool head. One of my most notable disputes has been an issue regarding conspiracy theories relating to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that lasted several months. The case involved a dozen editors and went to the Mediation Cabal and Arbcom. While heated and frustrating to many editors, I am proud to say that I handled it with rationality and understanding, remaining calm and professional both before and during formal mediation while relying on diffs and specific points of policy rather than personal attacks, anger, or overreactions. I have had no other disputes comparable to this one, and certainly hope that anyone who has disagreed with me felt that they were treated with the greatest respect. I feel I have set a high standard in collaboration and disputes, and hope to continue this into my adminship as one of my foremost guiding principles. Okiefromokla questions? 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Additional question from Icewedge
4. I assume you have read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, of those poor arguments, which arguments do you feel are the poorest types and which out are, of the types of arguments listed, least bad?
That's a good question. "Just a vote" would be the obvious weakest argument in an XfD. As an administrator, "votes" such as these (without reasoning) are taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons. Aside from that, personal opinions are the weakest arguments. It is my absolute belief that deletion policy must be followed to the letter, and Wikipedia has a very coherent set of guidelines. When determining consensus in an XfD, I will certainly take with a grain of salt any argument that does not adequately represent or invoke deletion criteria. As for the second part of your question, it is truly hard to pick one of these arguments that would be the "least bad." I certainly believe that a Google Test has merit, although it should not be used exclusively to determine notability. Okiefromokla questions? 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Additional question from User:TaborL
5. What do you think of when people view self noms as a hunger for power?
A. I think they have a valid point. However, on the same accord, I don't think this argument should be made blindly to all self nomination candidates. Creating the world's largest database of knowledge is a noble task that attracts editors who realize that adminship is not a position of power, but a position of duty and service and one that requires diligence and selflessness. I believe it is possible that some self-noms are simply eager to contribute in different and substantial ways to this project, especially if they have proven themselves as trustworthy within the community. Okiefromokla questions? 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xenocidic

6. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.
A: As a general rule of thumb, I will not review an unblock request to a user that I have blocked, with the exception of an obvious disruptive use of the unblock template. If the unblock request is legitimate, I will let it stand for another (uninvolved) administrator. This particular case is somewhat borderline, although it is certainly not hard to figure due to the fact that this user has obviously not proven he intends to contribute constructively, having vandalized after his lone constructive edit and after his second final warning in five days. However, in this situation, I would probably play it safe and give another admin time to review the unblock request. If I were that other admin, I would certainly deny the request due to the reasons I stated above. One week is not a big deal, and there is absolutely no valid reason to cut short such a relatively brief block under these circumstances. Okiefromokla questions? 02:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Is the toolserver functioning for anyone else? Rudget (logs) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    As of right now as I type this, it is for me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not for me. So#Why 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope. — Realist2 (Speak) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently only the "www"-subdomain is down. Without it, it works: see here. So#Why 21:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • God, my question is a convoluted mess. Does anyone else understand it or should I retract it? - Icewedge (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's maybe a little ungainly but I understood it fine, I think it's a good question. ~ mazca t | c 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added the breakdown for the previous account, for ease of convenience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. Naerii 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Weak support I will keep it short, I have looked through some contributions and I think this user has done a good job, writing in articles and fighting vandalism, not focusing too much on either one. The Arbitration-debate posted seems to indicate that this is a civil user, not really into personal war. His edit-summary-statistics are impressive (100%, although we have to consider that he has used this account only for 8 months now it is still very good). I will review more tomorrow if time permits but I wanted to have my vote on record for now. I say "weak" now because I also see that this user makes some newbie mistakes, for example having to edit the last change he did to fix errors which could be prevented by previewing (like he did on this nomination where he did 5 changes within 15 minutes). So#Why 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, yes. I shouldn't have done this running on a few hours of sleep :) Okiefromokla questions? 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    After reviewing, also the answers (I like the answer to question 5) I decided to strike the "weak". So#Why 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support no problems noted from a look through your contributions, some good AfD arguments and well-chosen reports to AIV seem to suggest you know what you're doing. By the way, my complements on your self-nom statement, it expounds your good points so enthusiastically it's worthy of a politician. ;) ~ mazca t | c 22:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support While I do see a few things that I'm not crazy about, I don't see anything that would stop me from supporting. User appears to be civil, trustworthy and knowledgeable enough for the tools. faithless (speak) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. Mazca, with all due respect, if I saw a user like a politician, I would immediately oppose that user. bibliomaniac15 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, but his nomination statement was easily confirmed by reference to his contributions. Don't you wish all politicians had a "contribution history" button you could click? ~ mazca t | c 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I see no problems and you show you're aware you need to ease into areas you're unfamiliar with. --Rodhullandemu 23:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support tabor-drop me a line 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Great recent interactions with Okiefromokla. Honest, communicative, and experienced. Will make a good admin. Acalamari 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. I support this nomination because there's no real reason not to do so. S. Dean Jameson 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support, shows a good grasp of policy eg diff and the ability to deal with controversial subjects in a calm and polite manner eg diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support  Channel ®   00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Nothing that rings any alarm bells, and a distinct impression of "thoughtful". Should use the mop well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Would like a tad more experience, but I see lots of good admin work coming from this user. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Good content contributor. miranda 00:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support rootology (T) 01:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. Weak support per my guidelines on how I !vote and the fact thatdig into Okie's history... but have an overall favorable impression of him from my few interactions with him.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Excellent article writer. The quality of the Oklahoma article has always impressed me, and I have never witnessed any incivility from the candidate. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Weak support - No problems in your record, nice edit count, won't abuse tools. I was concerned that you didn't have enough experience with controversial articles and I'm still not 100% convinced that you have experience with consensus building or disputes (I'm aware of the 9/11 stuff). I was leaning towards a neutral vote but the support of User:Balloonman and User:Rodhullandemu has tipped me. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - I'm sufficiently convinced that whatever areas the user is inexperienced in will be approached with caution and diligence, as a quick look of their contributions showed that same cautiousness. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support intelligent, reasonably knowledgeable. - Icewedge (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. Strong support - Per this amongst other reasons. I think this user will make a fine administrator, and see no reason not to trust with the tools. Landon1980 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - From what I recall of that mediation, he probably did a better job than me ;-) (It was a long time ago, sorry! <cringe>) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support - no good reason to oppose, you seem like you have a good attitude to deletion discussions and dispute resolution. Terraxos (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  27. Writes articles (zomg). —Giggy 05:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support - a solid editor with a sensible attitude, will be just the sort of admin we need more of. nancy (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Weak oppose - Not quite enough experience in antivandalism work: granted I see a lot of reversions and warnings, but having 14 edits to AIV does not make you a regular visitor. You also express speedy deletion work as being high on your priority list as per question one, but you have very little experience in this area as you have a total of seven deleted edits. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    I apologize. I forgot about the other account. Still appears to be close to the 14 AIV edits (maybe more, but not more than 22 total), but it brings the total in speedy deletion up to 92 deleted edits, which is still not very much considering you intend to be very active there. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I do admit that speedy is an area in which I could have more experience. If this passes, I would engage in this area cautiously at first. I do, however, feel confident in my experience and knowledge of speedy deletion criteria, which is why I do wish to participate there. Regarding AIV, I believe you're right — I do have more than 14 edits there, considering my previous account. However, I stand by my experience in vandal fighting. I've had no mishaps or misjudgment in this area and, at least in my opinion, have accumulated much experience. I would make a reasonable guess that I've accumulated anti-vandal reverts well into triple figures, though I've worked hard to keep a balance with true contributions to articles. Thanks for your input! Okiefromokla questions? 23:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I felt uncomfortable opposing you in the first place, and I'll take your word for it that you'll be cautious in areas where you've had less experience. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Also for a poor Merle Haggard impersonation. C'mon, don't just do it halfway! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    Lets get real, do you honestly believe that a person is any less "power hungry" if one person nominates them? If you are going to carry on with this, could you at least mix the copy and paste quote up a little. Reading the identical statement each time is beginning to annoy. Why not make a selection of three versions, play with all of them a little, give us something new to look at. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    No point in responding. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Kurt's perfectly entitled to his opinion. Leave him alone. Nick mallory (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Maybe so, but it doesn't look like an opinion, it looks mechanical. That is why I suggested making 3 versions to ease that concern. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 02:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Others are perfectly entitled to discuss the validity of his reasoning with him, right here in this discussion. Leave them alone. user:Everyme 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    I don't get it. why do you view a self nom as power hungry? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    I believe he sees any self-initiated move in the direction of gaining power, which adminship essentially is whether we like it or not, as being equal to power seeking. If that were true, then self-nominating would indeed equal power hunger. But many people apply simply because they want to help more efficiently which renders his reasoning invalid, and an assumption of bad faith and arguable personal attack on top of that. That's also why his templated opposes are often badgered, but since in today's day and age demonstrably irrational opinion apparently equals valid reasoning, he is being allowed to continue with it. Btw: DO NOT REMOVE THIS GOOD-FAITHED CONSTRUCTIVE POSTING. user:Everyme 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    You're right--it's not necessarily the case. But given that I can't read minds, I prefer not to take the risk without massively overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's only happened once so far. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    What do we risk by permitting a power hungry (not characterizing the current candidate, but asking a question to kmweber rationale) editor become an admin? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, a lot. That's something I completely agree on with Kurt (and many others). I merely don't think his dividing line is valid or useful. user:Everyme 05:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Cyclonenim

Voice your opinion (talk page) (29/27/7); Scheduled to end 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) - Hi there! As you've probably guessed, i'm Cyclonenim (or CycloneNimrod according to my signature) and i'm here for my second application to become an administrator here on the en wiki. I first applied for adminship on the 17th April 2008 where my application failed pretty much per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW, I'd only been actively editing for a month or two. Since then, I'd like to think i've come a long way—in both my editing capabilities and within other areas. For example, i've now got better experience with WP:RfA, WP:CSD and WP:AIV. I've been actively combating vandalism using Huggle for the past few months, and i'll be honest i've made a few mistakes there and then but i've always tried to learn from them. Whilst I haven't actually nominated anything yet, i've got a pretty good understanding of how WP:RFPP works. Anyway, enough babbling on this introductory statement, really! I look forward to answering your questions and I really hope you find that i've improved enough since my last self-nom. Many thanks!

— CycloneNimrod  Talk? 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd love to help out at both WP:AIV and WP:CSD. The constantly have backlogs, particularly the latter, and it seems as thought they could always use a helping hand over there. After I finally get some experience of WP:RFPP, i'd like to help there too. I do not intend to compromise my article editing with my adminship, however. That is still my priority :)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Any constructive contribution is a good contribution but recently, in collaboration with JFW and Delldot and several others who are part of WikiProject Medicine, i've been helping to edit subarachnoid hemorrhage. Whilst working with these editors, we brought up the article up to featured article status. I've also worked on several good articles including cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and subcutaneous emphysema. In addition to article editing, I also formed WikiProject Neurology which aims to take the disease article workload off WikiProject Neuroscience—that said, it's not entirely active at the moment... must get round to that!
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 like to think I deal with conflicts in a calm and coordinated manner—never taking rash decisions or retalliations. I had one conflict with DoctorDW about the naming of the article physiotherapy. We basically talked about it in a calm manner and I recommended that he post a topic on the talk page of the article itself. The result was a move back to physical therapy, which has now been removed back to physiotherapy per agreement with JFW, Davidruben, myself and most likely other medical editors. I also had a dispute with StuRat about the removing of medical questions from the Science Reference Desk. He accused me of being overzealous but we managed to come to agreements on the talk page of the reference desk itself. It became clear it was a simple misunderstanding on both parts, really!

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.
A: I'm a firm-believer in second and perhaps third chances for users who have vandalised. I once vandalised Wikipedia under the account CycloneNimrod (perhaps the only contribution, I can't remember) and I have since turned out to be a sincere, helpful wikipedian. In this situation, it is clear that the edits they made were not good faith edits but seeing as they have apologised in a sincere manner, I would most likely give them another chance. I would consult with the administrator who blocked the user and protected the page and assuming they are happy with my decision, I would unblock the user. Should further vandalism occur from the same user, it's highly unlikely I'd be quite as forgiving.

Optional question from The Great Editor In Chief

5. How have you improved from your previous Rfa?
A: The main reason for opposing in my previous RfA was lack of experience in pretty much all areas of Wikipedia. I believe that I have readily participated a lot more in the areas that I wish to administrate (such as WP:CSD and WP:AIV) and that can only be an improvement. As pointed out by some oppose votes below, some of those edits were badly carried out. However, I believe I have learnt from them and I will continue to improve in this sense throughout my adminship. In addition, I've now got a comprehensive knowledge of the vast majority of Wikipedia's policies, whereas before I did not. Thanks for your question.

Optional question for Bigvinu

6. Will you answer Questions for RfA Candidates? —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
A: Is this a request for me to answer the questions listed or a simple "Would you but you don't have to" question? — CycloneNimrod  Talk? 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm just asking you to please answer those questions here (some or all) to give more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem.
Edit warring: Q1: Quite frankly, they haven't as of yet. I've never been involved in edit conflicts or edit warring. However, I know that i've learnt through Wikipedia that keeping a cool head gets you much further than aggrevation. Q2: No, I do not have such history. I hope you would trust me enough to handle one should one occur, though. Q3: I would fully protect the page for a period of a week in order to get the participants to talk to each other properly and try and reach consensus. Should edit warring continue one week later, I would start a mediation case in order to try and get the problem sorted by a third-party who is not involved.
Admin Tools: Q1: Administrative tools are needed for protection of articles, user and user talk pages and other pages which are involved in disputes and consistant vandalism. They are also needed for me to help out at WP:CSD so that I can delete pages which have been correctly nominated. I also need the mop so that I can block users who abuse Wikipedia's policies intentionally. Q2: I will only use the administrative tools for Wikipedia's improvement, not for my own reasons. Q3: I think a great example would be the one you gave in Q3 of the previous section. If a page needs full protection, only an administrator can provide that. A cool-off period for these editors would really help in improving the quality of the article.
Nomination: Q2 (ignored 1 per request): I nominated myself not because I wanted the tools so that I could abuse them or use them in a power-hungry manner but rather so I could improve the encyclopaedia. This is a very credible and worthwhile intention and I really hope you all find me suitable to carry out my goal. Q3: Not at all. Even if this fails, it can only be a good experience to learn more about the workings of Wikipedia.
Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
7. You said in one of the above answers that you have vandalized Wikipedia. Is there a way you can prove to me that you will not use administrative tools for that purpose?
A: For those who haven't seen the diff, look here. I think it's fair to say that an unblemished record after that date makes it overwhelmingly unlikely for me to ever vandalise again. — CycloneNimrod  Talk? 19:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as you have opposed based upon my answer to this, I feel I should clarify something—you can never prove or disprove anything. You can only make things overwhelmingly likely or unlikely and that is my point. If you want a more concise answer, it's this: I will not vandalise again. — CycloneNimrod  Talk? 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, I honestly dislike the way you think that just because you haven't vandalized in a while, I should completely trust that you will continue in that manner. I'll do some more research on your contributions when I get a chance, and see if I can change my !vote. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how could he possibly have answered that question in such a way that you would have completely trusted him never to do it again? I don't see how anyone can definitively prove what you're asking him to. ~ mazca t | c 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Optional questions from User:Filll
8. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
A. I agree with statements 2,3,4,5 but disagree, in part, with 1 and 6. I don't believe RfA is a tense environment, if you can't handle the stress of application what chance do you have with dealing with Wikipedia's promising legal threats or the like? I don't think we can ever make this an entirely stress-free environment, the very nature of RfA is to scrutinise the candidate.
9. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A. I'll transclude my answers tonight when I've answered them. I've got college now!
Sorry I still haven't got round to transcluding my answers as I promised above, the first question is answered but i'm really struggling to find time. I'll write up a second one pretty soon! If you want to see the first one, see here. Thanks for your patience!
Optional question from User:Oren0
10. Say you become an admin and you come across the following scenario at WP:RFPP: Editor X asks for a page to be indef semi-protected due to "heavy IP vandalism." Upon looking at the page's history, you find that two IP editors (IP A and IP B) have been trying to insert sourced material onto the page and that Editor X and Editor Y (both established accounts) have been removing it claiming synthesis and undue weight. Each of the four parties has reverted twice in the last 4 hours and there has been very little discussion on Talk. What, if anything, do you do?

Additional question from BigHairRef

11. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not the only reasonable applicable and likely reasoning?
A: I don't have a problem with it assuming that it is still a reasonable application of reasoning. If, however, it is not and it's simply a per !vote for the sake of per voting, then of course I disagree with them. Candidates should have a fair application, not one that is changed by people !voting for the sake of it. It depends upon how valid the initial support/oppose was, IMHO.
Additional questions from NuclearWarfare
12. Please define notability in your own words.
A. Notability, in regards to Wikipedia, is the worthiness of an item to be included within an article, based upon several factors. These factors include whether or not the item is original, or whether it is peer-reviewed or referenced to other articles. The item must be verifiable (i.e. ) and must also be as neutral as possible. A good example of a notable source would be, for example, a medical article published upon a large site that is reviewed by a large number of physicians. A bad example could be a site published on a free-hosting service, written originally by the author of the site and not verified elsewhere.
13. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A. Blocking is the physical prevention of a user editing Wikipedia. Banning on the other hand is the term used to describe a more formal process which defines a user as one which should not be editing Wikipedia in part or completely. Banning in itself does not actually prevent a user from editing unless combined with a block.
14. When should a cool down block be used and why?
A. They shouldn't. Ever. I've heard that it ususally makes things a lot worse.
15. Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A. Sorry I still haven't got round to transcluding my answers as I promised above, the first question is answered but i'm really struggling to find time. I'll write up a second one pretty soon! If you want to see the first one, see here. Thanks for your patience!

General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 2

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

Discussion

  1. Comment — I wonder if I should withdraw my request for the mop? At less than 50% I find it unlikely I'll come back from this. Any opinions? — CycloneNimrod  Talk? 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    If you wish to ride it out to the end (and believe me, these things can turn around) and garner all the feedback you can for improvement, then by all means, keep it open. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Well, most of the opposes were "not now" rather than "not ever" like ed poor's above. I suggest you wait a few months, keep up your article work and do some good AFD work.--Serviam (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Comment — My apologies to everybody for the signature, on my screen it shows up pretty much the same size as everyone else's. It's been changed now. — CycloneNimrod  Talk? 16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    Nice one, looks much better to me now. ~ mazca t | c 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. I noticed Giggy's oppose, because of Cyclone's signature. Are you aware that you are not allowed to use any tags—including "font", "span" and <big> tags—that make the signature appear large enough to throw off the layout of the typing? Besides the fact that your signature is rather annoying, it may also not conform to the signature guidelines, and that is another reason your RfA is failing. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Acknowledged his change, my mistake. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. I should probably point out that this is due to end on the 20th, and I go away on holiday on the 19th. Therefore, I won't be able to answer any queries or questions after that date! Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have further questions and i'll answer them when I get back. It's gonna kill me having to cope two weeks before knowing the outcome of this, although I suspect it won't pass due to lack of consensus. — CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support. He wants to work with AIV and CSD, so taking a look at his work there, I found quite a few reports to AIV and going through his deleted contribs, what I found there seemed to indicate a good understanding of what should be speedied; he meets my criteria. Useight (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    As a side note, though, your use of "i" instead of "I" is pretty annoying to a WikiGnome like myself and it looks really unprofessional. Could you try to avoid doing that? Useight (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    My apologies, I usually try to uphold grammar and spelling to a high standard. When it's not, it's a genuine mistake! — CycloneNimrod  Talk? 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'm pretty anal-retentive about grammar, too, although I was intrigued by this idea. As you can tell, though, I've yet to put it into practice. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Cyclonenim is a worthy candidate. He will use the tools reliably. Axl (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Support: An intelligent, honest editor with firm knowledge of admin-related topics and a clear potential to use admin privileges to maintain the integrity of WP:MED, should he so choose. Answered questions thoroughly, candidly, and downright impressively. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak support - there have been some silly mistakes made here and there, and I still think a brushing up on the Wikipedia-policy-knowledge is in order. But there is something about this user I think will make him a good admin. This candidate is well spoken, and the answers to the questions so far are detailed and thoughtful. There is some stellar article work under his belt too. He has also dabbled in some Wikipedia-related areas (although it is there where the mistakes appear to have been made). Despite this, I believe some essential reading and some good work at the admin school will make this user a good admin indeed. Lradrama 17:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support as I did last time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. Have seen this user around, and I trust him not to make mistakes with the mop. Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Aye! Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Moral support — You need more experience, but if you come back in a couple months with more know-how I think you'll do well, best of luck until that day. :-) —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 01:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support. –xenocidic (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Weak support - excluding the vandalism, nothing overly concerns me about the candidate. Wizardman 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Strong support--I am eager to see how this editor would do with tools. King Rock (Gears of War) 04:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. constructive and helpful. has communication skills so can learn readily. Glitches like those highlighted below can be sorted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support. Any/All of my issues have been met. Bigvinu (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    Your sig is confusing. At first, I thought that you were declaring that the candidate is diligent.