User:Phgao/Sandbox3

Using ADBLOCK to remove a specific wikipedia link.

Hello, as I try to revert as much vandalism as possible in the shortest amount of time, I often mistakenly click the stupid 'Edit summary' link when one goes to edit the page, instead of clicking "Save Page" button. Now is there a way using adblock (or any other program) running in firefox or even in the background to block that link, ie make it not clickable? Phgao 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can do that with adblock, but I've made Greasemonkey scripts for similar purposes. -- JSBillings 10:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You can also edit your monobook.css to hide that link by doing the following:

• go to User:Phgao/monobook.css
• add the line #minoredit_helplink {display: none;}

Rawling4851 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, if you don't use the monobook skin, you'll have to edit your CSS for whatever skin it is you use. Rawling4851 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to familiarize yourself with the access keys on Wikipedia. I have found that they greatly increase the speed of editing and navigation. For instance, saving a page is just access key 's'. I find the default key combination in Firefox slightly annoying, so I changed (in about:config) ui.key.contentAccess to 4 so that Alt+key was the combination instead of the default 5 (Shift+Alt+key). --Pekaje 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sweet tips! I'll look into them. Phgao 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

New

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

MarSch

Final: (2/20/1); Ended 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Closed early in accordance with WP:SNOW. Acalamari 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

MarSch (talk · contribs) - This is my second self-nom. I filed my first one in May 2005: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MarSch. As before, the primary reason for doing this is that I've been annoyed that I lack privileges needed to fix certain things, such as doing non-trivial page moves. In the past I have done new-page-patrol and I have been involved with templates-for-deletion for a while. My content-edits are mostly in the areas of maths, computer science and physics. MarSch 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: A little of everything as I encounter things that need doing.

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

A: I am currently the most pleased I think with how Manifold turned out, although my edits to that page are all in 2005, I think I had a lot to do with making the article more complete. More recently my edits have been more dispersed and there is no single article that stands out in my mind. For instance, I added/edited articles to make sure major Scheme implementations and important books about Lisp had at least a stub.

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

A: I have been in a few situations where I disagreed with the direction an article was going, Manifold comes to mind again. I have always tried to reason with my collaborators to convince them or to find a way to cooperate and if I was not succesful I tried to find something else to work on. I will continue to do so in the future.

General comments

• See MarSch's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/MarSch
• Requests for adminship/MarSch 2

• Links for MarSch: MarSch (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MarSch before commenting.

Discussion

• I suggest withdrawal. This has no chance, at 14% support. Note WP:SNOW. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  I raised this issue earlier today on IRC, and was told not to, since there were 2 supports (and 6 opposes). Perhaps someone will reconsider that now though. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  The candidate does not appear to have been on Wikipedia since yesterday afternoon (server time). I would think it only fair that they at least get the opportunity to provide some input or feedback aginst the opposers concerns. Pedro |  Chat  08:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you Pedro, I wasn't really sure if a response to your and others' concerns would be appreciated. Some people seem to object to my discussing on my talk page the disappearing of some of my own edits to my user page by an admin (presumably executed by User:Netsnipe) who informed me of this also on my talk page. It is not clear to me whether the act of discussing or the place where it took place seems inappropriate to some as it seems clear to me that I had the right to discuss this and the right place to respond to Netsnipe's message on my talk page was also on my talk page, right below it as is usual. Unless discussing something is now an act of disregard for the project and consensus, Shell babelfish?

  So perhaps some other aspect of my behaviour is the object of the concern (at least for some), though since Walton^One, who isn't even opposing, seems to have been the most explicit you'll have to excuse me if I address the wrong concern. To the best of my knowledge there was never any official decree by Wikipedia management or Jimbo Wales to disappear from Wikipedia all mention of the number in question and as such I still think there were no grounds for breaking WP:CENSOR and I felt it as my duty to speak up and I believe I have done so while being WP:CIVIL and while not disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. All I did was discuss the matter. I am now using Image:Free-speech-flag.svg and some silly story which seems to be an acceptable compromise.

  Finally I would like to mention that the AACS encryption key controversy page now contains the number and also there is now a comment that says:

Before editing this article or commenting on this article's talk page please read the

Electronic Frontier Foundation's legal primer on this issue:
* http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005229.php

An essay on the AACS key on Wikipedia:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keyspam

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE KEY
Consensus was reached via this article's talk page to post the key in the article.
If you think this is wrong, there is an on-going discussion.  
Consensus CAN change, but it should be done so through discussion.
DO NOT remove the key and start/continue an edit war

• Make of that what you will. --MarSch 12:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you MarSch, for taking the time and trouble to explain further the issue I raised. To be clear, the rights and wrongs of having the key on Wikipedia are neither here nor there with respect to this RfA. What concerned me was the "tone" of the postings within the thread itself. WJBScribe has summed up nicely how I feel (below). Specifically your first reponse of " Please don't be (a vigilante)/(judge, jury and executioner) of your own doubt-inclusive fear-enhanced DMCA/EUCD. Don't be part of the problem.". That is not the attitude of someone I could entrust with a block button. Other opposers no doubt have their own take on what the issue is, but I'd be willing to bet that it's not so much your disagreement with policy but the way that you disagreed that is the bigger problem. Best. Pedro |  Chat  13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you for that clarification. I feel strongly about the issue and my strong reaction was based on the fact that User:Netsnipe did not ask me to remove the key or remove the key himself, but instead used some special power to disappear my edits. While my reaction was one of strong disagreement I do not think I crossed WP:CIVIL.

  Your concerns about block buttons are unfounded. If anything, the whole issue should instead have convinced you of my intense distaste of abuse of (administrator) power. Do you really think I would want to do similarly to anyone else? --MarSch 14:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. I have seen this editor's work over a period of years (we work in the same area) and I remember the discussions we had over manifold. I'm confident that MarSch will use the extra tools to the advantage of Wikipedia and thus I gladly support the request. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. I don't know the background to all this encryption key stuff, but looking at the article AACS encryption key controversy, it looks like the number he published on his userpage is exactly the same as that already quoted in the lead section of the article. Although I know next to nothing about this, it's a mystery to me how publishing it on his userpage could cause more legal trouble for Wikipedia than publishing it in an article. As such, it doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to oppose an otherwise adequate candidate. Walton^One 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not withstanding your long standing (allthough sporadic) contributions you have virtually no input in admin areas such as WP:XFD, WP:AIV etc. Mostly though this discussion on your talk page is deeply worrying. I can't trust you with block or protection buttons after looking at the ramifications of that. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  13:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose The discussion Pedro mentions is also troublesome to me. It does not show a willingness to build concensus or good conflict resolution skills. --Fabrictramp 14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per the discussion that Pedro brought up. The proper place for the discussion of the censored 16-digit hexadecimal number is AACS encryption key controversy, not your user page. It's one thing to protest censorship, but when it could cause legal trouble for Wikipedia, it's not worth proving the point. That's the same reason we don't allow fair-use images on user pages. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Pedro, as the discussion shows a lack of flexibility and misunderstanding of the issues involved; how can we be sure that candidate won't take advantage of admin tools to support his (proven wrong in the referenced discussion) points of view? plus, candidate should not seek the mop as a solution to being "annoyed" at the lack of "privileges". Roadmr (t|c) 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose per all the above reasons. I suggest you try again after a few months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Oppose per Pedro and all others above. --Ben^chat 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per concerns over the discussion Pedro pointed out which show a misunderstanding of key policies, a lack of understanding the appropriate use of userspace and disregard for the project and consensus. Also your userpage appears to have always been nothing more than a point (and a fair-use image). Shell ^babelfish 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the candidates obvious unfamiliarity with the position and its duties. VanTucky ^Talk 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per the userpage discussion. Daniel 00:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Pedro. Jmlk17 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose as above. I would consider supporting you in future if you showed an understanding of the concerns raised during the key controversy. Also, I would like to see more contribution in general (over the last four months, you've averaged somewhere around 40 edits per month). Sarah 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per the discussion that Pedro brought up. KTC 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose. The candidate's conduct during the encryption key controversy showed that he did not have the project's best interests at heart. Someone who cannot distinguish between censorship and a refusal to allow Wikipedia to be used as a medium to further software piracy is fundamentally unsuitably to be an administrator. His actions were disruptive, aggressive and showed a complete misunderstanding of the underlying law and policy, never mind a lack of common sense. WjBscribe 11:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    The primary purpose of having an AACS decryption key is being able to play your DVDs using a free software player on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. So if you ever want to able to play DVDs on your Ubuntu installation you should be happy that some people uncovered this key. Even on Windows you might want to do something other than what most players allow (they may only allow playback), such as re-encoding your DVD so that it takes less space, or using some small part of the movie for creative purposes (making your own movie/sketch/commercial/spoof). On the contrary this key does not aid copyright infringement at all, as encrypted data is not any harder to copy than is any other data. --MarSch 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose - no particular reasons for wanting to be an admin and concerns about policy understanding. The answers to the questions and the fairly low edit rate bother me too. Euryalus 12:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose User would do well with reading up on admin requirements and familiarise themselves more with the process of the adminship process. Would consider supporting next time, if such concerns are addressed. Phgao 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose I dislike opposing over single incidents, but admins need to know how free speech and censorship applies on Wikipedia. If the whole First Amendment applied to Wikipedia, our policies would be unconstitutional and there would be very little need for admins. Its one thing complaining about people removing stuff from your userspace, but complaints should be grounded in policy, not claiming that your free speech is being infringed upon. Mr.Z-man 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    The policy is WP:CENSOR and it did come up. Also I'm sure you are aware that you don't go messing with another user's Userpage without a very good reason. This is also policy Wikipedia:User page. The fact that the key is now back in the articles where it belongs shows that that very good reason was not there. --MarSch 08:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Content on user pages that is meant to illustrate a point may be removed on sight. Removing it isn't "censorship" (if we wanted to censor the key, we wouldn't include the exact string in an article). I won't oppose for this one incident because it happened several months ago, but the fact that you still believe that the content was an appropriate use of userspace deeply troubles me. Melsaran (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    I didn't put it on my user page to prove any point though, but even that would have been okay as doing this on my own user page does hardly disrupt the wiki. The fact is that the software that Wikipedia runs on was at the time changed to check for this number such that it was impossible to save some pages that obviously contained the number. I used my user page to investigate exactly what the software was checking for. Unfortunately as these edits were disappeared I cannot prove what happened and I also don't know if there is any evidence that I could find for the software change. The fact is that at the time the discussion happened on my user page this number was actively being censored. I am very happy that this is no longer the case, but you can hardly use that as an argument to deny censorship ever happened. I am also confused by some of your other arguments. You're saying the number is only appropriate on a few particular articles and if some silly user wants to put it on his user page that is not okay? Just like it is not okay to put snippets of other articles on your user page?--MarSch 09:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    Then why did you put it on your user page? To test the software? That's hard to believe, particularly because you still have a similar section (about illegal numbers) on your user page right now. Melsaran (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    I give you [1] which I was doing at the same time you were composing this question. --MarSch 09:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose per above. The answers to the questions don't show what administrative tasks that you are going to be involved with. Low edit rate also. I suggest a withdrawal, and more experience needed. Miranda 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose. 11 edits in the past year? •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    please check your facts, I have over 1000 edits this past year.--MarSch 08:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

    11 edits in project namespace, yes. Melsaran (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose. Not active enough for my taste, need a few hundred edits per month to meet my criteria. Based on current consensus, I'd recommend withdrawing per WP:SNOW. Useight 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Essentially an inactive, single-purpose account. Sorry. Bearian 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    please check your facts, I have just shy of 8000 edits on my name, all with the single purpose of improving the wiki, yes.--MarSch 08:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not so sure. You look like a good content contributor with a lot of experience, but you have only 11 contributions in the past year (not counting this RFA). Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Melsaran - did you mean last month ? Candidate has made 1,121 contributions so far this year based on Interiots tool. Pedro |  Chat  13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Oops, no, I meant contributions to the project namespace. :) Melsaran (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Another

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

Espresso Addict

Final (60/0/1); Originally scheduled to end 08:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Espresso Addict (talk · contribs) - Espresso Addict is a calm and approachable editor who is particularly active in AfD, "Did You Know" and categorisation. She has created over 100 articles and is an expert and knowledgeable copy-editor. I've known her on Wiki for over a year and she has always been a very helpful collaborator. I have no doubt that she would use admin tools responsibly and carefully. An excellent editor and a genuinely nice person. Tim Vickers 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Espresso Addict 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I first edited Wikipedia some time early in 2006, and found it highly addictive, although I didn't get an account for a few months. For those who bother about numbers, I've amassed almost 5500 logged-in edits since then, with around 50% being in mainspace. I should probably mention that I took a partial Wikibreak from November till July of this year, after injuring my back. I spent many months lying staring at the ceiling, which made using a computer physically difficult and tended to exacerbate the inevitable stresses involved in editing. I feel that the time away and discussions with non-Wikipedians have given me a better perspective on the project, which has made my editing stronger.

Although my main experience lies in article writing and editing, I've taken on repetitive tasks such as assessing articles for the recent Biography Assessment Drive and the Cheshire WikiProject. I take a considered approach to editing, weighing carefully the effect of my edits not only on the article but also on other editors. I believe that editors are the most precious resource this project has, and I try to bear this in mind in all my interactions with others. Espresso Addict 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Being entirely honest I doubt I'll ever be the most active admin on the project. My recent work updating the template for Did You Know? relies on an admin to upload it to the main page, and as it's often backlogged that's one place I would see myself starting. I'm also experienced at AfD, and I would begin to determine consensus and close discussions, starting with cases where I had no strong personal feelings. Beyond those areas I would take it very slowly. I have a background in publishing, so investigating textual copyright infringements would seem a natural extension, although I haven't done much in this area of the project to date. I'd also like to get involved with mentoring new editors who share my focus on article creation and editing, though I'm aware that I don't need the tools to do this.

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

A: I've created over a hundred articles on topics from science and medicine to local geography. A sample of my favourites might include William Gaskell, a prominent Unitarian minister and educationalist; Richard Partridge, a surgeon best known for missing a bullet in Garibaldi's leg; bovine papillomavirus, a model for cancer caused by papillomaviruses; and Churche's Mansion, a half-timbered Elizabethan building that was one of the few survivors of the Great Fire of Nantwich. A good example of my collaborative work would be Peak District, which has been a long labour of love for several editors attempting to give England's first National Park the quality of article it deserves. I spend a fair amount of time copy editing articles, often by editors whose first language isn't English, and trying to find sources. I'm also always pleased when my research helps to save a notable topic from deletion at AfD.

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

A: It's impossible to avoid conflict in a large collaborative project where everyone brings different experiences. I always discuss problematic issues on talk pages, and try to be proactive in bringing issues to the talk page before any conflict develops. Usually, I've found, differences in opinion can be resolved amicably in this way, calling on other interested editors if necessary via the WikiProjects. On one occasion, however, an editor repeatedly added a couple of examples to fan fiction that I believed to be unnecessary (eg [2] & see Talk:Fan fiction#Links/ref to Hardy Boys & Tom Swift) and I wasn't able to find any consensus among other editors to the page. After a few rounds of reverts and an obvious solidifying of our respective opinions, I had to walk away. There's always another 2 million articles to edit, after all.

General comments

• See Espresso Addict's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Espresso Addict: Espresso Addict (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Espresso Addict before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - No concerns. I believe this user would not abuse the tools, and also seems to be quite experienced with Afd. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support out of the gate, glad I watchlisted this and very glad that EA accepted the nom. A trustworthy, thoughtful and reliable user who will make fine use of the mop. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support known to me for a while now. Useful, consistent, thoughtful editor. Can definitely be trusted with the tools --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support will be an even bigger asset w/ the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 09:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. We need more caffeine-addicted admins who can stay up late. Melsaran (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   Well said! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

6. Support. I saw EA was approached with the idea of becoming an admin, and I'm very happy to see that a nomination has now been made. I wholeheartedly support this nomination, as I have been impressed with EA's work so far, and think it would be further enhanced on becoming an admin.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support — finally; someone with satisfying contribs. Comments like this, this, and this (to name a few) are exactly what everyone should do at AfD. Good work, man! --Agüeybaná 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I am happy to give my support to this user. A great editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Wow the contributions of this user are impressive, and I especially like the fact that she values editors and subsequently deals with all in a friendly manner. Phgao 13:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Definitely a good user and definitely one that should have adminship. Captain panda 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support —[[Animum | talk]] 13:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
12. -- Y not? 14:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Support Surprised I haven't run into you before. Looks good — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Good user, good contribs. GDonato (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Support, Christ, I go to bed for a few hours and you guys all pile in before I'm ready. Typical. Tim Vickers 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    If you go and nominate a Brit, you have to expect us all to start partying before you get up ;) Espresso Addict 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

16. Support Good editor. Marlith ^T/C 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
17. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Solid participation in Wiki-related pages particularly the WikiProjects, Afd's and editor review pages (being several being among the top Wikipedia edited pages by this user).--JForget 18:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong Support This is a great editor. Someone I would have nominated, and I never nominate anybody. --JayHenry 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
20. Support A strong candidate with valuable contributions. VanTucky ^Talk 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
21. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Have had good interaction(s) with this user. Jmlk17 20:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Per Tim Vickers. — [ aldebaer⁠] 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
25. the_undertow ^talk 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
26. Crap, I was going to nom and completely forgot...sorry mate, but you have my strongest support! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - Well, my head's spinning. Why, you may ask? Because for the first time in awhile, after going through someone's edit summary, talk page entries, and such, I can't find a reason at all to oppose. (And I love the fact that her first talk page edit included a reference citing where she retreived her information.) Everyone's human, of course. But this person is such a natural at WP:EQ, that I don't think she even has to try. I guess it's just nice to see considering how much faux civility we may encounter. I'm pleased to support for admin, and really hope she goes into dispute resolution : ) - jc37 08:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support (yay Cheshire) - no problems as far as I can see. Neil ム 10:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Support I think she has done a great job. Creating over 100 articles is not a joke. RS1900 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support, really no reason not to be an admin. Wizardman 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - good enough for me. - Philippe | Talk 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Lots of good work creating new articles and at AfD. Bearian 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
33. Support. No problem. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Support have seen this editor at Afd's - knows what she's doing and can be trusted. Carlossuarez46 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Excellent mainspace work (and I do mean excellent), excellent AfD work, and I completely trust the nominator's opinion :) You'll make a top-notch admin; I just hope the mop and bucket won't lead you away from article work, which would be a shame. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. An excellent editor whom I trust.--ragesoss 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Long live DYK Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support - Very much appreciate the answer to question one. LaraLove 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support, Tim Vickers' nominee. @pple complain 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Great you are back and contributing after a back injury and your track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - sensible and good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - Like the below mentioned User:Matthew Richardson, I am also concerned about talk page participation by admin candidates. This user has about a .3 article talk to article ratio. More discussion generally leads to less use of admin tools. --Rocksanddirt 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support - per nom Bigglove^talk 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support an excellent, conscientious, reliable editor, with a devotion to quality. DGG (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support quality editors make for quality admins. — Zerida 06:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support - this user is just about ready. I think enough experience has been gathered in the correct areas now. Lradrama 08:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support A year is long enough, as long as the user appreciates that there's lots to learn in the first few months as an admin. "Espresso Addict is a calm... editor" does seem a bit of an oxymoron though ;) --Pretty Green 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
49. M.^(er) 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support No concerns. ♠TomasBat 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Support, Húsönd 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support no problems. Sarah 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support I don't see any problems, the editor seems experianced enough and doesn't seem like one to abuse the tools. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
54. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
55. A fine user who will make good use of the tools. Acalamari 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
56. Support per nom. Ronnotel 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Support A productive, highly literate, even-tempered and constructive editor is being considered for admin? What a tough call. Guess I'll go along with the crowd. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
58. Support Known him for awhile. Has what it takes to be an admin. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
59. Support anybody addicted to coffee will make a good admin ;) um, that is, never seen this editor but the oppose votes are poorly constructed and there is really no reason not to support. :) Good luck. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
60. Support - Trustworthy. Welcome to WP:60. -- Jreferee T/C 07:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
Oppose. Fails my criteria. Matthew Richardson 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC) User has been indefblocked. Wizardman 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is no exact edit count in any space required for adminship. Saying a candidate must have "40 edits" in any arena is unacceptable, but is especially so when considering you require 40 Category edits. I humbly suggest you base further RFA judgements on the criteria which have been vetted by the community at large. VanTucky ^Talk 18:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict:) It is my opinion that Category Talk edits are crucial in the RFA process. Just like other people say that you need to have X edits to counter-vandalism areas, or X edits to deletion discussions. Feel free to disagree with me, but respect my opinion. Matthew Richardson 18:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Opposing based on an exact number of required edits in any area is not something I have seen any !voter do but yourself. Suggesting someone needs more edits and experience in a particular realm is not the same as an arbitrary number which must be exceeded. VanTucky ^Talk 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, then I say: this candidate has only nine edits in the Category space and four edits in the Category Talk space, and therefore I believe that he may need a little more experience in this area in order to become an admin. Happy now? Matthew Richardson 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've been an admin for a year and I still only have nine cat edits and six cat talk edits. It is my opinion that editing the cat space is not a crucial experience for adminship. Cheers, Sarah 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• So if I disagree with the criteria of 'the community at large', I may not voice my opinion? That's silly. Matthew Richardson 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did not in any way suggest you should not participate in RFA, I only suggested that you refrain from basing your comments in a criteria which was not created through consensus. VanTucky ^Talk 19:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I know, there is no message on top of the RFA page that says "Thou shalt not voice thine opinion if thine standards for supporting are higher than the average community standards". Matthew Richardson 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did not characterize your criteria as too high. I said that we are directly discouraged from setting an arbitrary threshold of edits for adminship. VanTucky ^Talk 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• That page says at the top: 'It is not intended to be binding policy, nor is there an expectation that editors who comment on RfAs should be familiar with it.' Matthew Richardson 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, well, I'll say this: "Thou canst be blocked if thou disrupts the RfA prfocess." —[[Animum | talk]] 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• See my User Talk page for what I think about threatening with a block when you disagree with someone. Matthew Richardson 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thouith shouldith denith him...:P (bad Medieval saying)--PrestonH 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That page is on how to block vandals and ignore them. I am not a vandal. I dislike destroying the work of others. Matthew Richardson 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No troll feeding. Mr. Richardson, if you make another oppose based on those erratic grounds, you will be blocked for RfA trolling. End of story. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked, that was his second edit, no editor ever met that crteria, sees like a account only used for RFA trolling. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, I guess. —[[Animum | talk]] 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the block of User:Matthew Richardson, which was unjustified. No one seems to have followed WP:AGF in this case. This user's RfA criteria may have been somewhat outside community norms, but they were actually backed up with a rational argument (on his now-deleted criteria page) and possibly weren't as stupid as they sounded. "Troll" is a subjective term, and I don't think anyone should ever be blocked simply for expressing an unusual opinion on an RfA (especially not one which is going to pass anyway). Walton^One 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, what just happened? An "RfA troll"? Pssh. In most cases, the only people who disrupt RfA are those who badger the opposers, by saying, "You can't oppose because of that", or "You don't have X, so you can't demand X". Instead why not try to understand the opposition by asking, "Why do you think X?" or even better, "Who do you think the ideal admin would be, and why would X contribute to that?" Ya know, discussion, consensus, all that kind of stuff.
• On his or her talk page, Matthew asked to be unblocked so that he or she could contribute elsewhere. I second his or her request. --Iamunknown 07:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• While the point of account Matthew Richardson was clearly to participate in Rfa's, I expect is was only due to the normal trolling of opposes and neutrals by various admin candidate supporters. The rfa process seems to be primarily a trollfest, and as such, Matthew Richardson was no more disruptive to it than many. --Rocksanddirt 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Putting both sides into account, I would have to sit on the fence but leaning onto the Support side. Very tough call. Aflumpire 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Another

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

Biruitorul

Final (38/15/8) Ended 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Biruitorul (talk · contribs) – Biruitorul and I have about 2.7 languages in common, but have diametrically opposite politics. I'm a New York Jewish red-diaper-baby leftist whose guitar-playing father (due to the vagaries of New York ethnic politics) sang "Kevin Barry" with gusto; he may be the only Ulster Unionist Romanian monarchist in captivity. I have observed him to be one of the English-language Wikipedia's most excellent, erudite, even-handed, unbiased contributors; the only reason I even know his politics is from the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, where political discussion is freewheeling. Of the many good contributors who have joined in the last year, I cannot imagine that any would be better qualified to be an administrator. Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

   A: I'd be most interested in WP:RCP, both fighting recent changes by vandals but especially in speedy-deleting nonsense pages. I would also like to close AfD disputes and help resolve NPOV problems. I plan to monitor the Administrators' noticeboard and help deal with WP:RM requests. More generally, I plan to be helpful wherever called on, both by other administrators to deal with backlog or by any user in trying to solve a problem, but the above would be my specialties. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Q: What is your definition of "nonsense page"? `'mikkanarxi 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   A: I don't have a hard and fast definition, but in general I know them when I see them. They're typically created by very new editors without user pages, are under 500 bytes in size, employ poor grammar and punctuation, etc. I'll give two recent examples. One was a page called "Nunn the gun" and read "Nunn The Gun, is a young influential musician. And a champion." Another was a page called "Jerry Tarkanian Court" and read "Named after the longtime head coach Jerry Tarkanian." That's the sort of thing I'm very eager to delete practically on sight. Biruitorul 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   A: Well, I've listed my articles here and I suppose most of them are all right, but I especially like the ones in bold, plus these two. I'm also somewhat of a templates man, with my creations (mainly drawn from other language editions) ranging from this one to this one to this one. There are also certain pages I like to keep clean of recurring vandalism, like these two. I'm pleased with these particular contributions because I think they've helped make the encyclopedia a better one and because they've demonstrated the wiki process in action, often undergoing substantial improvement since I first submitted them. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

   A I've been in debates and discussions over content, but they've never gotten heated. Some of the more excited debates you can follow here and here. Most of the time I've resolved matters through persistent discussion, sometimes calling on other editors who support my position. I plan to continue doing the same; I will not be trigger-happy when it comes to blocking and will not abuse my powers to push my own version. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   The links in your answer to question 3 don't work for me. I mean they don't function, not that I take issue with them. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry. Fixed. Biruitorul 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your opinion about letting banned users to be involved in discussions in wikipedia? `'mikkanarxi 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   A It depends on the particulars of the case, but in general, a ban is a rather serious matter, so the user shouldn't be participating here until and unless the ban is lifted. Biruitorul 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Q: What particulars make it permissible to be engaged in discussions with banned user? (When answering this question please keep in mind that bans are not given lightly, are always preceded by other means of conflict resolution and lengthy litigation) `'mikkanarxi 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   A: Let me give a concrete example. As I understand it, User:Anittas was banned for reasons that don't have to do with his credibility. If Anittas wanted to contribute an idea to an article, I would engage in discussion with him through e-mail and weigh what he had to say, possibly making use of his ideas. However, all discussion would be kept off talk pages. If a sockpuppet of a banned user wrote on my talk page I would delete that discussion and direct him to use e-mail. But Anittas' case is fairly special (see, for instance, Jmabel's post here); since most banned users are trolls with nothing valuable to contribute, my default would be to ignore them. Biruitorul 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

5. When faced with vandals or edit disputes, do you favor a hard-line, "zero-tolerance" approach or negotiation and discourse? Do you believe in punishment or rehabiliation? What is your user rights policy in regards to admin action and how will you ensure that there are checks and balances in the process and accountability for your own actions? Ronline ✉ 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   A To some extent, it depends on the nature of the vandalism. If we're talking about someone blanking pages or writing "hkjsgdfskfsk" in random spots, I would give the usual series of warnings before blocking, etc. Edit disputes are quite another matter. My own credo is dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue. I believe that the more debate we have, the better the results will be, so I will try to keep engaging with parties to a dispute for as long as is feasible. I believe that, within reason, rehabilitation should be the focus. For instance, if someone has shown that he has good ideas but also has a habit of making intemperate, abusive remarks, we should first try to get him to understand that those are unacceptable; only if he fails to grasp that within a reasonable time frame (maybe a week) would I support punitive action (unless the insults were truly egregious, in which case more forceful punishment would be appropriate). I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "user rights policy". As for accountability, to some extent it's a matter of trust with admins (though of course they too can be disciplined) but I think I've shown myself to be a rather conciliatory type and a good listener, so if my actions aroused opposition I would certainly take all complaints into account and pursue appropriate measures to ensure the best outcome for all involved parties. Biruitorul 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Diez2 (talk · contribs):

Q. How long have you been active in editing Wikipedia? Diez2 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A. Roughly three years; nearly seven months as a registered user. Biruitorul 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Q: Sample proof, please. `'mikkanarxi 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A: This and this was me, for instance. Is that what you were looking for? Biruitorul 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Biruitorul's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I would appreciate your support. I won't make any grandiose promises but I do intend to keep those I've made to the best of my ability. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly suggest for Biruitorul to write edit comments for non-minor edits. `'mikkanarxi 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• And major edits aswell. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Normally, I'd agree with the edit summary issue. Biruitorul's edits, though, have been so uniformly good that I've come to view just his name as 99% assurance that it will be a good edit. There are all of about a dozen editors I could say that about to a comparable degree in 3+ years working here. - Jmabel | Talk 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• It appears that some people find my nomination comments off topic. Odd. I would think that a nomination coming from someone who is not of the same mind as the nominee on political matters would carry some weight: most of the complaints I've heard about administrators have been that they fail to be evenhanded politically. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I really don't see anything untoward in the nominator placing a notice of this candidacy on a board, particularly so when there's no solicitation/encouragement of votes in favour (or against). I think it's not that uncommon a practice. Also agree with Jmabel's point above.--cjllw | TALK 07:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) - Pleased to be the first to vote for this worthy candidate.
2. Hear, hear. As stated before, although he and I disagree on almost everything political, I am yet to see as neutral an editor as Biruitorul. Dahn 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. In my experience Biruitorul is a friendly and knowledgeable editor. Appleseed (Talk) 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. --Mihai -^talk 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, the mainspace edits make up for everthing else for me. But you really need to get those edit summerys up and also the wikispace.__Seadog ^♪ 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Has the experience; is a helpful, reasonable and knowledgeable contributor; does not edit-war or allow his own views to intrude into articles. I don't need to see dozens of "delete per noms" from this candidate to accept that he's able to grasp the principles of XfDs and admin-worthy behaviour. Edit summaries are a nice-to-have (there are plenty of established admins out there using these sparingly anyways), which could presumably be improved. I don't see the downside in making Biruitorul an admin, the reverse in fact.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support no negative stands out, and I don't mind if the nominee for focusing on building articles.-- danntm ^T _C 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Good and helpful user overall, qualified enough to become an adminstrator. Hello32020 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support We need more admins like Biruitorul who have experience in writing articles and getting into the trenches. The fact that this user has not been involved in "WikiPolitics" is a strong plus, not a minus. Instead of playing virtual cops and robbers in the Wikispaces, this editor has put in hard work to create articles and improve articles with information not readily available in the paper encyclopedias. That's been the purpose of Wikipedia, but I feel that many entrenched Wikipedians have forgotten this. Rather, they just get into a tizzy whenever a Stephen Colbert comes up with a term called Wikiality. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. I met Biruitorul when he first came here, and I've seen nothing but good things since. He's proven himself to be a very neutral editor, plus I liked his answer to mikka's question. Khoikhoi 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. - Andrei 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. With more than 13000 edits, he deserve to be an admin.--MariusM 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. NPOV, meticulous article improvements, modest, friendly and approachable, and, to comment on what I see is writen below by opposants, I would also add experience. Greier 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. For the edit count, number of high-quality articles, a.s.o. Givig him responsibilities will also help moderate his political views. Dpotop 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Weak Support. I'd like to address some of the points raised by those who have opposed you or have voted neutral. For one, I think that your work with Wikipedia so far has been grand. You've got all the signs of a good Wikipedian who would make a good moderator. There are some things, however, you are lacking in. As Nishkid pointed out, you have a lack of edit summary usage (something so minor keeping you from becoming an Admin!). Another thing pointed out was the fact that, although you are a great contributor to Wikipedia, you really don't need the tools. You're working well right now. Becoming an admin isn't everything. In fact, many admins eventually retire and give up the mop because they become too preoccupied with putting out fires, handling the vandals, and deciding policy. If you truely want to become an Admin, that's fine. However, you can still contribute above and beyond (look at User:Werdna, who is highly respected Wikipedian who isn't and chooses not to be an Admin) what is expected of the average Wikipedian without the admin tools. Sharkface217 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I have yet to see an oppose vote that lists a legitimate reason for opposing him. He has always been productive. KazakhPol 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support The fact that this user spent most of his time building excellent articles rather performing petty bureaucratic tasks should not go against him. TSO1D 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Strong support – despite his often-controversial talk page opinions, Biruitorul is a very neutral and professional main namespace editor. In particular, I believe his answer to question 5 above embodies the values all admins should have, particularly an emphasis on dialogue and co-operation. Even though some people have opposed his candidature because he "hasn't warned enough vandals yet", I don't think this should impact at all on his status as an admin. Giving admin status to someone costs nothing, but can bring about a lot of benefits for the project, and I think that with admin powers, Biruitorul can be become an even better contributor. I look forward to having you on the admin team :) Ronline ✉ 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    I am not aware of any contributor who has improved his performance after obtaining admin tools. As has been demonstrated in previous discussions, it rather works the other way. There have never been contributors superior to Wetman, Giano, or Halibutt, who are all non-admins. Furthermore, I am alarmed that most supporters of Biruitorul are Romanians. More neutral opinions are appreciated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    58% of my current supporters are not Romanian, so it is factually incorrect that "most" of my supporters are Romanians. Furthermore, I take issue with the notion that Romanians can't be objective about each other. Biruitorul 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    To ghirla: Nothing strange that many suporters are Romanians: these are probably most common people he comes across in editing. To biru: The issue is not objectivity: it is only hatural that you are supposed to have less conflicts with Romanians than, say, with Turks, if you were to edit the Ottoman Empire topics. Therefore the desire to see more opinions outside the circle of most probable buddies is only natural. `'mikkanarxi 04:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

19. Support Very polite, very neutral, very trustworthy, very good editor, very nitpicky opposition. The man is sure to make a great admin. [bashing of other wikipedians removed]. That "bashing" comment would be: "Too bad the opposers can't assess the value of this nomination by someone with fundamentally different POV." (meaning the nominator Jmabel, as he explicitly states in his nomination comment). I find its removal and the addition of the bracketed text abusive. I stand by every word in my comment. NikoSilver 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support based on edit count and lack of incivility in talk pages Would recommend being careful about not blocking for newbie errors and going slow with closing to delete until you have more experience judging consensus. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support. I've collaborated and interacted with Biruitorul on several occasions and I've come to known him as a neutral and careful Wikipedian who respects the others' opinion. He would definitely be a good admin. Todor→Bozhinov 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support This users ideas for problem solving is great let him be a admin. Cocoaguy (Talk) 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A thoroughly rational, level-headed editor. I cannot see how giving him the buttons would harm the project in any way, and it would undoubtedly benefit it.--Taxwoman 13:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. This user's contributions in the mainspace will make an excellent admin willing to discuss issues rather than just block for them. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 14:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support I doubt he'd abuse the tools.--Euthymios 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
27. good luck :) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support - to those that are critical of the number of wikispace edits, please keep in mind that we're here first of all we're here to right an encyclopedia; users to become admins should be first of all good mainspace editors, and Biruitorul is a fantastic editor. I may be a wrong, but I've had the feeling that some admins tend with adminship to neglect what should remain their main work, writing sourced articles; with this editor I know this will not happen.--Aldux 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, high level of experience, nothing in record suggests a problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Just like Dahn, I disagree with most of Biruitorul's political views, but I see him as a very valuable Wikipedian. We Hungarians often can get into wars with editors from neighboring countries, but I don't remember any of us getting into a conflict with Biru, he is one of the nicest Romanians I met here. – Alensha ^talk 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - neutral and a person that give help when needed.--Roamataa 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Support - Seems unlikely to abuse the tools. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
33. Support.--Madhyako Pradesh lo 12:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. Nominee has been much-scolded for lack of edit summaries, lack of participation in wikiprojects, etc. All of these are extremely valid concerns, and (significantly) would be fatal flaws 95 times out of 100. IMO, this is the one of the 5% of cases that I would trust the nominee with the tools, and to improve in the aforementioned offending areas. Trust trumps readily correctable flaws, in rare cases. --Ling.Nut 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support out of following reasons:

    • he is a good editor
    • he cares more to create content than to exert power
    • he expressed very strong commitment to dialogue
    • he is ready to contact anybody who can help the project, including banned users
    • he appears to favour mutual respect and cooperation rather than authority, coercion and confrontation
    • there is little risk with this candidate to become just another mediocre, hyperactive and latently abusive admin; it is much more likely that he will use admin tools with moderation and responsibility --Vintila Barbu 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

36. Strong Support This is someone that I respect, and will be an enormous asset to all good people, he's both creative and modest. Modernist 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Looks good to me. Puppy Mill 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Support. Serhio

    Cast by IP address [3]. Redux 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

38. Support. Changed to support. I have seen less deserving candidates promoted last week. Adminship is no big deal, says Jimbo. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We don't "fight" changes. ... aa:talk 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Yes we do. We also read carefully what other people write (in this case, what exactly candidates write or mean to write). If we don't understand something, we ask questions first, then vote. And again, we do fight vandalism. `'mikkanarxi 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I would like to support this user, but I'm not so sure due to the lack of edit summary usage and the lack of participation in AfD's. Nishkid64 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Reluctant Oppose Excellent mainspace contributions, however low use of project and project/user talk spaces as well as very low edit summary usages concern me. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. - crz crztalk 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Sorry, I must oppose as well. You appear to be an excellent editor, but your Wikipedia space count is just too low, your edit summary usage is far below the least acceptable, and I see no recent countervandalism or participation in AFD (which doesn't really look good for someone who's willing to perform administrative tasks in those areas).--Húsönd 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose partly per Nishkid, Crazy and Husond and partly because I can't really see a need for admin tools. Most of the "specialty" jobs you say you'd like to be able to do in question one can be done without adminship, eg, helping resolving NPOV issues, RCP, closing (some) XfDs, helping out on AN, ANI and RM. These jobs really don't require the tools and many, many editors are doing them now without the mop. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose. I don't care how credible you think a banned user might be, no one should be acting as proxies for editors who are under bans. The policy is completely unambiguous on this issue: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
   • I would think that the policy was unambiguous: "at the direction of" does not mean "after consultation with". If I have misinterpreted, I would (honestly) welcome an RFC or even a request that I be de-sysop'd on this ground, since I am in communication with at least two banned users and pass along messages when I think they are useful or on the mark. I don't intend to stop doing this, so if the community consensus is, indeed, that it should rule out someone being a sysop, then I no longer have that consensus, and I've long said that I (or anyone else) should be in this role only by clear consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
     • I concur, and I happen to know 3 other admins who would also 'hand over their badges' over this misinterpretation of policy. NikoSilver 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. You need to warn vandals, and you definitely need to use more edit summaries. Your article contributions are great, but writing articles is irrelevant to admin tools, as they do not help you with article writing in any way. You don't seem to have much participation in other things, thus, I don't see that you have need of admin tools. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose, lacks of edits in several namespaces. Please warn vandals as much as possible, unless someone warned before you can. Don't be discouraged as you can still be a good editor without becoming an admin. If you want to, participate in xFDs etc. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose He's my brother (really) and, seeing that this would be really bad for him, it's my duty to oppose.

   Struck, unregistered users are not permitted to comment in the Support, Oppose, or Neutral sections. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Crz, who has been reading my mind lately. Xoloz 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose, despite the (unintentionally?) romantic nomination from Jmabel. Needs to learn that we do warn vandals. Proto::type 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak Oppose The level of wiki-space edits, talk pages (particularly vandal warnings) participation and edit summaries gets to me aswell as the decided lack of XfD discussion. Seeing as these are the areas of contribution this user will participate in as an admin, I think more experience in those areas is neccessary. The 12 000 mainspace edits is very good though. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose He doesn't need admin tools to keep up the good work...(history shows that adminship is quite detrimental for Romanians) Anonimu 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Are you serious? Have you studied the effect of adminship on various nationalities? SuperMachine 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    I've just observed its effect on the very few Romanians that became admins (because I'm a Romanian myself, not because i'm a racist). Anyway, i think it's better than supporting someone's adminship just because he adds useful information to articles. Anonimu 17:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    Oh vey, a racist schmuck on Wikipaedia! WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

14. Opppose. I respect JMabel's opinions, but I'm concerned about not enough project space experience. Come back in a couple of months. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Opppose Wants to close AfD's but has two or three AfD contributions since October, 13 total? ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral You look like a really good editor and I can't see any problems with your encyclopedic contributions. I do see less than ten XfD discussion contributions and no vandal warnings from a random sample of your user Talk page edits, latest to earliest. I would feel confident in supporting you with more of the above in evidence. A minor point, do you have edit summaries forced on your preferences? If you don't then I think that this would be a good idea. If you do, then the gaps are probably where you have used the '+' link to add comments. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral But on an aside, I think you're airing some family's dirty laundry in one of your answers. If this is corrected, I'd be inclined to support because I value mainspace editing, and especially article writing, over participating in WikiBureaucracy. I think our admins should be in the trenches writing articles before they can oversee the writing of articles. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I don't want to pile on opposes, so I'll just remain neutral. Although this user has many useful edits, the extreme lack of edit summaries is worth noting, as is the lack of Wikispace talk eits. NauticaShades 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. I know this guy for some very minor, pedantic edits he makes to DYK pages. Since they are not accompanied by edit summaries, I have to check the page each time, which is sort of time-consuming. Reading the nomination, I hoped to learn why he would be helpful as an admin. Instead, I learned a lot about his and Jmabel's policial leanings. I don't care about political views of our admins and don't think that one's interest in politics is a sufficient reason to entrust him or her with tools. Sorry. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral. You're a great contributor, but do you really need the tools? If you're dead set on becoming an admin, I'd recommend you get involved more in admin-related tasks and come back in a couple of months. I'll gladly support you then. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - not enough experience, but looks good. I see no reason why I wouldn't support in 3 months --T-rex 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral not comfortable with the amount of experience in project space. Also, this advertisement of this RfA by the nominator is a bit of a negative. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral no strong need for tools. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral per Sarah Ewart. riana_dzasta 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral per Crzrussian. Try XfD for a start. Come back in a few months and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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