Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cecropia (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 12 December 2004 (+Jon Moore). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

<From Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

See also: Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats, Wikipedia:Adminship candidacies not promoted

To update this page, Purge it.

Recent successful nominations

JonMoore

final (14/0/0) ending 22:47 11 December 2004 (UTC)

JonMoore is a dedicated editor with 1583 edits since June 19, 2003. Most of his edits in the past few months are related to Salt Lake City, Utah, where Jon has been a driving force for improving the article. He's created several important related articles such as 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal. Jon strives to use existing standards and WikiProjects, which is evident in his work on Salt Lake City and KSL-TV. Before focusing on Salt Lake City, JonMoore started and contributed to several articles which have grown considerably, such as FoxTrot. To my knowledge, this user has never been in an edit war, but he often uses talk pages to preempt potential disagreements. In the interests of full disclosure, this user has very few edits in the Wikipedia namespace, but given the extent he's familiar with WikiProjects and policies, I feel he's an excellent member of the community. Cool Hand Luke 22:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I do accept. [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 00:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Cool Hand Luke 22:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Everyking 22:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Fair enough. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:42, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
  4. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 00:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Lst27 (talk) 02:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Andre (talk) 16:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  7. 172 01:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Good work with the Salt Lake Olympics bid article, and candidate is also a model of non-confrontational concensus-building -- all in all top notch wikicommunity behaviour. Support. --Wernher 02:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. support Pedant 01:00, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  10. Definite support. +sj.+ 02:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 16:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. ffirehorse 01:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. Just the sort I enjoy supporting. Mackensen (talk) 06:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Looks to me like an involved, devoted contributor. --Slowking Man 23:04, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. The ability to quickly revert vandalized pages has always been a desire of mine. I have done it before, but, of course by sheer brute force of copy/paste. Vandalism saddens me, and the ability to fix it would be wonderful. Also deleting patent nonsense would be helpful, too. Also I would like to help with any problems that need arbitration or mediation
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am definately proud of my page 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal (as mentioned above) as well as Sugar House and Downtown Salt Lake City. The scandal article was something I was surprised to find had only been written about in passing. It was also used as a "DYK" article a few days ago. The Sugar House and Downtown articles help flesh out the Salt Lake article and add to the volume of knowledge otherwise unknown outside of locally.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. The greatest conflict I've been involved with was on the Salt Lake City, Utah page, when someone un-wikilinked various neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. At the time, there were only one or two neighborhood articles and I felt that dewikifying would not encourage these articles to be written. I went on to write and edit some of these, and now there are only two neighborhoods left unwritten about. I feel that conflicts should not degrade into flame wars. If you believe something should be a certain way, prove it. Actions speak louder than words. I felt we needed the neighborhood articles, so I did not just revert, but made sure to back it up with the needed articles. The archive of this discussion can been seen at Talk:Salt Lake City, Utah/Archive 1.

Gadfium

final (24/0/0) ending 07:33 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gadfium first contributed in March 2004 and has accumulated over 8000 edits since that, mainly by doing huge amounts of janitorial work. In particular, I've noticed him reverting tests/vandalism manually; I think he should be allowed the convenience of the rollback function instead :-) Fredrik | talk 07:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept the nomination.-gadfium 18:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Fredrik | talk 08:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Everyking 13:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. M7it 18:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. I've been here about as long as you have, but I don't have nearly as much edits as that. I'm wondering how much time you spent online to reach that count... [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 23:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  5. That's almost as impressive an edit-to-time ratio as I have - hard work abounds. ;) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:41, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
  6. Old proverb: "Wikiholics makest worthy administrators". Gadfium then definitely deserves it! JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 00:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Of course! --Lst27 (talk) 02:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Slowking Man 02:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Rje 05:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Tuf-Kat 06:17, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Certaintly. By the way, your edit-to-time ratio is terrific, haven't seen one that nice since Mike H's. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Andre (talk) 16:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  13. --jni 17:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. 172 01:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. The candidate's janitorial work deserves high respect -- this is the kind of stuff that constantly improves Wikipedia in a lot of small ways, eventually combining into the overall effect of giving readers a serious impression of the 'pedia (which, in its turn, it certainly deserves). Support. --Wernher 02:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. Definitely. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support. Gadfium's minor edits have improved Wikipedia in major ways. utcursch 12:30, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. Pedant 01:01, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  19. Yea, verily. +sj.+ 03:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  20. Definately. [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 20:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. Michael Snow 00:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  22. No question. Robin Patterson 05:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support. ffirehorse 01:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  24. older≠wiser 03:15, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
Mostly recent changes patrol and other vandalism reverts. I might become active in implementing speedy deletes, banning persistent vandals, and protecting frequently-vandalised pages (such as Waverly, Pennsylvania, where I was involved in reverting a user persistently adding nonsense to the page), but I agree with the idea of using banning/protection as a last resort.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I'm not much of an article writer, most of my contributions to Wikipedia are from working through User:Topbanana's reports and categorising articles. Some of the articles I've created are Data General Business Basic, B32 Business Basic, Disk cloning, Joan Dingley and G H Cunningham. I wouldn't claim that I'm particularly pleased with any of them. My writing style is probably best suited to articles and other items where my dry humour can be used; encyclopedia articles are more difficult to write. I've also been known to create a stub article because I've become tired of disambiguating links to it.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
I've managed to stay away from conflict so far. Occasionally I've made an edit (a categorisation or disambiguation) that regular maintainers of an area disagree with, and I'm happy to accept their expertise. For example, I categorised a number of historians by nationality, but the categories were ambiguous; I categorised some as American historians because they were US citizens but wrote on European topics, and the Wikipedians who hang out at that category were bemused at my work. I suggested splitting the category into two: Historians writing about American history, and historians from America, and that proposal more or less happened, although I think the whole area is still a bit muddy.
A more recent example of a disagreement with a user is when User:Cap'n_Refsmmat added links to his forums to several articles, and I carried on a discussion with him at User_talk:Cap'n_Refsmmat#ComputerGeek_links about what links would be appropriate, and urging him to seek policy clarification in a wider forum.-gadfium 18:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ferkelparade

final (18/0/0) ending 18:40 10 December 2004 (UTC)

I've seen Felkerparade do some great work, and he always seems to catch the vandalism on frequently vandalised articles. I think sysop powers would help him in this endeavour. He has been with the project since February 2004 and he has accumalated 1907 edits. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 18:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, I feel seriously honoured. I accept. -- Ferkelparade π 00:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Whoops, forgot to vote here! As the nominator, I of course support! JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman]
  2. Yes. Lst27 (talk) 00:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. I thought he was one already, definately support. --fvw*† 13:03, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
  4. Also support. Sietse 14:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Support, impressive vandal hunting. Mgm|(talk) 23:11, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Hear, hear. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:41, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
  7. Tuf-Kat 06:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Seriously, however much of a cliché, I can not believe Ferkelparade wasn't already, etc.--Bishonen (talk) 08:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely: A good amount of time on the project, exposure to the tough spots, maintained poise throughout, good judgment. Geogre 14:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Andre (talk) 16:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Support, rollback functionality needs to be used by people like he. jni 16:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. 172 01:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Yes and yes. +sj.+ 03:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. Noisy | Talk 18:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Michael Snow 00:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. Yes, rollback for FP. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. ffirehorse 01:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Oppose


Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. The way things are going right now, I have a fair amount of time during the day to monitor recent changes for obvious vandalism, and adminship would indeed be of great help there. I would probably also drop in occasionally on VfD and copyvio to clean up , but we'll see how that goes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. This is probably a strange thing to say, but I was seriously flattered when I once had a vandal try to impersonate me [1]. Other than that, I am somewhat proud that I once managed to stop a flood of vandalism by simply asking the trolls why they do it [2]. Oh, and I quite like my articles on Karl Theodor and the chamois.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Umm...yes, I guess. One of my first actions after starting to edit here was to stumble into Stettin and stir up a hornet's nest :P (I have pretty much steered clear of all Polish/German city articles since then). I also once got into an edit war on Almoravides, but I tried my best to resolve issues on the talk page. I don't think I completely managed to keep my cool, but judge for yourself. Other than that, I've had my share of fun with repeat vandals and people who completely fail to understand the concept of copyright violation, but I've never had any trouble with other editors.

-- Ferkelparade π 00:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rfl

final (12/0/0) ending 05:03, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Rafał Pocztarski is a careful, thorough contributor who has made 2166 edits since July 2 (and hundreds more on other languages). He's an extremely hard worker who would use sysop abilities to tirelessly improve the place. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:05, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I hereby proudly indicate my acceptance of the nomination. Rafał Pocztarski 08:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. The nominator, of course. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:05, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. jni 16:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. 172 18:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes, a good choice. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 10:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. M7it 17:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Dittaeva 20:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:42, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
  8. Yes. --Lst27 (talk) 02:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. GeneralPatton 03:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Andre (talk) 17:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Sure. - RedWordSmith 20:57, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Support. ffirehorse 01:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Good user, made some really constructive comments over at FAC. GeneralPatton 03:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I think I would anticipate helping with my Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#CC templates proposal which I would be able to update myself instead of asking someone else, though that is not such a big deal. I am not really sure what I would start doing which I am not already doing. I suppose that reverting vandalism will be much faster. Reading the articles referenced on the reading list will hopefully give me some ideas.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am particularly pleased with my Image:25 pair color code chart.png which I have written in PostScript. I am somewhat pleased with the Creative Commons templates mentioned above. I don’t really think there are any articles I am particularly pleased with, because I would consider my editions and corrections made to the articles just a side effect of reading them. I think I like some of my comments on the talk pages which were interesting to write, like those on Talk:Pseudoscience and Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate. I like the articles that I started and which were later expanded by other people, like some of those linked in my user page, because they are interesting to read. But still, writing is just a side effect of reading.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Yes, other users have caused me stress. I usually deal with it by group therapy. Seriously, what kind of question is that? I have been in conflicts over editing, and in fact I seem to be in one as we speak, as my removal of redundant categories in Multi-level marketing article has just been reverted. (Should an article be explicitly added to its main category and also to every supercategory that one is directly and indirectly a subcategory of?) But I don’t remember any conflicts more serious than that, probably because I prefer to voice my opinion than to participate in edit wars. I think that writing about myself is causing me stress, so I will stop now to deal with it. Rafał Pocztarski 08:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taxman

Vote here (34/0/0) ending 18:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

While it would have been nice to be patient and wait for someone to notice my efforts, I believe I can be a more positive asset to the community as an administrator, so I thought I would be bold and self nominate. I registered initially in Aug of 2003, then lurked for quite a while getting to know the place, then really started contributing in April of 2004. I have a little over 2070 edits so far. - Taxman 18:14, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. —No-One Jones (m) 18:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC
  2. I come accross Taxman and his work every so often, and this guy has left a good impression on me. A courteous and diligent worker who is a real asset to Wikipedia. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 18:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Support, but please make sure vandal hunting doesn't take too much of your time, I like your ideas on referencing and peer review much better. :-) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 20:46, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes. --Lst27 (talk) 21:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Certaintly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. I thought he was an admin, actually. Seems like a good guy. Andre (talk) 02:10, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Michael Snow 03:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. I've seen so much good from Taxman. I had no idea he isn't an admin! →Iñgólemo← (talk) 03:58, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  9. Taxman's work on Sealand was a model. Wholeheartedly support.Dr Zen 05:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Tuf-Kat 05:48, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Cribcage 06:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support. We may not always agree, but he's made some fine contributions. He's also a man of principle. GeneralPatton 06:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  13. Lupo 08:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Yet another case where I am utterly surprised as to the candidate's real user level status. Strong support. Johnleemk | Talk 17:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. Sure. Everyking 22:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support. - RedWordSmith 19:41, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Sarge Baldy 21:59, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  18. One taxman I wouldn't mind paying. :P -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:43, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
    *Smashes vase against wall*. Please, Grunt, everyone likes to have a wittiscism contest at RFA time, but don't lower yourself to the level of the mob... :-P JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 00:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. NOT AN ADMIN? WHAT? ;) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:53, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Slowking Man 03:06, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Support. Proteus (Talk) 19:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  22. Should've nominated him myself. Ambi 04:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. 172 08:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support. Not aware of trouble, and meets my standards. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 09:04, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  25. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:56, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  26. Support. Axl 19:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  27. Support. Taxman is very taxing on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, but I think that's a good thing :) -- Chris 73 Talk 02:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  28. Fire Star 06:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  29. Support. An invaluable asset to the WP. -Sean Curtin 05:06, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  30. Support. utcursch 12:21, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  31. Support. Never really noticed you before, but after lookingthrough your contributions I see I should have. This is a good example of why we maybe need some mechanism for 'automatically noticing' good editors long overdue for adminship. Thanks for noticing yourself and being bold enough to self-nominate. Surprised that you aren't listed as a member at factcheck. Your unreferenced FAs list interests me, how was it compiled? - User:Pedant
    It was done by hand. I clicked through every one and saw if it had a references or similar section and noted my results. Some are listed with no references but have inline citations, that will have to be considered too. As to factcheck, I had thought I had listed myself there initially. Not sure why I am not there now. - Taxman 16:47, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  32. Support. A good user, worthy of adminship despite his username giving me nightmares. ;) Arminius 06:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  33. You have my vote :-) [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 07:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  34. Support. ffirehorse 01:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Thanks all for the kind words and support. Some of you I guess I wasn't even aware knew much about me. - Taxman 06:03, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Taxman is really doing some good work making much-needed quality controls of articles over at the FAC. GeneralPatton 03:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Primarily more vandalism fixing. I have a couple hundred pages on my watchlist that I often find myself reverting the hard way for obvious vandalism. But I would also entertain helping maintain protected pages and deleting pages when necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I tend to spread my edits around a lot, but I am proud of biodiesel and will soon whip it into shape for a FAC. I have also started a lot of articles in the finance and economics arena. I have been very active in the featured article candidate process, and would like to think my observations have led to significantly better articles. I also more or less maintain archiving the Peer Review page and plan to do more as an admin and with consensus of others. Finally I am on a mission to help improve the status of references in featured articles and eventually promote it for all articles. For that aim, I compiled a list of all FA's without references and will now work to help direct the effort to fix that important issue.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. Certainly nothing where any tempers got out of hand (not on my end at least :). I spent a lot of ink trying to get the two polar opposite sides in the Sealand dispute to reach an NPOV middle ground and had some success. I am also in respectful disagreement over whether FA's without references are fair game to nominate at WP:FARC

GeneralPatton

final (43/9/4) ending 03:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) It is an honor to nominate GeneralPatton. He has been here for several months and has shown himself to be an excellent, even-tempered editor. GeneralPatton is active in implementing and proposing policy and often can be found on the IRC channel. I strongly feel he should become a sysop. Neutralitytalk 03:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I humbly accept. GeneralPatton 03:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Neutralitytalk 03:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support Strongly. Arminius 03:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mhmm. ugen64 04:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Gentgeen 09:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Previous comments were several months ago. Users change their minds. Patton is a good user. Snowspinner 21:36, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  6. I think people can change, especially in concern to their early days at this project. I've seen a lot of good out of GeneralPatton, and I think he'd make a fine admin. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Antandrus 00:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Support. Likely to be a very fine admin.
  9. He may be a disputant on and off, but he knows how to deal with those disputes in a calm, collected fashion. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:24, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  10. Nicholas 01:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. I don't vote here all that often, but Patton has my wholehearted support. He's a trustworthy user who has done a lot of good work here for a long time. →Raul654 03:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Mike H 05:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Tuf-Kat 05:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Cribcage 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. IZAK 08:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. Easy descision. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. Has been polite when I have observed him; I see no reason to oppose. Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. 172 18:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. Yes. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 21:29, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. Support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Danny 01:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support. Seems like a good user. - Vague | Rant 04:32, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support. func(talk) 21:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  25. Xtra 23:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  26. Good nomination. I don't really care about the comment he made over four months ago. Adminship should be no big deal. --Lst27 (talk) 02:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  27. I am confident that GP has the project's best interests in mind. He has been extremely active in metawork (e.g., policy), and communicates admirably well for a non-native English speaker. --Slowking Man 03:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  28. Support. Friendly and courteous user who seems actively interested in wikipedia policy. CXI 04:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  29. Support. Duk 05:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  30. Support. Has been very helpful when I've hopped on IRC with a question about arbitration. Rex 06:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  31. Support. I've been intermittent touch with Patton for several months, in which I have seen him grow from someone who I'd be wary to give adminship to (like the general he's taken the name of, he was a bit brash and impulsive), to someone I feel can be trusted with the duties and responsibilities of administration. His more recent contributions have often centered around adding hard to find details (always with a source) and often attempting to remove the POV in articles which usually generate them naturally. Oberiko 13:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  32. Support. Euphoria 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  33. Support. Proteus (Talk) 19:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  34. You have my full support. We would be doing a disservice to Wikipedia by denying such a helpful and dedicated user admin powers—Trevor Caira 21:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  35. Absolutely (I thought he was already). I'd like to note that the username thing is selectively enforced–that, or no one realizes I named myself after August von Mackensen (granted, that was sixteen months ago). I do agree that he should take Lupo's advice. Mackensen (talk) 04:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  36. Support Profoss 23:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  37. Support. Guanaco 02:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  38. Support. +sj + 03:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  39. Support. Dori | Talk 03:37, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  40. Support. Rhobite 21:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  41. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 23:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  42. Strong Support. I checked a number of his edits, his interactions with other users and grilled him over them on irc. I could find no current flaws, so he has my support. He then answered some truely tough questions from me, and gave me his opinion on a hypothetical scenario. His answers were very much to my liking, so that earns him a strong support. Kim Bruning 01:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  43. Support [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Last we talked, the devil told me the temperatures in hell were still unseasonably warm. Everyking 06:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Is there some incident that we should know about when deciding how to vote? Please shed some light for us if you can, I know I'd certainly like to know the reason why this candidate would invoke such a response so I can evaluate in view of all the facts. Shane King 06:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. My first and only experience with the General has not been good: apparantly he got Image:Vaginal syphilis.jpg deleted without any process (that I have found), he then uploaded the same image at Image:Vaginal syphilis(disturbing image).jpg without any comment or description. He has replaced small thumbs in the Syphilis article with links, disregarding former discussion (or making any comments himself) and not using the "edit summary". The result is two paragraphs starting with a line with an image link and thumbdescription. While I know the comlplaint doesn't really belong here I suspect others would be asking if I didn't give my reasons. --Dittaeva 13:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Per agreement, further discussion has been moved to User_talk:Dittaeva
    Oppose as per comment added by Michael Snow. 6 months may be time enough to gain sufficient experience and maturity after making such a statement, but I can't see a big difference. Andre (talk) 20:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
    Would you please explain "but I can't see a big difference"? It’s not a question of maturity, at issue is about feeling comfortable. As i've said, I've rejected a previous RFA because i still didn't feel as comfortable as I wanted. GeneralPatton 20:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. It is definitely not good to have really biased administrator. Nor one who uses Croatian insults in edit summaries ("pickica" [3], "serem ti sliku kralja petra" [4]). Gzornenplatz 01:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Insulting other users, but doing so in another language to disguise what's going on is not admin-like behaviour. It was a long time ago, so I would have excused it if he had admitted it up front and apologised, but since it was another user who had to bring this behaviour to light, I'm afraid I have to oppose. Shane King 01:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    It happened in the first month or so of my time on wiki, back in May, and after Avala harassed me a few times and made some reckless edits... Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Avala, his Arbcom has shown Avala to be a problem user. I just desperately tried to have Avala back away somehow (using methods from local language forums), I was still new at Wiki then. GeneralPatton 01:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    OK, if it really is an isolated and early incident against a single problem user as you say, I'll remove my opposition. I don't believe in holding people's mistakes against them forever, although as I noted, I prefer that they admit them upfront. I'll think on this some more before deciding whether I can support or will stay neutral. Shane King 02:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose. I don't think he's a bad guy but we've butted heads over his inability to understand what NPOV means even in the most basic sense. As reference, see our discussions on Talk:Robert Oppenheimer (a few months ago), Talk:Wernher von Braun (a few months ago), and Talk:Nazi Germany (last week, when he suggested, and defended, his use of a self-described holocaust/historical denial website as a valid source for resolving a minor squabble). I think he is an earnest contributor but I don't think he has very good negotiation skills, good historical reasoning, or good methodology. And I think he has some legitimate conceptual problems with understand what NPOV means in any applicable sense. If you want to see this in practice, again, view my frustrations on Talk:Robert Oppenheimer. Sorry, GeneralPatton, nothing against you personally, you seem like a nice enough guy, and I don't think you mean to antagonize, but I think you often just don't get what Wikipedia articles should be about in a very fundamental way, and I haven't really seen any improvement in this, to be honest. I haven't seen you use good editing judgment or communication skills. These seem to me to be rather important for any administrator position, even with as lack-of-status as it is supposed to be. Even if the user has reformed since last July (which my latest disagreement with him suggests to me that he has not), I see this as being a somewhat provisional state and definitely not compelling a vote for adminship. (I'm someone who sometimes has strong opinions about uses of historical sources and statements, so please read the discussions linked and decide for yourself, don't just take my word for it.) --Fastfission 05:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    For a response see : User talk:Fastfission#Fact check GeneralPatton 05:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    It's a response, but one that's not really getting at the essence of my problems. For my "responses" (clarifications, further explanation), see User_talk:GeneralPatton#Adminship_etc. I'm really not trying to grind your goose, GeneralPatton, I just don't think you're the best choice for adminship. That doesn't mean I don't think you should participate in Wikipedia, I just think you lack certain comprehensional abilities and communication skills which would be essential for being labeled an admin of the English wiki. But again, I urge others to look at the links, decide for themselves, this is just my interpretation. I've only labeled it "strong" because I want to draw attention to it, obviously, I don't think it makes my vote count for any more than it normally would. This is not a vote against you, this is a vote against your adminship. They are different things, please don't get so strung out (17 edits to my Talk page in one day) about my one negative vote. --Fastfission 20:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Poor (nil) use of edit summaries and "Show preview". I don't see any effort to perform routine maintenance. Has some well-documented biases, and is friends with some the worst POV warriors around here. I also don't like that it looks like he's using friends from IRC to do favors for him (re: the syphillis image). -- Netoholic @ 15:25, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Does not make proper use of edit summaries. —AlanBarrett 16:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose. The name sounds really disturbing. I can reconsider this, if the name is changed. --M7it 18:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I agree with the above, though not strongly enough to cast my vote this way because of it. To quote from the login screen, "Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a politician, military or religious figure or event." Sarge Baldy 22:12, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    I've also cancelled my own vote as the User has posted a request to change his name. M7it 22:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I think 3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time to grind down the rough edges. I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores and a little more sensitive to the needs of the community -- pretty much right away. The longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship. Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes. Pedant 01:13, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  8. Serious reservations, not enough to oppose as of now. VeryVerily 07:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Opposing. VeryVerily 10:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. OpposeCheeseDreams 19:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I guess I'm not really opposing, I'm just not very confident in this user. Moved to neutral. Andre (talk) 21:33, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Request an explanation of how GeneralPatton reconciles accepting this nomination with the quote I have placed in the comments section below. --Michael Snow 18:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I've made this comment 6 months ago, when I was far less accustomed to wikipedia than now. GeneralPatton 18:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Actually it was 4 months and 5 days ago, when you were already active for 3.5 months, so should have been sufficiently accustomed to Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 01:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    An acceptable explanation having been provided, I move this vote to neutral. I have not investigated GeneralPatton's history enough at this point to make a more informed judgment. --Michael Snow 22:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Insulting language isn't acceptable for prospective admins. However, event was 6 months ago. Moved from oppose to neutral. ElBenevolente 02:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. I'm impressed by the patience I've seen from him in discussions with some problematic editors that shall remain unnamed here. GP's edits seem generally good, sometimes a tiny bit over-enthusiastic, but nothing serious. But please, use edit summaries, provide sources for images you upload (even if they're WWII images!), and try hard to avoid pointless insinuations (like the one on Nov 16, 2004). Shouldn't be too difficult, given that you managed to keep your temper on far more controversial subjects. Other than that: good luck to you. Lupo 08:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Quoting GeneralPatton from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nikola Smolenski:

...it is definitely not good to have really biased administrator. That is why I personally would never accept being an admin, I am biased, I admit it, but so are you, and the truth is somewhere in between.

While I don't necessarily give credence to all of the accusations made there by Avala and others about GeneralPatton, and I recognize that people can change their minds and come to regret previous statements of commitment, I think some explanation is called for in this case. --Michael Snow 18:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I made some beginner mistakes when I joined wiki, being offended by the individuals you have mentioned here and their almost regular push of a POV into specific articles. Since then I've generally learned not to get upset over that what I saw as offensive. Personally, I always invite and accept community input. I can present you with some examples of the things I saw as offensive if you want. I should also note that I rejected an adminship nomination back in early September because I still didn’t think I was ready for the job. GeneralPatton 18:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also want to note that im not a native English speaker, so my choice of “biased” wasn’t really the best choice of words. I wanted to explain to Nikola,Avala,... that as they feel strongly about their oppinion, I also have my own dislike of their POV. However, unlike some of them, I've never imposed a highly controversial POV on articles. In fact i've made all efforts for NPOV, no matter how much I personally agree/disagree. And have never been in an argument absent emotional revert war. In fact i've worked on trying to end several revert wars on wiki. GeneralPatton 20:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Explanation sounds reasonable to me. I note that some of Avala's problems also seem to have stemmed partly from not being a native English speaker. I particularly appreciate GeneralPatton's understanding that one must strive for NPOV in spite of one's own personal views. --Michael Snow 22:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just saw this nomination, and that very comment instantly sprung to my mind... :) GeneralPatton exchanged some pretty heavy words with Avala etc, and he edit-warred with Igor, Nikola etc every now and then, but hasn't generally been overly insistent with regard to some extreme opinions, so this could be treated as something that was "back in the day...". I would vote, but I never bothered to investigate his edits unrelated to ex-yu stuff, although I noticed that there was a fair bit of them. I hope it all turns out for the best. If not, well, we have measures against that. --Joy [shallot] 21:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

since GeneralPatton asked me within minutes of my vote in opposition, I'm copying the following from my talk page, I'm sure he will see it here: [begin] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton Oppose. I think 3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time to grind down the rough edges. I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores and a little more sensitive to the needs of the community -- pretty much right away. The longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship. Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes.

Hi, could you please explain this further? The comments in question where made back in May [5] [6]. Only around a month after I initially joined, and may I add that I was not particularly active up to that time. I've been pretty active ever since, from editing articles to community work. GeneralPatton 01:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
ok, first, you edited this page, my talk page twice within minutes of me voting to oppose your adminship. That right there is a little insistent.
Of your 50 most recent edits, only seven were in the wikipedia namespace, 5 of those were on your votes for adminship page, and it seems you are trying to 'manage' your own election.
At a quick glance:

22:03, 2004 Dec 3 (hist) Talk:Battle of the Bulge (welcome to fourth grade english)

within the last week you behaved insultingly, your edit summary provided no info on the actual edit as well.

to explain "3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time" and "longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship" :

I don't think I need any more admins who behave insultingly, and the longer it takes for you to learn that, the longer I will expect you to work before I am willing to award you extra privileges. I think one week on wikipedia is plenty of time to learn good wiki manners.

"I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores " ... "Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes"

I'd like to see more edits in the wikipedia: namespace and just all in all to notice you doing chores like reverting vandalism, helping to negotiate consensus, etc. Not that you haven't done those, but I am on an awful lot, and haven't noticed that much of what I would term chores from you. I read a lot more than I edit, so I generally expect to notice an admin candidate before they are nominated.

"a little more sensitive to the needs of the community":

the community needs less insults and more politesse... "more lubrication and less friction" and even more so from an admin. You will probably become an admin anyway, but I find it odd that you are tracking your opposition and immediately interrogating them, particularly odd to have you query me twice before I can respond once. You haven't improved my opinion of you. Not that I have a bad opinion of you, there are far worse users, but you could take a look at the behavior of admins I HAVE supported, and you will note that their behavior is pretty near impeccable. Whether you gain adminship this time or not, I hope that my comments are of use to you. I don't bear you any ill will. Pedant 01:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I don't write "welcome to fourth grade english", that was an other user, I did answer that there was a further explanation back up in the article. GeneralPatton 02:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I did not write "welcome to fourth grade english", User:Xmnemonic wrote that heading, I did answer that there was a further explanation back up in the article. I do appricate that you have a high set of standards. GeneralPatton 02:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
alright, I'll delete that part, but 2 edit summaries in a row showed that same text, so will you agree that it is a poor edit summary? Will you allow me to hold the opinion that I think you could do a little better if you tried? May I be allowed to expect admins to be chosen from the group that tries to do a little better than average? You don't need to answer on my talk page, I read everything [wp:Requests for Adminship]. I don't want to hammer on you, but you are really showing me more reasons to oppose promoting you to more privileges at this time.Pedant 02:33, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
If made administrator, I shall do my best to be far and most considerate, working up to the highest standard of dedication, fairness and objectivity. GeneralPatton 02:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[end]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
Probably Enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings, I'd also like to help with policymaking and resolving disputes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I’m pretty pleased of most of mine contributions at Wikipedia, I feel honored and privileged I can make a contribution to a project like this. If I really have to single one out, that'd probably be the Erich von Manstein that gained the Featured Article status.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
Probably the Avala incident that has been mentioned here. This time I’d just let the Arbcom do its work.

Malcolm Farmer

final (15/0/0) ending 16:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am extremely pleased to be able to nominate Malcolm Farmer for adminship. He is among the first of the Wikipedians, having made his first edit in March 2001; there are only five still-active Wikipedians who have been here longer. He has made over 2000 edits. He has stayed involved and is still reverting vandalism without the benefit of a rollback button. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While Malcolm has already indicated his acceptance of the nomination on my talk page, I will ask him to do so here as well. --The Uninvited Co., Inc.

Yes, I'm OK with being nominated. Malcolm Farmer

Support

  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Anyone who's put up with vandalism for so long deserves a medal to go with the sysop privileges! - Lucky 6.9 01:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. An impressively consistent trickle of good edits, which adds up to lots of work when you've been around as longs as Malcolm Farmer. Support. --fvw*† 03:18, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
  4. Impressive! Enthusiastically support. Everyking 06:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. <insert perceptive comment here>! Tuf-Kat 06:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support Duk 11:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Someone who's been around this long is likely to still have the original goals of Wikipedia in sight. Also, a good user. Support. Andre (talk) 21:17, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  8. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:29, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  9. Cribcage 06:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. Support. 172 18:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. Lst27 (talk) 02:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  12. Wow, I didn't know that he had been around for this long. --Slowking Man 03:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Rje 05:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. Support. Would like to see this user be a touch more active, but see no reason whatsoever not to award adminship. Pedant 01:16, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  15. Around since March 2001? Now that's impressive context. Support. Fire Star 06:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • For the record, 2577 edits as of now. Shane King 23:24, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
I've been asked to answer the generic questions for wouldbe admins. So:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Basically, reverting vandalised pages. Being logged in today when a whole bunch of kids were vandalising pages faster than I could revert them was the last straw...
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The historical Anniversaries: The early edits record is lost in the mists of time, but I actually started those pages, with about three random events from history. The anniversaries pages have been through multiple changes from others contributions since then: it's good to see how they caught on. (Though it's inevitable that sooner or later someone would have started it)
Currently, I'm scanning caricatures from Punch to add to the pages of various Victorian worthies. This will be a slow process, as some of them will require creating an accompanying article. But the cartoons are gorgeous and deserve to be given a wide distribution.
And the articles on Marvelman and Inoculation simply because so much of what I initially wrote has survived subsequent edits.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. None, really. Someone disputed a comment I'd made that the Scientology page presented a rather rosy view, as if there was no dispute about any of the facts as presented by the Scientologists, but that was very minor, and way back in 2001. There have been far bigger disputes since then on that subject.
I generally stay away from controversial subjects as I don't think I know enough about them. Malcolm Farmer

Wernher

final (27/0/0) ending 16:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wernher has been here over a year and has made about 7,000 edits, apparently without inciting any controversy. I asked him whether he would be interested in adminship about two weeks ago, and after careful consideration has decided to accept a nomination.

While Wernher has already indicated his acceptance of the nomination on my talk page, I will ask him to do so here as well. --The Uninvited Co., Inc.

Aye aye, that's right—like some time ago I told the esteemed speaker/writer above, now again I solemny declare that I accept the nomination. :-) --Wernher 06:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. gadfium 23:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. I've never had the pleasure of bumping in to Wernher, but judging by the edit history, a valuable asset to WP. Lots of good copy editing, all edit-summarised. Support. --fvw*† 03:21, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
    • Thanks for noticing! :-) I try to make a point of doing my summaries (have to be a good example -- I tire to the brink of blood_pressure++ from having to click on diffs on my watchlist ad nauseam just to rediscover that three fifths of edits are fixes of typos &c...). --Wernher 06:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Sure, I'm happy to support. Everyking 06:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. I'm in support as well. Ericthered 08:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. I support the candidate as I know Wernher for the nitpicker he is :) Harald_Hansen 9:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support Duk 11:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support --Dittaeva 14:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Michael Snow 18:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. As someone who campaigns constantly for accurate edit summaries by trying to lead by example, I can't but support Wernher. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 18:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:29, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  12. Andre (talk) 02:09, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Cribcage 06:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  14. --Verdlanco (talk) 07:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. I heartily support Wernher's candidacy User:Lectrice007
  16. jni 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. Support. 172 18:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. GeneralPatton 21:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. M7it 22:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  20. Great nomination. Lst27 (talk) 02:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. Anyone with this many edits and no controversies must be a good user. --Slowking Man 03:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Rje 05:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. Went through a bit of Wernher's contribution history just now & what I saw seemed solid & appropriately tidy w/o any obvious and untimely controversies. Seems like a solid candidate to me... :) -- Olve 06:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  24. --Moffedille 18:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  25. This is exactly the type of editor I feel strongly deserves adminship Pedant 01:18, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  26. Fire Star 06:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  27. Support . -BSveen 10:11, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • 8914 edits as of now. Shane King 23:29, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. 1) Reversion of vandalism and unintended misedits (the pages I frequent most often, i.e. the ones on my slightly geekish watchlist, tend to be more exposed to the latter). 2) Copyediting (I have a proofreader's eye for typos and a compulsive urge to correct them... not always a pleasure, for sure, but often handy when dealing with my own written work of course -- and, as you know from my huge pile of nano-contributions, the urge has found a constructive outlet on Wikipedia).
3) While not definitionally an admin-chore but important still the same: continuing my work of category and template maintenance, the latter including trimming/pruning to avoid bloated 'listboxes'. 4) TBA... --Wernher 06:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. To mention a couple of contributions I feel like drawing attention to now as winter is providing me with a long-needed break from football broadcasts on TV, I point you towards these: Biathlon*, Olympic medalists in b., B. World Championships, and B. World Cup medalists. The three medalist-list articles were a lot of work, with manual/eyeball-based 'data mining' from a lot of places, including a fair share of discrepancy resolution along the way: I now think that these lists are the 'net's most complete, consolidated, and error-free sources for that data.
(* Biathlon, beyond question, is the absolutely coolest sport on Planet Earth; just ask millions of Norwegians, Finns, Germans and Russians. The coolness, btw, is multifaceted, the World Championship being held in Siberia a couple of years ago... :-] )
Also, on a more geekly note, I have contributed quite much to the Commodore home computer articles (and [home] computer articles in general; obviously, it's a hobby of mine). See e.g. Commodore 128, chiclet and membrane keyboard. Re: my 'quest' to educate the world about Norway and Norwegians (hopefully non-POV, I should say), see my childhood home town Kristiansund, lying (necessarily) in my home county Møre og Romsdal, and also take a look at the List of Norwegian-Americans. --Wernher 07:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I've had three or four edit conflicts in my time on Wikipedia. I have mostly tried to talk rationally to the other party, and if the discussion got a little heated I usually waited a couple of days, did some editing on other articles, and then reworded my view(s) and asked for others to comment as well. This has most often worked out well. Other times, I just let the whole matter rest, and several months later my view actually prevailed as seen by majority editing practice (admittedly somewhat satisfying, yes).
(My philosophy on this account is that I might well have only one life, probably not exceeding ~100 years of living, unfortunately, and I plainly cannot afford to waste a significant amount of that short time span by engaging in non-existentially-important quarrels. I guess the relevant buzzword is "quality time". Also, I don't have the mental energy to do much bickering; never had, really.) --Wernher 06:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In chronological order, newest first

For earlier successful nominations, see Archives below

Candidacies not promoted

These are now on their own page, in alpha order, at Wikipedia:Adminship candidacies not promoted

Archives

Older nominations are not archived, but can be found in the page history:-

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship&oldid=8357664"