Wikipedia:Requests for adminship 

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.


v • d • e
Requests for adminship sections
Administrators
Shortcuts:
WP:RFA
WP:RFB
Bureaucrats
Nominate
Current admin count: 1,618 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 31 (list all)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

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

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

Contents

About RfA

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

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

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 15:31:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Ruslik0

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/0/0); Scheduled to end 00:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik0 (talk · contribs) – I am here to nominate an editor who I believe would make a fine administrator. That's the point of it all, isn't it? What it all comes down to. Whether the candidate will make a good sysop. It is my belief that, for Ruslik0, the answer is certainly yes.

A cursory examination of Ruslik's userpage reveals his dedication to the mainspace (as well as a certain penchant for astronomy); he has substantially contributed to no fewer than 12 Featured Articles and 4 Good Articles. By any standard, this is a phenomenal number, and Ruslik's experience with and knowledge of the encyclopedia is quite clear. In tandem with this, Ruslik is also an active Featured Article reviewer and his insight has been beneficial on many a FAC, and he is also involved with the GAR effort.

Ruslik's encyclopedic contribution is complemented by his assistance and input at our deletion forums, such as at AFD, RFD, MFD and TFD. He is involved at these venues not only as a commentator, but also acts as a non-admin closer. His adeptness with regard to these closures is demonstrative of why he is ready to take on the role of an administrator. Here are some examples of the latter: 1, 2, 3.

Overall, Ruslik is a well rounded contributor. Yes, some may note that he isn't as active as many of us, but his experience in a wide range of areas should be more than compensation for that. He has great contributions to the mainspace (after all, isn't that why we're all here?), while balancing this with a deep knowledge of the site's inner workings as evidenced by his contributions to FAC, GAR and XFD. I hope the community feels the same and is able to support Ruslik in his candidacy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I accept nomination. Ruslik (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially I am going to work in XFD area, where I has some experience, and in speedy deletions. As I learn more, I will begin participating in other areas including page protection/unprotection, making changes to protected pages (especially templates, of which I have a good understanding now).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution are presented on my user page. They include several FA and GA articles. I have also been participating in Sweeps and contributed to the improving quality of Good Articles. I often review GA nominations and provide feed back for FA nominations of scientific articles.
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 think I have not been in a serious conflict with anybody, partly because I am not a conflict person myself. When I foresaw possibly of a conflict I always tried to find a compromise solution (with due regard for wiki policies). However there was this DRV (see also this thread). I do not know if it qualifies as a serious conflict. In addition, a few minor conflicts happened, because I participated (and continue to participate) in WP:GAPQ/S.


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ruslik0 before commenting.

Discussion


Support
  1. Beat the nom support and my first one. You look like a fine candidate. I see no problems. iMatthew 12:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. I've known Ruslik for a long, long while. His FA contribs are great, yet he still manages to find time to do maintenance work. Good luck, friend. (My RFA is coming up, too, aah) —Ceran ♦ (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. SupportOver 8,000 edits, clean blocklog and useful contributions, you have my trust. ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support I know Ruslik best for his FA contributions and civility at FAC. I trust and respect him. Graham Colm Talk 12:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - Experienced, trustworthy user. Xclamation point 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Sure Looks good to me. M.H.ITrue Romace iS Dead 14:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. A solid contributor who works reasonably well with others. Majoreditor (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Trust the user, and the nom. America69 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support. An experienced and well-rounded editor, excellent mainspace contribution record, good judgement. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support As per track,good Editor and Civil.See no misuse of tools. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose


Neutral

Jclemens

Voice your opinion (talk page) (44/0/0); Scheduled to end 05:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk · contribs) – Jclemens is a phenomenal contributor whom I have had the pleasure of watching grow over the past four months. I first met Jclemens on the Wasilla Assembly of God (WAG) page where he was dealing with one of the bigger political POV pushers of this past election cycle. When we first met, I wasn't sure about Jclemens. The first time I went to his talk page was to issue a warning! Wasilla AG is a totally non-notable church, that was in the news briefly because of Sarah Palin's former minister. The article was created primarily because EricDiesel was trying to push an agenda and Jclemens tried to counter Eric's agenda. Jclemens didn't believe (rightly) that the article deserved to exist, but it was in the news and survived an AFD. Unfortunately, when dealing with political articles during an election cycle, tempers are bound to flare an accusations are bound to be made. I questioned if anybody who was involved with controversial political articles this past year can pass an RfA. In fact, just two days ago, I told Jclemens right now it would be easier for me to write a strong oppose than a strong nomination. So what has changed??? Jclemens handled himself in contentious areas better than most people involved politically charged articles this past fall. Because he was involved in such contentious areas, I didn't want to do him an injustice and not do due dilligence in investigating him. The fact that he worked in a stressful area where people are prone to throw labels and epitaths around should not be grounds for failing an RfA, I wanted to determine the validity of the possible allegations leveled against him. Reading through his talk page, the articles talk pages, the talk pages of those he communicated with was a monumental task. It was particularly challenging because of the political rhetoric that clouded the issues. Prior to making this nomination I spent a personal record of ten hours vetting him and I've come to see a person who is an absolute asset to the community and can be trusted with the tools. One thing that should be noted is that once EricDiesel (aka Tautologist) was blocked left the project, the people who remained were able to work together and garner consensus on many of these controversial articles, this was (IMO) in part due to Jclemens efforts.

Since we first met, Jclemens has worked on making the Wasilla AG worthy of wikipedia, which lead to one of his eight barnstars. Despite initially resisting the article, he brought it to a condition that he placed it up as a Good Article Candidate. I've been continually impressed with his growth and development.

While he does use Huggle, over 85% of his 12000+ edits are manual. Among his contributions Jclemens can count 4 DYKs, 4 GA's, and a Featured List. He is also an active GAR reviewer where he's reviewed 38 articles and participates in XfD's. But the things that really caught my attention are: 1) the 11 articles Jclemens saved at AFD. And 2) Jclemens is not afraid to help out where needed, he participates with Third Opinion. I reviewed a number of his 3O's and I really found them to be thoughtful and insightful.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Blocks and backlogs. The thing that has compelled me to submit to an RfA is the evenings I have spent chasing vandals around, by hand or with Huggle, with no one keeping up with AIV to block them. That is, I would like the authority to apply WP:RBI to this sort of behavior. Backlogs, on the other hand, are a part of Wikipedia life. I see myself as capable of handling AfD closures and RFPP requests right away, but I anticipate taking on new areas as I develop confidence and comfort in them—there are enough clear-cut needs that I believe by handling the "routine" admin work, I can free more experienced admins to handle the more contentious or nuanced areas until I'm sufficiently experienced to tackle them on my own.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Several of them have been mentoned in the nom. I helped Cornucopia drive List of Veronica Mars episodes to FL, and wrote Thermal imaging camera from a redirect to a GA (with a DYK in the process, where a picture I took accompanied it on the main page) without substantial help--both satisfying achievements. But the more administrator-relevant areas I'd choose to highlight are:
  1. GA reviews. Since I started doing these, I've started to develop my own style and rhythym. I work with topics that interest me, and enjoy collaborating with authors in a give-and-take. My goal in a GA review is to get the article to GA by being an effective coach and objective evaluator. I limit myself to a couple at a time so that I can provide regular and prompt feedback. I think GA is the most important general-purpose content review on Wikipedia, because it's both a step on the way to FA and the only structured outside review many modest articles will ever receive.
  2. Article rescue. There are a lot of "walking wounded" articles that need intensive care, not a coup de grace. I advocate AfD nominators conducting a search for reliable sources on articles that lack them, but someone still needs to look for sources when that doesn't happen. In addition to the 11 articles I list as "rescues", I have jumped into AfDs, posted the results of a few searches, and that motivated other editors to keep the article. I wish I had time to edit those sources into everything myself.
  3. Third opinions. It's hard to go to the talk page of an article you don't care about, read a debate between two editors you've never worked closely with, and try and deliver some Solomonic insight that amounts to more than "He's right, here's why." I find it provides me some interesting perspectives on gudelines and challenges me to improve both my gudeline knowledge and mediation skills.
All three of these areas have given me insight into policies and guidelines, exposure to articles I might not otherwise have encountered, and opportunities to improve or assist in the improvement of existing content.
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: Of all the editors who've been involved in the diverse areas I have, who has not? I have had particular challenges with two specific editors: User:Hrafn and EricDiesel/User:Tautologist. I encountered Hrafn in his efforts to delete a spate of Unification Church-related articles, and found his behaviour quite irritating. Specifically, he would both nominate an article for deletion and then aggressively patrol it, tagging and often reverting other contributors' efforts to satisfy his objections. I ceased interacting with him when it became clear that doing so was not bringing out the best in me; while I like to stand up for the rights of minority religious groups, I was not personally obligated to help defend Unification Church articles. He later left Wikipedia. EricDiesel/Tautologist (hereafter E/T; he renamed mid-Palin controversy) came to WP to contribute to Sarah Palin related issues. I politely but firmly opposed what I perceived to be coatracks and BLP violations in Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God, which is where I met Balloonman. After the Palin-furor had died down and consensus was going against him, E/T was found (per my RFCU) to have engaged in sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR and reinsert content not consistent with BLP. He has not returned since his block, and I have subsequently cleaned up his messes.
Dealing with these cases has taught me to focus on policy rather than personal feelings. I cope with the stress by doing other things—often, intentionally avoiding the contentious article(s) and contributing elsewhere on Wikipedia, sometimes by spending time with my wife and kids, taking solace in WP:TIND and WP:DGAF (Unless BLP is involved, and then WP:GRAPEVINE applies).

Question from CIreland

4. You have said that you wish to work at WP:RFPP. It is a common occurence that an editor involved in an edit war will make his third revert and then attempt to game the system by quickly making a request for full protection. How would you deal with such a request?
A: Each case would have to be judged on its own merits. While asking for outside help is preferrable to a 3RR violation, I'm certainly not going to be blind to a potential attempt to game the system. I'd be tempted to protect the other wrong version, but would probably just AGF and either protect the current version, or a version that predated the edit war, per WP:PREFER. All of this assumes that there is nothing "special" (BLP, etc.) about the edit war. If this were a long-running dispute, I'd be inclined to review past administrator actions and comments—few disputes are so urgent that taking a few minutes to sort things out is a bad idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion


Support
  1. beat the Nom Support Good, clueful user who will make a good mop-pusher. Sam Blab 01:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Rather than clutter this RFA with the arguments for-and-against, my views (and the views of what feels like half the internet) on Jclemens's suitability for the role were discussed here at some length</understatement>. (Ignore the insane flamewars above and below the thread; for some reason my talkpage seems to have taken on the position of "toilet wall of Wikipedia" today.) – iridescent 01:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Plus one. I've always assumed jclemens was an admin. I remember vividly the different "opinions" expressed during the whole "Palin implosion"; the warring, the mudslinging, the fork creation. (good times). Jclemens showed then that he has a calm demeanor, a logic based approach to editing, and an inherent fairness about his edits. I looked through his contribs yesterday or today after a post on my talk regarding a potential rfa for Jc. If I was nominating people, I would've asked him if I could nominate him. He'll be a very good admin because of his content contribs, his tact under fire, and his ability to navigate controversial areas and troublesome POV editing with grace, directness, and precision. Strong support. Keeper ǀ 76 01:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. An excellent user with whom I have had a good time working with. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. No questions asked, he's trustworthy and civil. He should be granted access, as I can't see it being anything less than a net positive. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I must admit, when I saw the section heading on your talk page for your RfA nomination, I thought you'd just been trolled, but then I was suprised (and happier) to find it was an RfA nom and not what the heading suggested. You're an excellent user, you have a clean block log, great contributions and a nice personality. I believe that you would be an asset to the comunity if you were granted the tools. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    And what was wrong with my section title ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, associating Sadomasochism and administrators is a great idea ;) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, you have to be pretty sick to want to subject yourself to an RfA... and even sicker to nom somebody... so I think it is an apt comparison ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Strong support. Impressive candidate. You've done great on Wikipedia and will do better with the tools. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Duh-uh support! Well-rounded, and, like Balloonman, I saw this guy (partially) go from a beginning editor to what he is now. Good luck, I really hope you pass! —Ceran ♦ (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support I would suggest you stop posting welcoming messages to IP's that have only made one edit —it really serves no purpose as many IP's will only ever make one edit, they change frequently, and the links are more geared for accounts. Also if every IP that ever edited was welcomed the database would explode unnecessarily — but no real problems here. Icewedge (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Speedy Keep - Notability clearly asserted. — Realist2 02:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - I assumed you already were an admin, or didn't want to be. You've certainly got the ability. Reyk YO! 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support. I'm familiar with Jclemens from the Third opinion project during the past five months and support this nomination to put the tools in good hands. — Athaenara ✉ 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support - I've had this RfA preemptively watchlisted ever since I've saw it on Ballonman's talk page (TPS I know, but get over it). I like fish. RockManQ (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  14. ...that the Greater Alaskan Gooney Bird has a single mating season that lasts 365 days? (5x expansion, self-nom)...uh, is this where we do the DYK nominations? Oh, sorry, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for someone who is more than ready for adminship. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - Oh yeah. Flea market. It's just like, a mini mall. — neuro(talk) 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support I was under the impression that he was already an admin :o He's a very careful editor, not likely to mess up (definitely won't delete the main page, as they say...). Got enough experience and also seems to have a very good understanding of policy. He should definitely get the tools. Chamal talk 04:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support. A great candidate. I've seen him around and his work is good. He's civil and knowledgeable. He'd make a fine admin. Meets my criteria. Useight (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  18. Absolutely Far calmer than me, which I'll admit is faint praise, but he's a good candidate for the bit. Also, thought he was one. Also, works in that icky part of the wiki that I wouldn't touch w/ a ten foot pole. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support I believe it is wise. MBisanz talk 06:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Very appropriate to be a sysop Leujohn (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - as above; I don't need to repeat it. Alright, I can't help myself... I thought he was an admin already. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  22. Passes the common sense check. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Absolutely. Have had good experiences with editor, who handles very controversial topics with professionalism and spunk. FlyingToaster 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support As per track.Good Editor.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  25. Yes sir! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support. Good contributions and level-headed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  28. Oh yes - I've seen this editor around (though I don't think we've ever really interacted; I could be wrong) and have always thought he's reasonable and thoughtful. Donnez le mop. //roux   12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support. good 'pedia builder, and calm, by the looks of things...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support as candidate generally makes good arguments. Only the "vote" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childe (World of Darkness) is not really sufficiently explained and we were on opposite sides in someone else's relatively recent Request for Adminship, but by and large it is more than apparent that the candidate mostly "gets it" and is here to build an encyclopedia, help out those who are also here to do so, and assume good faith. I can think of well over a half dozen reasons to support and that is more than enough for me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Duh. J.delanoygabsadds 16:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support Duh. iMatthew 16:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  33. Yes! Support! abf /talk to me/ 17:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support I like your work with Article Rescue. SpencerT♦C 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support, albeit with one minor reservation. IMO, the Wasilla Assembly of God article wan't ready for GA status due to problems with focus. But that aside, I am confident that Jclemens will make a good sysop. He's well-rounded and knows how to work constructively with other editors. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  37. I am quite pleased with this editor's demeanour at AfD; the administrative ranks would certainly benefit from competent and clueful article rescuers. the skomorokh 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Qualified. I have no doubt that Jclemens will make a good admin!! America69 (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  39. tl;dr (per nom) Support per Synergy 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  40. Strongly, and he konws why. Giggy (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  41. Heck yes no question at all. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support – I was probably one of the first people Jclemens met. Since then, I've seen him to be a very productive editor on Wikipedia. I'm very impressed with his article and WP:AFD work especially. Jclemens will do just fine as an administrator. Very happy to support. – RyanCross (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - I have a good opinion of this editor as calm and reasonable. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support Another editor who I thought was already an admin. – sgeureka t•c 11:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support Great contributions, trustworthy too! --Banime (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  46. Sssssupport - Great user, trustworthy, and would make a good admin. Xclamation point 14:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose


Neutral

Thehelpfulone

Voice your opinion (talk page) (97/1/5); Scheduled to end 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) – Colleagues, I am delighted to offer up a joint nomination for Thehelpfulone (THO). With almost exactly a years tenure, over 15,000 edits and some 1,700 deleted edits the number stack up on the face it of. Some detail;

Article Writing
Maintenance
House Keeping

Please note the edit surge in October was due to running an AWB script for a wikiproject. In summary Thehelpfulone really does live up to his username, and I can only think that he will be even more helpful with +sysop. I hope that the community agree with this course of action. Pedro :  Chat  08:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Stwalkerster [ talk ]

I want to put User:Thehelpfulone (abbreviated to THO from here on) forward for the mop, as I feel that both he and the community in general can benefit from the extra tools that he will be able to use. THO is a helpful Wikipedian as he is (that much can be guessed from his name!), helping out in both the "Help" areas (WP:HD, CAT:HELPME, etc) and the WP:ACC area ([1]). Here, THO has shown his judgement in whether to create an account or not for a potential new user, or whether not to for various reasons such as a username policy violation. With this, he'd be a great help at WP:UAA, which I have noticed being a bit backlogged recently also. He's also a bit of a vandal fighter, and would find it useful to be able to block users straight away, plus WP:AIV has been getting backlogged recently, so we could use an extra admin there. With blocking comes CAT:UNBLOCK, and THO's good judgement will be useful there also. THO will also find the admin tools useful in new page patrol with the ability to delete some pages immediately, and he will be a help at CAT:CSD also. While I don't help out really at WP:RFPP, I can't really say if it needs some help, but I'm sure that they will benefit from THO's judgement. Finally, while this user is almost guaranteed to make mistakes like the rest of us, I trust this user to admit mistakes, and attempt to fix them if he can. This user has had no civility issues that I know about or have found, so I fully recommend that the community accept THO as an administrator, as I feel that the community will definitely benefit from his access to the extra tools. Regards, and best of luck to you, THO! :) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. The Helpful One Review 17:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If I become an admin, I will use the tools to help me further maintain the wiki, with reverting vandalism, etc. Specifically, the areas that I plan to help out on are WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFP, WP:CSD and I still look at WP:AN and WP:ANI, but I would probably help out more there with requests. Also, I would help out with WP:RFU, with the requests for unblocks and to revert and delete the GRAWP vandalism which we get every so often (I usually revert, but cannot delete the pages). Of course, I would be happy to help out in any other areas including places like WP:IFD and others on the Category:Administrative_backlog. The Helpful One Review 17:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: With articles, I have been working on a few articles, London, is a major one of them – so far I have brought this article up to A-class standard, working hard on improving it and hope to achieve FA with it. Harry Potter is another article that I have worked on, which I have got to GA standard. Also, I’m active on a WikiProject at the moment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic outline as well as part of a collaboration group that works on articles, WP:TSQUAD. On top of that, I am also proud of my vandal reversions (I have rollback) to help me do this, and helping all the users and newbies who ask questions at CAT:HELPME. I also help out at WP:ACC, creating accounts for users who are unable to do so, whether it’s because they can’t do it at a certain computer, or that the username they want is too similar to an existing one (therefore, I have the account creator right). I like to help out and welcome newbies as I was also a newbie once, and it’s confusing starting off without any guidance to help you along the way! :) The Helpful One Review 17:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:I haven’t been in any conflicts over editing that I can think of; however, if I was to get into an editing conflict with someone, I would talk to the user(s) on their talk pages and/or the article talk pages regarding the dispute until we would be able to come to a solution that we both agree on. If this is not possible, then I would ask another user to help with the situation. The Helpful One Review 17:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional "question" from Stwalkerster [ talk ]
4. Does your password meet the strong password guidelines? Answer with only Yes or No (to maintain your password's integrity), and if the answer is no, please change your password to meet these guidelines, so your account is more secure. This is especially important for accounts with elevated privelages, such as Administrators. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A: Yes. The Helpful One Review 17:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional "question" from The Transhumanist   
5. Why do you hang out at Wikipedia so much? I mean, why is it so important to you?  :) The Transhumanist    18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A: That's a good question! I use Wikipedia to help me with projects, and find out some pretty useful information, so I think it's only right that I should give back to Wikipedia for helping me! I'm probably a bit of a Wiki-holic, and I donate my time to the project, to help it expand. I think it's great that Wikipedia's information can be shared around freely, and is in many languages so want to keep that going, and allow the project to have good quality, vandal free information! The Helpful One Review 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional questions from Flewis
6. Are you planning to become more involved in Afd debates if you become an administrator?
A: Yes, I probably am likely to become more involved in AfD debates if I become an administrator, as I will explore some more new parts of the wiki that I can help out with. I've not participated a lot in AfD as I have been doing other maintenance tasks on the wiki, such as reverting vandals, helping out at WP:ACC, recent changes and new page patrol, helping users at WP:HD and WP:NCHD, so I hope to continue that work and also maintain other parts of the wiki (including AFD)! The Helpful One 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Would you place yourself up for recall?
A: I think that this category is a good category, as it shows that admins are prepared to face the consequences of their actions, if they misuse the tools. Therefore, I would add myself to this category and if anyone has any problems with my actions (if I become an admin) I would be happy to respond to emails, talk pages messages etc, as I do now to help users and IPs. The Helpful One 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


8. You've created only 2 articles to date [2]: Miessence and Faerie Wars. Is there are reason behind the low number?
A: I've only created 2 articles because I will admit, I'm more of a maintenance user and so like to maintain articles and keep them in order. However, I have expanded articles such as London and Harry Potter to improve content that is already on Wikipedia, but can be brought to better standards. Hopefully, I plan to write some more articles, and achieve a DYK, which I am yet to improve/create an article to. The Helpful One 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Beat the nom support! - I finally did it! I beat the nom! Woohoo! And speaking of this nomination, the nominee's name says it all. He is very helpful. I've worked with him a lot, and as long as I've known him, he's always acted in good faith and for the good of the project. I'm sure he will use the admin tools responsibly. The Transhumanist    17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    Beat the nom only counts if you wait until the RfA goes live ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, then I cheated! The Transhumanist    19:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    have to say it: Cheater!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support - I recently was looking for some help on some unblock requests, and saw this user (whose work I was aware of) was around. I was stunned to discover that he wasn't an admin already - cliched as that may sound. On review of the contributions at the time, I was convinced that this user should get +sysop and so pushed him to seek better counsel. I am sincerely delighted that he has, and hope the community feels the same. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support — I'll agree with The Transhumanist. Thehelpfulone is, as his name suggest, a very helpful editor who's willing to work hard at a project. I see no reason not to support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. A great Wikipedian who makes the project a better place. He's got plenty of experience on a number of Wikimedia projects and he'll do just fine with a couple of extra buttons on en.wikipedia. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - He lives up to his name, and also does a lot of constructive editing. No reasons not to trust here, more than happy to support. — neuro(talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support — I don't know this user but I recognise the name. No negative experiences and a persuasive argument has been put forward by the noms. Why not? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. SuperStrongSupportInCamelCaseWithExtraOMGWTFBBQ: I thought you were already an administrator - if I'd known, I'd have offered to nominate you! Dendodge TalkContribs 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Was-away-eating-my-dinner-or-would-have-been-sooner nominator support. :D Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Yep. –xeno (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Great Candidate. America69 (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support seems like a good candidate: hard working, helpful, and obvious need for the tools. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support. A... helpful one? O_o Or dedicated, maybe. -- Mentisock 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  13. Strongest support user has my complete trust. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  14. solid and competent in article space - that's all the matters the rest is a cakewalk besides.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  15. Seen him around. Seems sensible. Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  16. I would have supported based on previous positive interactions in Wikipedia space, particularly the help desk and AIV (and also the unlamented old version of WP:ACC, where his edits are now deleted): consistently clueful, good attitude. Had no idea there was a significant content-building side. Impressive. This appears to be a candidate that the two main RFA camps can both agree on. --barneca (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    I note that the CSD tagging concerns expressed so far in the oppose sections are good points, and shouldn't be overlooked by THO whether there are 67 supports (and counting) or not. We all make mistakes, so I see no reason at all not to continue to support, but those are things that I urge THO to review and take care special with before pressing the delete button. --barneca (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Ok, but I would not object to a rename to User:TheNotSoHelpfulOne. MBisanz talk 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Do we need more all-around helpful admins? I'm thinking yes. FlyingToaster 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support - Clueful user. No red flags. Happy mopping. Tiptoety talk 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Hell yes. Sam Blab 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  21. How-the-hell-is-this-user-not-already-an-admin-I'll-never-know Strong Support All the way. iMatthew 21:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  22. Fuck yes. Garden. 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Although he would be even more helpful if he could get me a turkey sandwich. -- Scorpion0422 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  24. I have known Thehelpfulone since he joined Wikipedia, and have only ever seen good things from him. A content editor, vandal fighters, helpful all round (hardly surprising considering the name). I've never once seen him close to being uncivil, and I had planned to nominate him myself a while back but never got round to asking. Very strong support for a great Wikipedian. Al Tally talk 21:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  25. Every thing looks good here. Good luck!! SteelersFan94 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support - yeah, I think the Thehelplessone will make a good admin, boring but good ^_^...--Cometstyles 23:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    Grr you and your believable edit summary. iMatthew 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  27. All looks good, no concerns, trustworthy, seems somewhat overdue - I had thought he was already an administrator. Net positive to promote this editor to adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  29. Wow-I-can-truthfully-say-that-I-actually-thought-he-was-an-admin Support - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support - definitely. RockManQ (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  31. Strong support - clearly exceeds my standards. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - it's difficult not to support someone called 'The Helpful One'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support per all above. macy 02:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support as he lives up to his name. Good article writers are good.  Marlith (Talk)  03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support I was a little disappointed that such a large percentage of your wikispace edits were via tools. This is an area where you can show policy knowledge/expertise, and to see that 2000 of the 2500 or so edits were automated in this area was disappointing. That being said, I reviewed your edits elsewhere and feel that you can be trusted not to delete the main page. Either on purpose or by acceident---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support – I've seen him in multiple places over the last 8 months doing constructive edits. Will do just fine. – RyanCross (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support as nom. Pedro :  Chat  07:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support: Really helpful person. I also want to thank Pedro for such a 'clean' look on the nomination; it made it easier (for me anyway) to do some research. Law shoot! 07:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  40. Yes! - no concerns, excellent person to work with — Possum (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support, nuff said --Chris 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  42. Ultimate utmost support I think this will be the only time I will use that phrase in an RfA. My encounters with this username has made me think he is an admin... without a mop. It's about time he got one. Leujohn (talk)
  43. Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support! abf /talk to me/ 13:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support - Ready for the tools - solid contributions, civil and patient, high probably of long-term commitment to the project. Why not>--Flewis(talk) 13:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  46. Strong Support A trustworthy, hardworking capable candidate. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  47. Strong Support <insert witty comment here about how I thought you already were an admin> :D J.delanoygabsadds 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  48. Would have nomed support / Strong Support Good user, trustworthy and definatly knows their way around wikipedia policy wise e.t.c ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 15:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support - seen this user around, definitely a plus and will make a great admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support He will make an excellent admin. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support as candidate has never been blocked, is a good article contributor, has been granted rollback rights, works well with and is appreciated by others per User:Thehelpfulone/Awards, and seems helpful (member of welcoming committee and kindness campaign confirm the username's claim!). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  52. Why-are-so-many-supporters-using-hyphens-its-kinda-stupid-hope-Ecoleetage-doesn't-do-his-wrong-queue-joke-with-loads-of-them-cos-that-would-be-annoying support Great candidate, no bad moves or anything. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 18:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, guess I started it :P Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  53. Great user. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  54. I wanted to nom but you didn't tell me Support - Abso-frikin-lutely. Very, very trustworthy. Has done vandal fighting and article work which is great. To me, all I like to see is understanding of policy and trustworthiness, which this candidate has! DavidWS (contribs) 21:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support I had a feeling that this day was coming. He is a great editor and extremely helpful and I definitely support granting the use of the tools. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  56. Strong support A great editor, should have been an admin before, very helpful, friendly, understands policy better than me anyway! Good luck on this RfA and hopefully as an admin!--Res2216firest