Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive3

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

Contents 1 Promoted 1.1 Eptalon (checkuser) 1.1.1 Support 1.1.2 Oppose 1.1.3 Comments 1.1.4 Question 1.2 Creol (checkuser) 1.2.1 Support 1.2.2 Oppose 1.2.3 Comments 1.2.4 Question 1.3 M7 (checkuser) 1.3.1 Support 1.3.2 Oppose 1.3.3 Comments 1.4 Huji 1.4.1 Support 1.4.2 Oppose 1.4.3 Comments 1.5 Phaedriel 1.5.1 Support 1.5.2 Oppose 1.6 Isis 1.6.1 Support 1.6.2 Oppose 1.6.3 Neutral 1.6.4 Comments 2 Not promoted 2.1 Snake311 (2nd nomination) 2.1.1 Support 2.1.2 Oppose 2.1.3 Comments 2.2 Deskana (checkuser) 2.2.1 Support 2.2.2 Oppose 2.3 Barliner (2nd nomination) 2.3.1 Support 2.3.2 Oppose 2.3.3 Comments 2.4 Tygrrr (checkuser) 2.4.1 Support 2.4.2 Oppose 2.4.3 Comments 2.4.4 Question 2.5 Barliner 2.6 Spiderpig0001 2.6.1 Support 2.6.2 Oppose 2.6.3 Comments 2.7 Oysterguitarist 2.7.1 Support 2.7.2 Oppose 2.7.3 Comments 2.8 Questions for the candidate 2.9 Huji 2.9.1 Support 2.9.2 Oppose 2.9.3 Neutral 2.9.4 Comments 2.10 Punk Boi 8 2.10.1 Support 2.10.2 Neutral 2.10.3 Oppose 2.11 ONaNcle 2.11.1 Support 2.11.2 Oppose 2.11.3 Neutral 2.11.4 Comment 2.12 Tdxiang (bureaucrat) 2.12.1 Support 2.12.2 Oppose 2.13 Nishkid64 2.13.1 Support 2.13.2 Oppose 2.13.3 Neutral 2.14 Alastor Moody 2.14.1 Support 2.14.2 Oppose 2.14.3 Neutral 2.15 Meateater 3 Removal of access 3.1 Removal of status: User:SimonMayer and User:Brion VIBBER

Promoted

Eptalon (checkuser)

Eptalon (talk ▪ changes)

Based on the same discussion(link as given at Tygrrrs request, The admin noticeboard), I would also like to nominate myself for a CheckUser. Again, this is done to give people a choice. If they then feel that one of the candidates does not meet their expectations, not supporting that candidate will hopefully leave us with two people to award CheckUsership to.

As this is a self-nomination, there will be no candidate acceptance section. You will also not see me vote in this request.--Eptalon 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. --M7 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Archer7 - talk 06:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I believe that Eptalon certainly has the technical ability to use the tool effectively, and of course trust is not an issue.
3. -- Creol(talk) 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Surely - Huji ^reply 12:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
5. sure --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
6. - He used big words and formulae in his answer to Majorly, that has to mean he has experience :P Gwib^-(talk)- 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
7. --Werdan7^{T @} 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Majorly (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC) But as per M7, I'd like you to volunteer to have your access removed should you become inactive/not use your rights. Regards, and good luck!
9. Absolutely! Phaedriel - 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
10. I said this for creole too. I support this user because M7, Majorly, and Phaedriel are users that I trust. I believe this user will work hard to be a good checkuser for the Simple wikipedia. I hope you choose to count my support. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Decisions ,Decisions  ;) ..--Cometstyles 13:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
12. · Tygrrr^·talk· 13:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
13. --Cethegus 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
14. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Maxim 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Support.--Kyoko 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
17. ...Aurora... 10:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
18. --Yegoyan 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
19. - Alison ^❤ 04:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
20. --Support. Always helpful.Hikitsurisan 10:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
21. -- Let him protect this wiki. aflm (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Strong support extremely trustworthy. Jordan - talk 16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
23. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
24. While I'm not too familiar with Eptalon, users with whom I am familiar and who I trust (and who I supported as checkuserers) support xem, and no one opposes, so I, too, give my support. WODUP 05:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Oysterguitarist 15:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Eptalon is now promoted to checkuser status. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} ^RFA 18:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he isn't. Majorly (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Now he is.--Werdan7^{T @} 14:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do you think you have sufficient knowledge of IP addresses, proxies etc to be able to fulfil this role well? Majorly (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a degree in Computer Science (as a major). Computer networks were one of my specialisations. So yes, I think I have the required knowledge regarding Classless Interdomain Routing (CIDR), (IPv4) netmasks, and the like. I might have to read up a little on IPv6, but I do not think Ipv6 is in widespread use (except perhaps Japan, which changed to it). --Eptalon 07:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Eptalon, I'm pretty certain you have the requirements; you may need to study more about XFF too, in the mean time. - Huji ^reply 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Creol (checkuser)

Creol (talk ▪ changes)

Creol has been an active user and powerful admin here. I request him to become a checkuser too. - Huji ^reply 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept the nomination. -- Creol(talk) 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You now have checkUser access. Please subscribe to checkUser-l, the private mailing list for checkUsers. If you use IRC, you can contact Dmcdevit or Jdforrester for access to the private freenode channel #wikimedia-checkuser. Thanks. —Pathoschild 18:12:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. - Huji ^reply 14:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC) As the nominator.
2. - Blockinblox - talk 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC) He is trustworthy enough to be a checkuser IMO
3. -Cometstyles 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
4. - Gwib^-(talk)- 15:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
5. --M7 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Archer7 - talk 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
7. of course --vector ^_^ (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Definitely. Phaedriel - 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
9. · Tygrrr^·talk· 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
10. --Werdan7^{T @} 19:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
11. --Yegoyan 19:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
12. --Eptalon 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Oysterguitarist 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
14. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
15. - Jordan - talk 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Majorly (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC) But as per M7, I'd like you to volunteer to have your access removed should you become inactive/not use your rights. Regards, and good luck!
17. --Herbythyme 10:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC) - however I too would echo Majorly's words
18. I strongly disagree with him on important matters but I must confess that, among the three candidates, he is the one who masters the best our wiki specificities. ONaNcle 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
19. I support this user because M7, Majorly and Herbythme do. These are users that I trust and their word is good. I do not think that you have to have a deep understanding of IPs to be effective. Checkusers have ways to share knowledge. We help each other out a lot. I have learned a lot from my fellow checkusers and I look forward to sharing with new checkusers in the future. I hope you choose to count my support. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
20. —WODUP 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
21. --Cethegus 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
22. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Maxim 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. --Kyoko 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
25. ...Aurora... 10:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Yep - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
27. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 08:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
28. - Support. Always helpful. Hikitsurisan 10:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
29. - I support and wish good luck. Ksbrown^talk 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While I see Creol as a terrific administrator, I just wonder if I could trust him to be a checkuser. M7 is a wikimedia steward which obviously means he qualifies for that position, but Creol hasn't yet demonstrated his ability to be trusted to be a checkuser. I've checked his other user accounts on other wikis (including commons and meta), but he only has sysop rights in here. Meta checkuser policies states that checkusers are the most trusted people on the wiki, but Creol lacks somehow lacks some stuff to be a checkuser. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 21:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

While I see Creol as a terrific administrator, I just wonder if I could trust him to be a checkuser. M7 is a wikimedia steward which obviously means he qualifies for that position, but Creol hasn't yet demonstrated his ability to be trusted to be a checkuser. I've checked his other user accounts on other wikis (including commons and meta), but he only has sysop rights in here. Meta checkuser policies states that checkusers are the most trusted people on the wiki, but Creol lacks somehow lacks some stuff to be a checkuser. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen something from him which makes you not to trust him? - Huji ^reply 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do you think you have sufficient knowledge of IP addresses, proxies etc to be able to fulfil this role well? Majorly (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel I do. I have been dealing with IPs since the days when people primarily used command line applications to do the tasks of tracing and identifying. I am comfortable with proxy identification, both purposefully created (Anonymizers) and accidental (poorly configured systems usually straight out of the box). Also I am familiar with WMF's policy on privacy of such sensitive personal information which is a part of doing the job of CU. -- Creol(talk) 07:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

M7 (checkuser)

M7 (talk ▪ changes)

I would like to nominate User:M7 for checkuser status on Simple English Wikipedia. He is already a Wikimedia Steward and has all the requirements for checkuser access. - Huji ^reply 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:

Thank you for the nomination, I accept and I also agree to abide to the WMF privacy policy. --M7 15:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You now have checkUser access. Please subscribe to checkUser-l, the private mailing list for checkUsers. If you use IRC, you can contact Dmcdevit or Jdforrester for access to the private freenode channel #wikimedia-checkuser. Thanks. —Pathoschild 18:14:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Blockinblox - talk 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC) I've always said M7 should be our checkuser if we ever had one. Blockinblox - talk 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. - Huji ^reply 14:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC) As the nominator.
3. - Cometstyles 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
4. -- Creol(talk) 15:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC) The obvious choice for the job.
5. Archer7 - talk 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
6. of course --vector ^_^ (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Indeed. Phaedriel - 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
8. · Tygrrr^·talk· 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
9. --Werdan7^{T @} 19:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
10. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
11. --Eptalon 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Checkuser already in effect - but should you ever become inactive, I'd prefer you to give up your rights if you don't use them. Regards, and good luck! Majorly (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
13. --Yegoyan 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Oysterguitarist 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
15. - Gwib^-(talk)- 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
16. - Jordan - talk 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
17. - no question of support from me, known & trusted --Herbythyme 10:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
18. I do not have very many changes on this project. But I am already a checkuser on the English Wikipedia, on Meta, and on Commons. I have worked with M7 and he is a good person. He is someone I trust. He is a hard worker. If he says he will give this work good effort, I believe him. I do not think he needs to be involved every day. People can reach him on IRC if there is something bad and important happening. For these reasons I think he is a good choice for checkuser here. It is hard for smaller wikis like this one to get the 25 support votes that are needed. So there may be some other concerned editors coming in to voice support for these candidates. I hope that is all right with all of you. I hope you choose to count my support. But I will not be mad if you decide not to count my support. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
19. —WODUP 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
20. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Although a more active user on this project might be better, I'm sure M7 will do great as a checkuser. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Thanks for accepting nomination. --Cethegus 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Maxim 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. --Kyoko 00:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
24. ...Aurora... 10:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Count me in - Alison ^❤ 04:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Fully, on grounds he is WMF Steward, which means I can trust him. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 21:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
27. One of the person that I trust more on wikipedia. --Filnik ^{L'italian admin!} 12:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Despite his steward status, I want someone who is involved in the project daily or close to daily at the very least. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Usually, I don't vote when I don't know about someone... in this very case, the goal is to reach 25 people involved unless the vote is not valid. It's the only reason why I Oppose this candidate whom I'm too lazy to know more about him. ONaNcle 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC) The 25 people mark goal has been reached today ; therefore my vote is not needed any more. ONaNcle 12:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Is M7 active enough here for this? -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true, I've been here the lesser part of two months and I've only just seen his name. Never once have I crossed it on the recent changes page (however, he might just be editing at a time when I'm asleep).

Gwib^-(talk)- 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, when he accepts the nomination, he is accepting the responsibility. The need for two CUs is because each can check the requests made by the other one, so it wouldn't be a problem if one of them would check less regularly. Nevertheless, I think it is a good idea to nominate a third person. - Huji ^reply 16:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I share the concern that M7 is not very active here. My top two choices for CU would actually be Archer and Creol. I would perhaps be happy to have M7 and Creol for now and have Archer run in a few months once he's 18 (assuming, of course, that he would want the added responsibility). · Tygrrr^·talk· 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a wise idea, Tygrrr. By the way, maybe M7 would become more active here due to the new responsibility. - Huji ^reply 16:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, nice to hear that you have the trust in me! I believe that although M7 is not that active as an editor, he would be able to perfom CheckUsers as quick as anyone else here if we send an email. If we're (for some reason) desperate for new CheckUsers when I'm eligible, I'd be happy to take it on, but I see no problem having M7 as a permanent CheckUser and can't think of why you'd need me. Archer7 - talk 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is in fact a great idea, and I strongly endorse it. Three CUs this trusted and knowledgeable ensure we won't have to worry about this for at least a couple of years. Phaedriel - 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Huji

Ended on September 9, 2007. 100% support.

Huji was previously nominiated on August 4, 2007. At that time the main objections to his nomination were too many admins already and a low (500) main space edit count. There was also a controversy with how to count neutral votes. The vote of a user who was later found out to be a banned sockpuppet also affected the outcome of that vote. Huji currently has over 2,000 edits, over 1000 edits in the mainspace alone. He has demonstrated a strong understanding of policy and a dedication to help the wiki. I can only believe he can help even more will admin access. -- Creol(talk) 09:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I hereby accept this nomination, and ask the community for allowing me to have admin rights. - Huji ^reply 12:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support - Huji is an excellent worker with many useful tricks to get things done fast and a bot which works well. Gwib^-(talk)- 09:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support he should have been made one last time. An excellent editor, and I think he'll make an excellent admin. Majorly (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Huji is kind, helpful, thoughtful and hard working. What else to ask in an admin? Phaedriel - 15:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 15:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as I stated last time around, Huji has valuable admin experience on other mediawiki projects, so he should make a responsible and trusted admin here too. Blockinblox - talk 15:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - As nominator. -- Creol(talk) 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Oysterguitarist 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - How can I resist? --Isis§^(talk) 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Archer7 - talk 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Pour --vector ^_^ (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support ONaNcle
• The real big question here is: Where do we get the 5 oppose votes from, this request needs to fail? - Support of course. --Eptalon 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support · Tygrrr^·talk· 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support as the original nominator. →Ionas Rand 06:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

On one hand, I agree with Majorly above he should have been made one last time while he had already 500 edits.

On the other hand, I disagree with the new rule (where does it come from ?) about the 2,000 edits : when Majorly was nominated at Spring, he was slightly below the 500 gap. ONaNcle 13:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting 2,000 edits from? I've heard 1,000 plenty of times (and that is just a general rule of thumb) but I have not ever seen anyone mention 2,000 edits until just now. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Isis rule ONaNcle 13:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

She was not saying it as a rule, she was simply saying that she has made over 2,000 edits. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Phaedriel

Ended on September 9, 2007. 94% support.

It is hard to look for more in an admin that what is found in Phaedriel. With prior experience in the position, an amazing talent for dealing patiently and politely with users, and a good understanding of policy and guidelings while at the same time an openness to learn in areas she is lacking (what admin knows everything?), I can not help but feel she would make a wonderful admin who would use the extra tools for the better of the wiki. With close to 2300 edits (1700 mainspace) her willingness to contribute shows easily. -- Creol(talk) 09:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I'm truly moved by Creol's most kind words, and by the support of our fellow editors below, even before I became aware of this. I'm honored and happy to accept, hoping that this may help me serve our community in the best way I possibly can. Phaedriel - 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support - Nice, friendly and easy to work with. Her contribs are always good ones and she already has two (soon three) VG articles in less than a month. Gwib^-(talk)- 09:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support but with the understanding that my "vote" may not be valid. I am ElinorD at English Wikipedia, and have administrator rights there. It is from there that I know Phaedriel, who is also an administrator there. She is very kind and very trustworthy, and has done excellent work as an administrator, upholding policies such as the one on image copyright, but in the gentlest way. The reason my vote may not count (and I fully accept that) is that I am not very active here. I am just commenting as a respected user from another project, who has experience of Phaedriel. My contributions here will at least show that I didn't register this account for the purpose of supporting her! ElinorD 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I have a brief experience here and 3 years on en:wiki and de:wiki. I have found Phaedriel very friendly and helpful. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 10:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I believe she will become a very helpful admin. - Huji ^reply 12:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good grief, I was thinking about nominating last night! Anyway, Phaedriel is an extremely hardworking editor here, with a great mix of article work and janitor chores. She is also one of the kindest, friendly users - no, people - that I've ever had the luck to meet. She'd make a brilliant admin. I just hope she accepts! :) Majorly (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - she'll be a great admin! FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the sheer number of new articles she has contributed to the growth of this project alone, makes her hard to turn down! Blockinblox - talk 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - As nominator. -- Creol(talk) 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Oysterguitarist 16:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely. Of course. 100%. Duh! --Isis§^(talk) 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. Phaedriel is already very familiar with Wikimedia policies due to her experience at English Wikipedia. She unfailingly treats others with kindness and civility. Looking through her contributions, she participates in both writing/editing and maintenance. She is a very prolific contributor here, putting my own meager contributions to shame. I believe that she will be an excellent admin here! --Kyoko 15:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Archer7 - talk 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Pour --vector ^_^ (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• This is boring --Eptalon 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support · Tygrrr^·talk· 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yes. She's fabulous on enwp, and a quick review indicates she's just as great on Simple.--Chaser 04:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Neutral While Phaedriel is a great sysop, she may not be able to deal with being a sysop on both wikis. It is a lot of hard work, since this community is expanding, and en has (now) over 2 million articles, so you may be quite busy. Maybe she will have to give up the Sysop Mop on en. →Ionas Rand 06:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't have neutral votes anymore Ionas. Check here for reference. Gwib^-(talk)- 07:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What does my vote count as? →Ionas Rand 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It counts as an oppose since you put it under the "Oppose" section, unless you'd like to move it to the "Support" section or just simply voice your opinion in the "Comments" section without making a definite vote.

Gwib^-(talk)- 09:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Isis

Ended July 29 2007 - 100% support

Hello, all. I would like to nominate myself for adminship because I think the tools could be useful while editing. I've been editing Simple Wikipedia for about three months (since late April), and have over 2.000 edits. The ability to block users and delete vandalism-only pages would be very helpful, especially when there are no admins around to do so. Isis§^(talk) 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nominating- I was about to yesterday, but I wanted to e-mail her about it first. She already nominated herself so I co-nominate her because she's helped me in my wiki, she has very good edits, she is a monitor of the recent changes, she reverts, she creates, welcomes and guides. Model user and dedicated user. — This unsigned comment was added by Zoey (talk • changes).

Candidate's acceptance: (self nomination)

Support

• Support as co-nominee. --zoey reply 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Huge Support. Isis has been a great and helpful contributor to this wiki, has participated in many activities, and has been needed in this project. I thought you already were one, Isis. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 02:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• support, for me it's ok --vector ^_^ (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support see why Neutral because, as well as User:Zoey, I was waiting only few days to nominate her, waiting just for the soon next edition of the top 49 Simple active contributors where I was above her in the middle of May 2007 and where, in the next edition, we'll be both in the top half. ONaNcle 07:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Isis seems a very honest and reliable user and I see no reason why she would abuse the tools. Billz (Talk) 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support I have found Isis a trustworthy person. I think she would use the admin rights correctly. - Huji ^reply 13:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support Would definitely benefit from having the tools. Archer7 - talk 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Creol(talk) 19:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. A trustworthy editor who has shown a need for the tools and good knowledge of our policies. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Isis has the knowledge, the right attitude, the infinite patience and the warmth and kindness needed to be an excellent admin. Phaedriel - 11:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Isis is among those people, who have contributed most in the last few months. I personally do not believe in those statistics about contributions cited above. Nevertheless I think those additional tools (page deletion, user banning) would give her nice additional frills to play around with. I fully trust her to use them wisely. I have no option but to support her nomination. --Eptalon 13:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support- Hard worker that gets a lot done over here. Would be well-suited for the mop. Good luck!! —Curran H. ^{( talk | contribs (changes) | random (any page) )} 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very bright and diligent user. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 04:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Before I leave, I'll say yes. Isis can replace me when I'm away. :)-- Tdxiang 07:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support Oysterguitarist 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm Lizix and I approve this message! --Lizix 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - RaNdOm26 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Werdan7^{T @} 04:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• Wasn't Isis banned from the English Wikipedia? Or is this a different Isis? 123.2.168.215 11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the user from from english wikipedia. My account over there is User:Isis4563. :) --Isis§^(talk) 12:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted

Snake311 (2nd nomination)

Snake311 (talk ▪ changes)

I perviously nominiated myself for adminship last June [1], but I decided to re-run for adminship. Currently, I have more than 2154 edits (1192 in mainspace) and has been in the simplewiki for a very long time (approx. 1 year + 4 months). My reasons to request for adminship are still similar as the ones I had in the past. I am now more familiar with simplewiki's policies than before and is one of simplewiki's top 20 most active editors. Cheers;) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nominiation. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 05:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Each oldtime User reaching the 500 distinct pages edited mark should be automatically nominated sysop during a one-month probation period before any vote takes place. ONaNcle 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Archer7 - talk 09:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Helpful, hard working, and has clue ;) Phaedriel - 09:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose for a couple of reasons. Although I think you have done some fine work with our Very Good article process, I have some hesitations. The biggest of my hesitations is that I don't have as much trust in you as I would like in order to be comfortable in supporting you for adminship. Secondly, in reviewing your edits to user talk pages (here), only about a dozen of your last 100 edits to user talk pages have been warnings. Also, after looking at your deleted edits (here), it appears that you have only marked one page for quick deletion that was actually nonsense and it was after your RfA began. These two things do not really show to me that you have a need for the tools. I'm sorry, but I feel I must oppose for these reasons. · Tygrrr^·talk· 17:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • While my contributions aren't entriely on reverting vandalism and on tagging RfD templates on vandal articles, I requested my adminship to help me on contributing to simplewiki. I never said that I would simply stick to just one job such as tracking vandalism, but instead use it for a variety of reasons i.e., discuss on simplewiki's policies, help my ability to work on simple's articles, blocking out vandal IPs and sockpuppets, etc. Also I understand that you and I don't send messages as often to one another, leaving both of us not completely sure about eachother, but I like to have discussions with other users when necessary. If you don't feel comfortable on my RfA its okay, but I would still like to contribtue to this wiki. Cheers:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tygrrr -- Creol(talk) 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I feel more that perplexed reading this : .../.. also, after looking at your deleted edits (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&limit=50&target=Snake311 here), it appears that you have... explanation of vote. Unless I was not informed about the sysop vote being a cooptation one it should be forbidden to use such an argumentation. ONaNcle 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. I did forget that sysop rights are needed in order to view deleted edits, so I apologize for that. However, I fail to see how my argument should be "forbidden". For those who cannot see, the page I linked to shows pages Snake311 has contributed to which have been deleted. If a user marks many pages for quick deletion, this would be an indication that he or she may need the ability to delete pages, as they are essentially the "middle man" for administrators. However, this is not the case with Snake311 as he has only marked one page for deletion that was a vandalism page. My personal criteria for who should be an administrator is trust, large activity here, and a need for the tools. Snake311 does not meet all of these criteria in my opinion. That was all I was trying to say with my vote above. · Tygrrr^·talk· 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is forbidden in an explanation. Explanations aren't even needed. She is saying that there are only a few times where he would have quick deleted a page himself. I guess I don't otherwise understand what you mean. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  19:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated above simply deleting vandal articles aren't just my focus for being an admin. My purpose for being a sysop is open to a variety of reasons; but I still would occassionally help out on deleting nonsensable articles. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} ^RFA 00:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deskana (checkuser)

Deskana (talk ▪ changes)

I realise that this will likely not pass as I am not really actively editing here, but I am willing to propose myself for CheckUser access if community wishes it. I looked at this page when someone asked me to do a CheckUser for them on Simple (not realising I wasn't one). I'd like to address why I think I am suitable for this role on this Wikipedia specifically. Firstly, I am a bureaucrat and an administrator on enwiki, and more importantly in this context, a CheckUser on enwiki, having been elected by the arbitration committee. This means that I am qualified technically to serve here, and am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. CheckUser on this wiki is identical in every way to enwiki. Seconly, I am very accessible on IRC, via e-mail and on my enwiki user talk page, meaning that despite the fact I don't edit much here, I am easily contactable meaning I can effectively help people. Thirdly, I currently do have spare time on my hands to help with CheckUser here. I would also like to address the concern that people may have that I am not experienced enough with Simple to hold this position. Well, since I am not an administrator, it is totally impossible for me to block anyone out of line with Simple's policies and practices. Note that I do not propose I am given administrator rights as well, so as a CheckUser I would only consult with the administrators. Thank you for the consideration. --Deskana 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I think it would be helpful to have CheckUsers who can be easily contacted, and I feel that Deskana is already qualified and can be trusted with the position here, even if he isn't nearly as active at Simple as the other candidates. --Kyoko 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - obviously qualified :-) --Boricuæddie 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
3. I know Deskana. I have worked with him. He has the skill needed to do the job. It looks like two checkusers have already passed. So maybe Deskana does not need to be elected. But if the community wants another checkuser, Deskana could do it. Choosing not to be an administrator on purpose is interesting. It removes certain kinds of possible conflicts of interest. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - per Kyoko and Lar. I know Deskana from enwiki; he has an excellent track record, is trustworthy and is regularly available - Alison ^❤ 04:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support echoing Kyoko and Boricuaeddie. WODUP 05:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I assume this is to do with you feeling powerless when you visit other wikis. I know you and your trustworthy enough to have this status--Phoenix 15 09:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support - Well I Know he is least likely candidate for this wiki because he doesn't edit here much, but since Dan is an English Wikipedia checkuser, he will bring with himself experience and the Know-hows of checkuser policies and would make a great checkuser..--Cometstyles 17:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - per above. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm sure you're very well qualified but M7 is here more than you and I don't think he should be given CheckUser status. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Per Browne34, plus you have less than 1000 edits to qualify as a sysop or even as a checkuser. While you do have proof for your experienceas a checkuser, I'd prefer someone who is also familiar with simplewiki. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
3. "rarely active" says it all. Gwib^-(talk)- 10:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
4. oppose Sorry Dan, not sure what you're thinking here :S, but I'd rather users who were more involved with this project to be checkuser. Majorly (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose If you were more active on simple.wiki I would reconsider. Also, votes of users with a small number of edits will not be counted in the RfCU. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

   Also, I'm not going to make any accusations or such, but it is a bit odd that a bunch of the en.wiki regulars created Simple Wikipedia accounts in the past few days only to vote in these RfAs. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well with checkusers, it's different to RFAs. However, you are right - the users in question have provided no rationale other than "he is great elsewhere", so what if he is? Checkusership shouldn't be given out because you have it already on another wiki. Majorly (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Per BrownE34. - Huji ^reply 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Majorly.--Werdan7^{T @} 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
8. --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Barliner (2nd nomination)

Barliner (talk ▪ changes)

Ends on 29 September 2007

This is a very trustworthy user, who I believe can do a much better job helping this Wikipedia with the Admin tools. I once asked him to QD a page (beliving he had admin tools), and relized he didnt, so thats what made me, Spiderpig0001, decide to nominate Barliner. Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:

Support

• Support. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose as I did 6 days ago, for the same reason [2]. · Tygrrr^·talk· 02:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose we just did this and I don't believe enough time has passed for people's minds to chagne. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Barliner was just nominated on September 15th. He declined the nomination based on not meeting the guidelines (Mainly, he has only been here since July 28). Nothing has realy changed significantly in the week since then. It is advisable to wait atleast a month before re-nominating. -- Creol(talk) 04:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Creol here. - Huji ^reply 09:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tygrrr (checkuser)

Tygrrr (talk ▪ changes)

Following the discussion on The admin noticeboard, I think there should be more than two candidates. I would therefore like to nominate Tygrrr for this position. Tygrrr has been amongst the most active admins we have. I think she would make a good checkuser. --Eptalon 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's Acceptance

Tygrrr, please put your acceptance (or refusal) below --Eptalon 21:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

After "sleeping on it" and familiarizing myself with the CheckUser policies, I feel confident in accepting your nomination. · Tygrrr^·talk· 14:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

After a lack of support thus far, I withdraw my acceptance to run for this position. Thank you to those who supported me. · Tygrrr^·talk· 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --Eptalon 21:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
2. --M7 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
3. --Yegoyan 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
4. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Sorry, nothing personal at all, but I don't think you are quite ready for this role. Regards, Majorly (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
3. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Question

Do you think you have sufficient knowledge of IP addresses, proxies etc to be able to fulfil this role well? Majorly (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I don't have a degree in Computer Science, I do feel I have enough knowledge of IPs, proxies, and the CheckUser policies to fulfill this role. I think I also have the good common sense that's needed in order to be able to interpret the results I receive from a CU request. And of course, if I had any trouble, I would not hesitate to consult with my fellow CUs for help. · Tygrrr^·talk· 14:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barliner

Ends on September 22, 2007

I would like to nominiate Barliner for adminship; as he has been very helpful to the wiki by helping to improve many articles as well as creating many templates. Out of his 2011 edits, (1322 in mainspace), Barliner is very active in contribtuing to Wikipedia and is generous to other users. He has also shown some potential to be qualified as a sysop, and that I think he would not abuse sysop tools. Peace;) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: No. I would be happy to serve as administrator, but I do not qualify under RfA guidelines, as I only joined simple: on July 28.

No vote as user did not accept the nomination.

Spiderpig0001

Ends on September 7 2007

To all my fellow Wikipedians. I am looking for access to the admin's tools at the moment to make this a better place. I am on here most days fighting vandals when I could be making good edits to the encyclopedia. I am asking for the tools so I do not have to wait for a admin to come on to have vandal action taken (e.g, block a user), and so I can better help everyone here. I have 247 edits at this time, and am prepared to do everything I am asked to do that is within policy. Thank You -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 12:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by Candidate at 0/0/14

Support

Oppose

• Blockinblox - talk 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC) -- Nowhere near enough experience here at Simple EWP to go on, but feel free to apply again at a later date, if you don't succeed!

• Oysterguitarist 13:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I do not feel you have enough experience here at simple EWP, this says 100 of your edits are to User/User talk and only 82 to mainspace out of 232 total edits. I would also recomment doing something besides fighting vandalism, like writing articles, then feel free to run again in a couple months.

• Oppose. Please make sure you meet the Criteria for Administratorship before applying again. · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unfortunatlety, I have to oppose your candidacy. This is mainly because you have not been here long enough (both in terms of time and number of edits). Therefore, please stay with us a little longer and contribute more constructive edits; I suggest you try to get close to 1.000 edits, before trying again. Remember: Adminship is about trust. It is hard to trust people you do not know. Sorry. --Eptalon 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, again. Majorly (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - If you'll look here, you'll see that this particular user got most of his oppose votes because he had just over 500 mainspace edits. You have only 82 mainspace edits, which is less than one fifth of what he had, sorry. Your articles are good, not to complex and cleaned up nicely, just try to increase quantity.
  

Gwib^-(talk)- 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• oppose --vector ^_^ (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Only 82 mainspace and of those many are direct copies of en:wp pages. Most of those are still unsimplified and likely to be deleted soon if nothing is done to clean them up as this is a violation of procedure here. -- Creol(talk) 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per all above. - Huji ^reply 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing personal at all, so please, don't be discouraged by this. You've just started your path here, and there's much to learn. The link provided to you by Tygart above contains useful information, which will explain to you why all of us feel this is very premature. Please, continue to familiarize yourself with our rules and policies, and feel free to reapply at a later time, k? Best regards, Phaedriel - 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose per this and this. Sean William 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Extraordinarily strong oppose per Sean William. Daniel.Bryant 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose --Isis§^(talk) 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• See also candidate's previous request at Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive3#Punk_Boi_8 -- Blockinblox - talk 12:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not going to support or oppose, mainly because I have very few edits on the Simple Wikipedia and I don't think it's right for people from other project to !vote in RfAs on projects they aren't active in. But I would just like to comment as an EN WP admin who had the rather interesting experience of dealing with Spiderpig0001 as an admin on the English Wikipedia, I would like to recommend that he not self-nominatate himself for adminship on anymore projects. This RfA result is self-evident anyway, like all the others. Spiderpig0001, I don't think you understand what is expected by the various communities and you would do better to wait until somebody respected in te community tells you that you're ready and is willing to put their own reputation on the line by nominating you. All these premature self-nominations all over the place are only damaging the possibility of you ever becoming an admin anywhere on any project. Furthermore, one of the main activities that led to the community ban from the English Wikipedia was your persistent refusal to stop creating frivolous RfA self-nominations, RfCs, RfArbs and other activities in the WP: space. I understand that you are hoping to have the community ban rescinded, and in that light, it is rather disappointing to see you continuing to engage in the same behaviour on our sister projects. Sarah Ewart 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oysterguitarist

Nomination withdrawn by candidate. Archer7 - talk 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Oysterguitarist (talk ▪ changes) for adminship. I don't know if OG is a he or a she, so I will herefore refer to s/he as Pat. Pat has been a nice user, great vandalism fighter (but does not focus on vandal fighting, we don't want that), and an overall great contributor. Pat surely wouldn't abuse the administrator tools. Pat has a great knowledge of wiki markup, and the rules. Pat has not ever been angry or mean, and has always kept his head cool. Remember adminship is no big deal, and Pat would still be great without the sysop rights. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Oysterguitarist 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support as the nominator. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 09:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Great edits and Sysoping on, would be useful. -- Punk Boi 8 06:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. While I do believe that Oysterguitarist has a strong potential for Admin, I do not believe that this is the right time for that to happen. A lack in edits dealing with policy (wikispace edits with more than a simple - "delete per nom" or "delete: not notable"), and a short time here (just over 2 months) does not show me enough about his personality and style to have enough faith to support him. While there are ample edits for the time he has been here, many of the edits are of a nature that do not provide any information to base this decision on. Of his last 100 edits, 51 were reverts and another 10-20 were minor tweaks such as marking stubs or changing "external links" to "Other websites". While these are certainly needed tasks and being a wiki-gnome is always a good thing, these edits can not show how he is likely to act as an admin. There has also been at least one questionable issue that makes me wonder about his extent of understanding of policy; one RfD he added with a reason of "Badly written". I fully believe he can be a good and trusted admin, I just think he needs a little more time before this should happen. -- Creol(talk) 08:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe on the RFD I did not explain well enough what I meant, it was so badley written it did not make sense. Oysterguitarist 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am unsure of which way to vote. You are certainly on the right path, yet I feel you don't yet have enough expirience. I want to vote support, really, I do, but I just don't feel I should at this time. Out of your 1049 edits, 634 are in the mainspace, 244 in usertalk, 11 in articletalk, and 74 in user. These statistics don't really say this user would make a great admin! They say, This user will make a great admin at a later time! (A little stupid, I know, but that's my thinking!) I don't encourage users to rush into adminship. If I feel they are ready for the stress and insults thrown at them, I vote support. If I feel they are doing as much as they can at this point in time, I will vote oppose. Sure, the tools are handy. Yes, I understand how hard it is to wait for the outcome of the RfA. As much as I want you become an admin, I don't think you are ready. Trust me, it's nothing personal. Do you realise how dedicated you must be as an admin? I know I didn't when I nominated myself. Right now, you're in the shallow half of the swimming pool. As an admin, you will be thrown into the deep end...from three feet right into the twelve (and a half) feet (My apologies if you're European). So, yes, I'm afraid it's an oppose from me. No, wait, I'll make that a weak oppose, because I really, really want you to be an admin. But right now, I believe, is not the right time for you, Oyster. :) Please don't take this personally. --Isis§^(talk) 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like Isis above, I don't think that you have enough experience on Simple to become an admin. I think that you've made good quality contributions, but I would wait a few months before requesting. I'm not an admin, but I know how hard it can be, and on my own things I run outside Wikipedia, I know that I spend most of my time doing it. Becoming an admin is a large dedication, and I'm not entirely convinced that you are ready for it yet. Jordanhatch - talk 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like the above votes, I am opposing your request due to your lack of experience and the fact that we seem to have plenty of administrators. When I became an administrator, there were very few in the team, but there are significantly more now and I feel that there is enough to deal with all issues. Billz (Talk) 17:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, with regret. I agree with Archer7's thoughts below regarding that, with only 8 active administrators (including bureaucrats) and 5 semi-active ones, our administrators' ranks are severely undermanned. Hence, nothing would please me more than seeing dedicated users like you giving a much needed hand in admin-related chores. However, I share the unease expressed by Isis above in terms of your current level of understanding policies and procedures. I personally also consider it important to take part in article writing, an area that you haven't delved into yet either. My friendliest advice to you is, keep it up; you're on the right track, and someday, I hold no doubts that you'll make it. Love, Phaedriel - 19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry man, but I also think that you lack some experience which is required for admin status. While I'd still agree that you could be a potential as a great sysop, but right now dosen't seems to be the right time. :( --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 06:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to make a comment to back up what Isis has said:

"If I feel they are ready for the stress and insults thrown at them" and "Do you realise how dedicated you must be as an admin? I know I didn't when I nominated myself. Right now, you're in the shallow half of the swimming pool. As an admin, you will be thrown into the deep end..."

Being an admin here isn't the same as what it was when I was promoted. Back then, it was what we advertised it as - extra tabs and maybe occasionally the odd email from users requesting help. Now, it's difficult. Administrators here now have to face insults and threats from all kinds of people, and it is (at least for me) very stressful. Imagine the worst people that target the English Wikipedia - they want to cause as much disruption as possible. So they come over here to another English project that they can read and we only have 14 active admins rather than the hundreds that they have. Administrators here have to try and spot (and stop!) these people before they can cause massive problems, and it can be difficult sometimes. Being an admin is definitely rewarding, but ask yourself, are you ready for it? Archer7 - talk 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to respond to that? Oysterguitarist 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, just think about it :) I don't want to put you off becoming an admin or anything, but I think it's unfair to promote people and then throw them into it with no idea of what is happening. The admin tools are really really helpful for everyday editing, but unfortunately you get a bit of other stuff with it. Archer7 - talk 09:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well i have an account on en and as you could guess i do RC patrolling and get a fair share of personal attacks and trolling that is nothing new to me, i'm positive it's nothing compared to what you recive but just to let you know it wouldn't be completly new to me. Also if you think i'm not ready that's fine with me i can still be helpful and not be an admin :) Oysterguitarist 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, as I said, I'm not here to put people off becoming admins. I think that would be an interesting attitude for a bureaucrat though :) I think most people would do fine, but just so that you know. Archer7 - talk 16:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I not sure what you meant but ok. Oysterguitarist 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Courtesy blanked. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Huji

Ended on August 11, 2007 - 62% support

I, I.D. Rand, would like to nominate Huji (talk ▪ changes) for adminship. He has helped the project and I greatly with the formation of the main page, its format, colour, and layout, and, more importantly, helped with the encyclopædia. He has been very kind, helping other users, and is on Wikipedia for its true purpose — to help others learn. The encyclopædia is growing - and Huji is always helping! And, although he has only been here two months, he has over 1000 edits. He would be a great replacement for Sean William. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:

I humbly accept this request, and ask the community for sysop rights. - Huji ^reply 18:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

• 'Huji currently has about 1200 edits in total; of the 790 last month, about 17% were in User/User talk namespaces. This is not something to worry about. I am aware, that Huji only started his fourth month here, but he has been easy to work with. I also do not think we should deny a user Admin rights, based on the fact that there are enough (active) admins already. The discussion on simple talk (Running out of editors) shows that being an admin is a sign of trust, rather than anything else. The more trusted users we have, the better this may be. I therefore can only support his nomination. --Eptalon 10:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support "We have enough admins" is no reason to oppose someone if they are otherwise OK. Huji is an admin on the Persian Wikipedia as well so I think he can be trusted. Majorly (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. ionas ^talk _contribs 01:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Huji has shown a strong understanding of policy and practice (the commented Complex/en:wp comment being an exception) of this wiki. He often replies quickly and very correctly to questions posed (even those on oters talk pages.. I didnt need to bother with a recent issue on mine as he had dealt with it admirably before I even got to it). He appears in every way trustworthy of the tools and seems as being willing to be relatively highly active and available to use the tools as needed. The issue of having too many admins is not an issue in two ways (1. two of our admins are either on long wikibreaks, issues or out, my activity is drastically lowered recently (summer is busy for me), and another admin I would not like to comment on his activity level at this point beyond saying I find it debatable at best and 2. There is no such thing as too many people trusted as Admins.) -- Creol(talk) 08:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  Side note: His edit count.. while normally this is a sticky point for me and true 500 mains isn't the most favorable, unlike others with those numbers, he has a relatively high number of non-main edits in important sectors such as Wikipedia: rather than many who have them more in User or User talk (he has a high user talk, but those are mainly warnings or replies to wiki related issues). His non main edits are mainly all dealing with policy and practice for this wiki and only add to showing his understanding of how things are done and that he understands much of what is required to be a good admin. -- Creol(talk) 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Huji has admin experience on another Wikipedia, and can surely be trusted with admin tools here. Blockinblox - talk 13:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Archer7 - talk 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I'm glad I returned from my wikibreak just in time to take part in this discussion. From my humble point of view, this is a clear case of quality before quantity of edits; and I'll always be happy to stand by quality. As far as the admin-per-non-admin ratio issue, and remembering I took active part at the discussion linked to by Eptalon, I had the chance to say it there, and I'll repeat it here: the fact that we have a high admin ratio is in fact a good thing. Just, how many Wikis can boast of having such a level of trust on its regular editors? Is it harmful in any possible way? Much on the contrary: I feel much better and safer knowing that many of my fellow editors will have the means to defend this project from vandalism. I can understand we feel awkward to promote, i.e., more bureaucrats; but always remember, adminship - is no big deal. Phaedriel - 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Phaedriel, now I'm not forcing you or asking you to change your vote, but please review. There should be a certain number of edits (in mainspace) and not including reverting vandalism. Huji, in my opinion, should run an RfA next month and bring up the number of mainspace edits. He is a good and trustworthy editor, but in this "almost-out-of-novice" state, anyone can run an RfA because there are many users like him. :) Just my "two cents". --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No he shouldn't. That's incredibly bad editcountitis. I still have less than 1000 edits, and I became an admin about 2 and a half months ago with about 700. It's good there are users like Huji who we can trust to be admins, without counting statistics rather than the person. He's an admin already on another Wiki, so trustworthy; made plenty of good edits here; he's often in the antivandalism IRC channel and he's a nice guy to talk to. In all, a great admin candidate. Majorly (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lizix, your point is valid, and I completely respect it as it's a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose. But you see, we all have different criteria, and things that we value in different ways, and that have more importance to us when reaching a final decision. The number of edits, while giving a general measure to take into account of the levels of experience and trustworthiness of an editor, are not the "be all end all" for me. In Huji's particular case, the fact that he's already an admin at other Wiki (and has not had any behavior problems there, apparently) give me the additional extra I personally needed to decide. That's of course my own criteria, and I utterly respect those who, like you, reach a different conclusion due to your own personal standards. All the best, Phaedriel - 07:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support: I feel he has great potential as an editor and even better potential as an admin. He has made many good quality edits, and I disagree with what Lizix said. He is quite experienced, an admin on other Wikipedias, I'm sure he'll do well here. Jordanhatch - talk 07:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose (Was: Weak oppose) - Nothing personal, but I feel that we already have enough administrators to deal with problems on Simple English Wikipedia. There was one time when a lot were inactive, but we seem to have no major problems at the moment. As I said, I assure you that it isn't anything personal. Billz (Talk) 18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Billz. Indeed, I also believe that the number of admins here is more than what is usually expected on other wikis. I think sysop rights will help me in some situations, yet I think there will be no problem if I don't have them, as long as other admins keep being so active. :)

I think I can help more if given sysop access in two views: first is by making a shortcut (for example, instead of I marking an article for quick deletion and an admin finishing it later, I can do it myself; of course it refers to those cases where deletion of the article is too obvious), and second is by covering the hours when admins are less active here (refer to User:Huji/Stats and compare the graphs to see the minor difference between the time I appear online and the time most of the admins are editing/adminstring here).

Again, I would like to assure you that there is nothing personal here, and I clearly take the point you made. - Huji ^reply 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am going to change my vote to Oppose due to the way in which you handled Liam's message, assuming that Liam was in the right before looking in detail. You also tried a bit too hard to please him, when myself archiving would be the best solution, for all parties.

I also did not realise that you have only just reached 500 mainspace edits, and I feel that this is vital to be a successful administrator. We usually use 1000 edits as a benchmark to see how much experience you have, and you're only half way there. Whilst I am sure you would make a good administrator, I have opposed your application for the reasons outlined above. If you'd like to comment, then I'd look forward to hearing them. Billz (Talk) 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. While I show a lot of respect for Huji and can see that he could make an excellent admin in the future, right now he hasn't been active over the past three months while his stay in simplewiki while the majority of his edits were in the past month where he began to pick up activity around late-June. While is edits based on Interiot's tool dosen't seems to be much of a concern, my only problem about his knowledge of policies is that he sometimes uses en wiki policies over at simplewiki [3]. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  Do I sometimes refer to EN WP policies, or did I link to that on that one special occasion? Anyways, in this special case, En WP and Simple En WP have a similar rule. On WP:CSD#U2, you can read that user pages for non-existant users meet criteria for being quickly deleted. Thanks for the comment anyways. :) (ps:I have no argument about the edit count story) - Huji ^reply 10:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Who would decide to replace Sean William? j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because an admin left doesn't mean they need to be replaced. Oysterguitarist 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm sorry, but you've been here for less a time than I have, you have less mainspace edits than the usual standard. Also, most of the mainspace edits are to reverting and there are enough admins at this time with this number of users. Maybe try again in 2-3 months and bring up your mainspace edits. Sorry. --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I think you have done some excellent work around here, Huji, so please do not take my vote personally. I must be honest, I do not have the level of trust with you as an editor as I would like to have in an administrator. It is slowly developing and I think someday I will trust you wholly. I hope you will not be deterred from continuing to be a good editor here if you do not pass. I hope you can understand my position. Thank you. · Tygartl1^·talk· 02:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This would be a neutral vote, but I'll never vote neutral ever again. Run again in 2 months and I'll be a support vote, assuming you maintain the quanity and quality of edits. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  02:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just wondering, what is your opinion when you do vote neutral? Do you want the candidate to be an admin, or don't you? If you have an opinion either way, you should say it, but in a support or oppose. Neutral is there for comments for people who can't decide. Majorly (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comments and Creol's comments on the talk page for this page. What I was trying to get across is we either get rid of neutral votes entirely and allow those people who only wish to comment and not vote to comment there, or neutral votes count as non-support votes and have a comments section for those who wish not to vote a forum to put their comments. We have a neutral section and a comments section here, thus the neutral votes are actualy votes and count in the total. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  02:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unsure as to what they count to. If you don't want someone as an admin, oppose. If you do, support. If you don't care, but need to comment, put it as a neutral. Majorly (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You've basically summed up my point, all you do differently is keep the neutral section. I say get rid of the neutral section entirely to eliminate any confusion. Any comments should go in the comments section. This really isn't the place for this discussion. I discuss this at this Talk Page. I'm convinced at this point the neutral vote section only creates confusion, and I will no longer cast any neutral vote. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral - I would support you, but Billz has brought up a good point, although I don't think it's enough to oppose such a great user. Also, you have a less than 500 mainspace edits, according to Interiot's tool. --Isis§^(talk) 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• neutral thanks to Billz to have explain my point of view --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This edit (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding) to me it implies you can copy-and-paste then put complex at the top of the article. --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...as long as, you have planned to simplify it and fiddle around with it, but time was thin for you, it may be okay. In this special case, I guess it was about Justification (theology). The user didn't come back to fix it, so I'm going to do it. Thank you for bringing it to my notice. - Huji ^reply 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to offend you :::::::::Lizix:::::::::, but it seems kind of hypocritical to criticise someone and then use improper grammar, like "is implies". Thank you, —Ionas68224 (Talk) 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is it hypocritical? And that just looks like a typo. Majorly (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed them. Happy? And I'm not criticizing anyone. You know so much for an eleven year old. --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be rude (if I am being rude), but it seems like "t" is not near "s". Sorry to fight over little stuff. ionas ^talk _contribs 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are enough admins to take care of the Wiki, why don't we close the RfA page of additional entries, so not to waste more time? --w^{L <talk · hope>} 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(This has nothing to do with this RfA). Adminship is about the trust of the community, of those people that regularly edit here. With our current daily activity level, we do not need 19 people to look after the wiki. Two or three would probably be enough. Still, anyone has the right to file an RfA, and to see this RfA treated fairly. Therefore closing the RfA section is no option. --Eptalon 08:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, dear Eptalon, /methinks WikiLeon was just being a little sarcastical on the "we don't need more admins" argument... Phaedriel - 09:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the people who think that being an admin isn't so much a job as a position of trust towards the person. The more admins there are, the more trustworthy people we have in our comfortable community. That was my two cents (or francs, where I come from)

Gwib^-(talk)- 09:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Phaedriel, isn't it "sarcastic" rather than "sarcastical"?

Both ways happen to be correct, dear Gwib [4] - but anyway, please don't ask my spelling to be flawless so late at night, while I'm this sleepy ;) Phaedriel - 09:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Phaedriel, my mistake (By the way, here it's early morning :D).

Gwib^-(talk)- 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And mid-day here! - Huji ^reply 09:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence... Someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence, certainly never. -- Franz Kafka, "The Silence of the Sirens" (October 1917) --Eptalon 10:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Punk Boi 8

Ends August 4 2007

Hello. I wish to nominate myself for Adminship. While I only have 1 edit, I have about 700 on the (Where I am currently banned, however, I have addresed these issues). I will be able to help WP in many ways, by removing vanelisim, correcting edits to be only simple english and removing Dummy Pages. Please Support. -- Punk Boi 8 05:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Punk Boi 8 05:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:Self Nomination

Support

Neutral

Oppose

• Very Strong Oppose. Your first few edits on the simplewiki was to nomiate yourself for adminship. Also if you were banned from another wikimedia project, its likely your not welcomed here either. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly disruptive nomination, delisted per WP:SNOW. Phaedriel - 05:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

ONaNcle

Ends 15 July 2007

The previous vote was asking me to wait http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive2#Not_promoted about two months before applying again. If you follow the above link, you'll remind my two main motivations. They have not changed. Simple is quieter now than it was in May. I know. Therefore, I couldn't be frustrated if other admins ask me to wait for the end of the Summer holidays. ONaNcle 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Post-scriptum Just before going back to bed :-) I realize that the Interiot statistics are bugged at the top of my User talk page. Most of the people requesting for adminship have been emphatizing those statistics... Please have a look at an analog but less sophisticated tool.

Other statistics reveal that I was already in the middle of the top 49 Simple active contributors. I should be now in the first third of those statistics because it was in the middle of May 2007 that the computer has been browsing Simple for the last time and my edits in the main space have almost doubled since then. ONaNcle 02:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

• --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks too much :-))) You've been the only one to understand my goal was not to use myself the deletion tools but mainly access informative facilities such as UWP or Special:DeletedContributions. ONaNcle 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - You have been an editor here from May 12 (less than two months indeed). Looking at your contributions (and I cannot see the deleted ones for sure) I found some cases like this where what you did is different from what you said in the summary, or this where you have removed all content from a page with the summary showing that you thought it would be accepted when a page has no internal links to it. This makes me think you were not very well aware of Wikipedia standards.
  You asked for admin status very soon, which again makes me think you weren't aware of the skills you have to have, before becoming an admin here. Then you disappeared on May 31, and reappeared just a few days ago, made some edits, and asked for admin permission again.
  You have improved yourself in the past two months, but it still is not enough for me to trust you and vote for your being given admin rights. Even in your newest edits (example) you do things which is not aline with wikipedia guidelines. (You've unstubbed an article, while it was not expanded from the time it was given an stub status). You don't appear to be an all time editor here, you don't appear to know all the things you should know and have the requried skills. I'm sorry but I can't help voting against your request. - Huji ^reply 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, but I have to vote against you, mainly because of these edits: [5], [6], [7], [8]. If you had been an admin, those pages would've been deleted, which is abuse of the tools since there is no real reason to delete them (See here). Also, there are edits like this, which I don't understand. This is another problem because it leads me to think that you don't know about references, external links, etc. Sorry, but you need more experience before becoming an admin. --Isis§^(talk) 18:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm proud having made the edit you don't understand :-) If the future admin I pretend to become is not allowed to revert any single unsourced IP edit it's indeed better that I don't stay among you. BTW the other wikipedia, unlike you, states this book is indeed a novel.

About your other main objection : please tell me where did I pretend to delete at sight ? ? ? ? If I become an admin, I see no reason to change my policy about quick deletion : put the flag myself and wait someone else to delete. ONaNcle 18:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm sorry if I offended you, because as I read through my comment it seemed a little harsh. About the "To kill a mockingbird" edit: How was changing "novel" to "book" an unsourced edit? IMO, "book" is simpler than "novel", which is why I didn't understand why you reverted it. Also, I never said anything about pretending to delete at sight, so I don't know why you said that. If you're just going to continue to put articles up for quick deletion, why do you need the deletion tool? --Isis§^(talk) 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. You have not been active enough here to show a need for the tools. You also do not understand all of Wikipedia's policies yet, particularly the criteria and policies regarding deletion. At this time, I would not trust you with the admin tools. · Tygartl1^·talk· 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per all above comments. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Sorry, but based on previous opposes, it shows that you're currently not ready for sysophood. But keep up the good work and I'll be backing you up next time. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 07:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but these show that you are not ready yet for the sysop mop. Try again next time and don't forget to ask if you're unsure! :)-- Tdxiang 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose contributions show you have been here only two months. j. rand|talk| contribs|email 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Comment

I hope that ONaNcle will put in his user page the wikipedia babel, for advise (if he became sysop) what languages he speaks. Cheers --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

done ONaNcle 19:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tdxiang (bureaucrat)

Ends 27 June 2007 I would like to nominate myself for the position of bureaucrat. I have been an administrator for 7 months and I would like to help out in giving bot flags and renaming of vandal accounts, as well as other users' accounts. Thank you.-- Tdxiang 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support I see no problem. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} ^Adminship 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Tdxiang has been doing great work as an administrator. I don't see any reason not to support his request. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support can't think he'll be doing much work, but I trust him. Majorly (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support. It's not clear to me that we need another, and I'm not convinced that vandal accounts need to be renamed. However, based on the person, I don't think those things are enough to oppose. Also, if someone knows offhand, could they direct me to the discussion on renaming vandal accounts. Thanks, -  BrownE34  talk  contribs 
  • The discussion is here. Archer7 - talk 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support What's the harm in having another, even if he'll be bored?--Werdan7^{T @} 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• support, Why not?? He never abuse of sysop tools. --vector ^_^ (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hell yes. --'Choos'nink ^TALK 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't this RfB over now? --Isis§^(talk) 01:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose (reluctantly). Sorry, you show the skills necessary to do it, but I'm not sure we need any more. We have 3 active bureaucrats and not that much to do. One bureaucrat could probably handle it, two bureaucrats can get it done quicker and deal with immediate problems, three bureaucrats covers virtually everything. Is a fourth really necessary? With administrators, it's just extra tabs to help with 'normal tasks' really, but having four bureaucrats all going after the same work seems a little pointless. However, I'm quite happy for people to throw me off and replace me with Tdxiang if people think it's a good idea, I know I don't have a massive amount of time any more. Archer7 - talk 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Week oppose I'm sure he has got the requirements, but as Archer7 noted, I don't see any need for a new bureaucrat on this small wiki. On the other hand, the little amount of time Tdxiang would put on bureaucract tasks if he is chosen to be one, he will put on tasks which require normal or sysop access, if he is not chosen; this means, his remaining a sysop will help him spend more time on the tasks which really need being done. With regards - Huji ^reply 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry, but it's an oppose from me on the basis that we need no more bureaucrats. That said, I'm sure you'll make a very good one if we need one in the future. Billz (Talk) 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sadly, I oppose. I have a large amount of respect for Tdxiang, but I am falling into the "we really don't need any more bureaucrats" mentality. I am sure that Tdxiang would take his job seriously, but any more than 3 bureaucrats would assure that the 'crats are tripping over each other trying to close RfAs, which is the only substantial bureaucrat job here. Sean William 23:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

4 oppose, 6 support; giving a 66% approval, the question however remains if there is enough work for 4 bureaucreats...--Eptalon 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is a difficult one, but I've given it a few days, and many people are now agreeing on the talk page that the percentage for RfBs should be 75%. I'm now closing this as unsuccessful. Archer7 - talk 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64

8 support/5 oppose/1 neutral

I would like to nominate myself for adminship, because I feel the tools can be of assistance while I am editing and doing RC patrol. I have been a member of Simple English Wikipedia since January 2007 (I did have a two month inactivity period somewhere in between), and I have just over 1,000 edits (graph). I've had quite a bit of experience with speedy deletion tagging, RC patrol (reverting and warning), and also deletion discussion. I am also an administrator on the English Wikipedia and the Meta-Wiki, so I'm not a total stranger to the admin tools. In conclusion, I think the tools would help me with my editing, and I hope my request here is granted. Thank you. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: I accept. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support Very helpful, experienced contributor, always bugging me for admin requests, should be fine. Good luck! :) Majorly (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Good user who will not abuse the tools. He has proved that he is a reliable admin at wikipedia so I have no doubt he will be a reliable admin here.--Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support he is a sysop of en.wiki and meta.wiki (I lost others? :0) , he can do only good things in simple.wiki :) good works --vector ^_^ (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Archer7 - talk 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. good user, could use the tools. --Isis§^(talk) 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support --Herbythyme 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (note:user has 0 main space edits and 7 total edits) -- Creol(talk) 14:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  (note: user is an admin on commons: see here) Wikihermit 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  This vote probably wouldn't count anywhere else, so it probably wouldn't here. Majorly (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support. Good user, needs to be active (or at least a put a wikibreak sign.) Choosnink ^TALK19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support --Werdan7^{T @} 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - despite a low number of edits, in the main space. --Eptalon 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have not been active here, but I think Nishkid is a terrific sysop on the English Wikipedia, and I see no potential for abuse if he is allowed to have the sysop bit here as well. Best, --Nearly Headless Nick 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry, accounts with no edits except RfA votes are not counted. Archer7 - talk 13:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Of the 650 mainspace edits, a majority of those were made on single days using AWB and with the edit summary of "clean up". Some were like this [9] where the only change made was a capitalization correction that didn't even effect the result on the page. Others were like this [10], where only a space between sections was eliminated. A lot of editors add those spaces purposefully to separate things out and keep things uncluttered. I am of the belief that going through and making changes like that only serves the purpose of trying to inflate the edit count to see how fast the RfA can be put in. Don't get me wrong, there were some good edits made during those cleanup sprees. However, I don't think it's a race, I wasn't impressed by changes like the ones I pointed out and others similar in nature, and I think I would support this RfA in another month or two, but not right now. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For anyone who wants the exact figure, 308 of my mainspace contributions were made using AWB. The rest were RC patrol and article work (and article creation). Nishkid64 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. While he is certainly qualified in terms of ability for the position in my opinion, he isn't active enough to need the tools. -- Creol(talk) 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Creol, there's times when he asks me to delete a page/block a vandal, over AIM. What if I'm not there, and no others are? Would it have to wait? Majorly (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That happens to me often. --Isis§^(talk) 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, unless you were doing this on June 1, May 30, May 14, May 13, or January 17 through 20, you probably wouldn't find Nishkid64 on this wiki. Most of his edits were made on those days. Second, under no circumstances does the fact a editor is an admin on another wiki ever influence my decision or shout it effect anyone elses for that matter. A person should only be judged by the edits they've made on the wiki project they're running for. If you take out the fact that he is an admin on English and Meta, none of you would be backing him. You would give the usual: "come back when your edit count is higher." Do it, everyone, think about it and take the admin status on those projects out of the equation. If your vote doesn't change, then the criteria needs to change. My changes on English basically are adding simple english to the interwiki. Simple English is my first and only wiki I contribute on. If I had ran in February or March with the same edit count that he has now, some of you would have found it funny. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Creol, I must disagree. I've tagged dozens of articles for speedy deletion, and after a bit of impatience, asked Majorly on AIM to delete the articles. I think the tools would be useful, since I wouldn't have to wait for other admins to come by and delete the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

      Am I misreading this or is one of your reason for needing the tools because you are impatient that articles tag for QD are not immediately deleted? Unlike six or seven months ago when we had articles that say around for, in some cases, months before being noticed, currently a QD'd article sits maybe a couple hours tops. There is little to no harm in an article sitting there tagged for deletion for a little while. And just to note, only 10 of Majorly's page deletes were tagged by you. these 10 deletes took place on a total of 2 occasions. If it were a case of rampant vandalism, as noted you called in Majorly to help, on one of the occasions, this might be more understandable (if it happened more than just once). His block log entries only has 1 block matching a user you warned as well as the same block where you posted anything within hours if not days of the block. I can not see one case as being a need for the tools. By this logic, Isis needs them as well. And at least she has shown to be active (still needs a little more time though). Your time is already split between two other projects. I just can not see how your limited amount of time here (while both helpful and appreciated) warrants the need for tools mainly just to speed up a few page deletions because waiting more than 10 minutes is too long.-- Creol(talk) 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Browne34, why can it not affect your decision? Surely it would show he is trustworthy on two other wikis, and so can be trusted here. Yes you would have not passed then. That's because you only edit here as you say. Although Nishkid might not spend 100% of his time here, it doesn't mean he should be denied adminship. Majorly (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I still believe a person should only be judged by their contributions here, nowhere else. Do you believe those edits I pointed in my vote are helpful? Couldn't you see how someone might think the person is trying to get his edit count higher as fast as possible? The fact of the matter is he's here infrequently. His edit history shows that he made ~75 edits on the days I noted above in the course of an hour or two. He's not a consistent user. Do you think he is? If he's not spending time here, why should he need the admin tools?-  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Out of the opposes here, I think yours is the most relevant. Don't get me wrong, your points are fair. But take a look at this essay for why he should need them. Majorly (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
          • My apologies to Browne34 and Creol if my interpretation of their votes in incorrect, but I believe we are all saying essentially the same thing: Nishkid64 has not yet been active enough here to warrant a need for the tools. This sentence would also be my own personal answer to your question of "Why not?" (i.e. "Because he has not yet been active enough here to warrant a need for the tools.") · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think you're a good user and I don't think you'll abuse the tools, but I don't think you're active enough yet. When taking into account the AWB edits, you really only have 350 or so mainspace edits. This is much less than the 1000 we like for users to have. I think I would have no problem supporting you in a month or two, but 350 is just not high enough, in my opinion. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I had 727 when I requested about a month ago. What's with the tough editcountitis? Majorly (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a big difference between 727 and 350 edits (plus if you look at my vote at your RfA, I also commented that I thought your edit count was low). I don't think I'd call it editcountitis. 1000 edits is the rough criteria that was agreed-upon by the community, is it not? I'm sorry, but 350 is nowhere near close enough to that criteria, in my opinion. It's nothing personal. · Tygartl1^·talk· 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you're confused - I had 727 in total, not just mainspace. I don't know when/how the 1000 minimum criteria was brought in, but I passed my RfA regardless. Have I messed up do you think? Or instead of looking at the "community's" 1000 minimum, why don't you evaluate the candidate by his actions instead. He's an admin since September '06 on en.wiki, a Meta admin... do you think he'll do something stupid, or are you simply opposing because he hasn't reached 1000 yet? Majorly (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Why do you seem to be taking my vote personally? I certainly don't feel you've done a poor job as an admin. However, I feel that your vote edit count was low at the time of your RfA. That is one of the reasons you didn't get my full support. If you re-read my vote here, I began with this comment to Nishkid: "I think you're a good user and I don't think you'll abuse the tools, but I don't think you're active enough yet." So obviously I don't feel he'll do something stupid. I am making my opinion based on his low amount of activity, which is mathematically shown by his edit count. I might add that I feel like people are attacking those who have voted oppose. Our opinions count just as much as everyone else's. Please try to respect that. Thanks. · Tygartl1^·talk· 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Tygartl1, RfA is also a discussion. That's why Majorly is commenting on your oppose. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • My vote count was low? What...? Majorly (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Excuse me, edit count. I think you knew what I was trying to get at. And yes, Nishkid, this is supposed to be a discussion--which is why I'm so perplexed as to why this has become less and less like a discussion and more and more an attack on users that have voted to oppose. I don't think that that's right. · Tygartl1^·talk· 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I have to agree, which is why I'm staying out of it. --Isis§^(talk) 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per BrownE34 and Creol. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Dang, you guys are harsher than at en.wikipedia. If I wanted to create an account, I would vote support. He's responsible enough. 141.157.10.3 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per the above comments. I didn't realise this when I supported you, so I am changing my vote, sorry. Billz (Talk) 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral - He has shown to be a good contributer of this wiki. His contributions are a little less than expected for an RfA, and an average of 5.76 edits per day is not that outstanding. He has appeared to get involved in issues like this where he has tried to guide other editors and help us towards a better wiki. Yet, as far as I've noticed, he is not available that much on this wiki, so he still has some way to become an admin. - Huji ^reply 14:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alastor Moody

Closed at user's request - 3 support/5 oppose/1 neutral.

I would like to candidate myself to be an administrator. I have been an active contributor here since early July 2006 and have over 1000 edits to the simplewiki. I've been reverting vandalism, expanding and creating several core articles along with helping other users when in need. My purpose to be an admin is to stop random vandals from vandalizing articles (and block them if necessary) and to delete articles that are considered to be nonsense or dosen't help the simplewiki. I promise to work under the rules of the wiki and help other admins improve the simplewiki. Thank you:) --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance: (self nomination)

Support

• Support I do not think he would abuse the tools so why not?--Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 06:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I have to disagree on this one I think. Looking at the RfC, it was some time ago, and it didn't seem that serious, and easily resolvable. Two users have removed their 'certifications' because the behaviour has not recurred. About Chacor/NSLE, I've lost my temper a few times before and I think it would be unfair to expect absolutely spotless behaviour from everyone. I'm confident that the behaviour is in the past. Archer7 - talk 10:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support- I know how hard it is to become an admin (my first request failed because of discussions about my editing accuracy), and i think we should not hold the past against him. The edits I have seen of him on this Wiki are good ones. Sure, he could be a little more active, but who couldn't? --Eptalon 12:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

*Very weak oppose. You know, Alastor is helpful, BUT, I'm quite concerned over these:

1. An RFC on EN
2. Chasing Chacor, or NSLE, away

I'm not trying to discourage you Alastor, but I'm unsure if you can handle all that stress given to you. Try next time and I'll be backing you. Not for now, I'm afraid. -- Tdxiang 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that I had a RfC back at EN, and also for blowing up at Chacor, but now I decided to change my personality and be more generous to other users. Also my social history with Chacor was been very rough, which often made me get mad quickly at him. While it is sort-of a long story, I felt that he's been paying too much attention on me while sometimes critizing my contrinutions to the en wiki as well as critizing my sig at en (although that issue was later settled). While at first I tried to ignore him, which did not seem to change anything, I eventually got mad at him and was forced to leave the en wiki to cool down from my stress back at the wiki although I seldomly go back to en and do a few edits. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} ^Adminship 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Alright, I've decided to change my vote to neutral. I know how hard it is when good users' RFAs get opposed due to things they did in the past.-- Tdxiang 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Same reasons as Tdxiang, sorry. Billz (Talk) 09:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have a question about his understanding of policy in a couple areas, some major and some not. Looking over his more recent edits I found problems with the deletion policy (QD request with a non valid reason, article tagged as Non which while short, made total sense), no knowledge of problems with articles written in the second person. These were just located looking briefly at the edit summaries for this month. No idea if it gets worse from there or if checking the deleted pages would show other case where pages were QD on dubious reasons (deleting could be accidental/instinctive, but it takes thought to tag it for delete and come up with a reason why).

His own nomination states "delete articles that are considered to be nonsense or doesn't help the simplewiki", but his recent edits about what is nonsense is questionable. Also, by Doesn't help the simplewiki, would that mean QD of articles such as S.T.A.L.K.E.R.:_Shadow_of_Chernobyl which he feels should be deleted because they are complex and not core articles even though that decision should be made with a RfD?

Learning minor policy as you go is to be expected, but something as important as the deletion policy should be well known. If he is having issues now with it, what is likely to happen when he has the tools? If there are issues with deletion, are there also ones with other major policies such as blocking? Too many questions at this time for me to feel that this is a good thing. -- Creol(talk) 13:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per above. I'd probably be netural if the netural votes counted against the majority needed of total votes. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs 
• Oppose. I also have the same concerns that Creol voiced. Unfortunately, I would not feel comfortable supporting at this time. · Tygartl1^·talk· 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Creol's comment. Although, I think there is still need for new sysops on this wiki. - Huji ^reply 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Vote changed from Oppose to neutral, citing reasons stated above.-- Tdxiang 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Meateater

End time: Monday 11 June 2007

I believe that I would be a good admin, even though I haven't been editing simple wikipedia for a long time, but I have been editing the English Wikipedia for nearly two years, and the Simple Wikipedia is in need of Admins, and I would be one of the best. Meateater 08:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:

• Oppose Please at least make some edits here before applying. Majorly (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2007

(UTC)

• • In response to this, I have made many edits to the Simple Wikipedia, as an IP. Meateater 12:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to this, please make some edits as Meateater before apply. I also suggest you withdraw this request. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also suggest you withdraw your request. There is no way you will pass without having made any mainspace edits under this name. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is no good to become a tradition, to request for adminship with no edit history of notice. I would suggest you to withdraw your request, continue editing here so we can know you more, and then request again for admin permissions if you think you need them. - Huji ^reply 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Much as I can believe you about your edits as an IP, I do think that you will have a hard time proving your edits made as an IP. I therefore suggest that you do like everyone else, and re-apply once you have around 1.000 edits (under your username), or have been with the project for 3 months. I therefore oppose your current request to become an admin.--Eptalon 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment have this user the edits to candidate himself to sysop rules? imho, for me no. --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. You've hardly have any edits or has been an active user for 3 months. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Strong oppose He sounds too into himself. And needs to make soem edits.--Choos'nink ^TALK 03:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, signalling an immediate closure of this Rfa per WP:SNOW. You need more edits as Meateater yourself.-- Tdxiang 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Closed early under WP:SNOW. Archer7 - talk 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of access

Removal of status: User:SimonMayer and User:Brion VIBBER

Voting for removal of sysop rights due to inactivity. Note that these would be instantly reinstated upon their request. Archer7 - talk 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested removal of access on Meta. Archer7 - talk 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Access is removed. - Huji ^reply 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Archer7 - talk 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support removal of both. Majorly (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. yeah, go ahead, remove them both. --Isis§^(talk) 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Never seen either, so go ahead --Eptalon 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Billz (Talk) 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support for User:SimonMayer and Oppose for User:Brion VIBBER. Is futile, Brion can gets sysop when he wants :P. ^Zeta^/query 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Can Brion actually do that? I always thought that developers were a completely seperate level, and that the developer groups were granted access to the code of MediaWiki and in some cases, access to the servers. If I'm correct, it would be pretty difficult I think to add himself on the live copy. I've never heard that developers have bureaucrat/admin access. Does anyone actually know what rights developers have? Archer7 - talk 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support · Tygartl1^·talk· 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• support for that--vector ^_^ (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why? --Choosnink ^TALK 21:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  The reason is because they will most likely never use the tools again. Therefore, it's misleading in the statistics to say that we have that number of administrators. It's also a security issue, as if we have greater number of people with extra powers, there's potentially more people for hackers to target. We'd reinstate them if they ever came back. Archer7 - talk 08:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, I have decided to remove the vote of a banned user, Choosnink. This is due to the fact that "she" is the sockpuppet of a troll.-- Tdxiang 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Simon hasn't been around for a really long time, and Brion can just give it to himself if he needs to. Sean William 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support I have not seen either of them around since I have joined wikipedia simple english. They are not really much of a help if they are not here.--†Sir James Paul† 03:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support removal of both. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 17:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support Brion VIBBER can just give himself sysop status if he needs to work here. Simon hasn't been here in a while, so he can be removed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Werdan7^{T @} 07:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support.-- Tdxiang 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Huji ^reply 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support removal of both I have never seen either of these make one good edit since I have been here. -- j. rand|talk| contribs|email 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Based on your contributions, your oldest edits are no older than two weeks. - Huji ^reply 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support: for security purposes. RaNdOm26 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support: getting nearer the true number of sysops. ONaNcle 17:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)