Jump to content

User:Kudpung/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special:PageInfo

{{BLP others}} The German TV series Berlin Wall (Preis der Freiheit) premiered in the UK on November 15 on Walter Presents UK via C4 Berlin Wall is a German period drama produced by ZDF, the German public broadcaster. The series explores the decline and fall of East Germany through the story of a single family. It is available to watch on Prime Video. Elsa Nabu, Andreas Hommelheim, Ulli Moriotz, Margo, Preis der Freiheit, Nadja Uhl,Barbara Auer,Nicolette Krebitz,GodehardGiese,OliverMasucci,Angela Winkler,Joachim Król,Janina Fautz,Aaron Hilmer,

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Proposed_decision#Formal_request_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_for_a_white_paper_on_research_best_practices https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=1154649537

User:GRuban/RFAR Kudpung - indirectly, a lot of it has to do with User_talk:Tryptofish#What_in_the_world_is_going_on? (In Wikipedia has Cancer, Guy refers to GW by their real name).

I have something of a reputation as a hanging judge when it comes to site bans. I have been extremely critical of the committee for not banning some people in the recent past. – Guerillero

Category:Members of the Fifteen Year Society of Wikipedia editors 562 members. How many are actually still active. Many are admins or former admins.

Admin articles in SP: February 14, 2011 RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

RfA count https://rfa-voting-history.toolforge.org/votes?username=Kudpung&old=

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ORES

Signppost: 1251 en subscribers 286 on non en

survey

[edit]

User:Kudpung – December 27, 2024

[edit]
  • When did you start editing Wikipedia?

I made my first edits October 2006 but I didn't start editing regularly until 2008 when I retired from teaching

  • Why did you start editing Wikipedia?

I looked up something about the region I had recently moved to and made some minor corrections and additions. I then realised

  • If you could go back in time, what do you think would've helped you as a new editor?
  • Did you have help as a new editor? What worked and what didn't?
  • Do you think you'll keep editing for the foreseeable future?

Probably although since 2020 I'm not as as active as I was.

  • Have you ever been involved with WikiEd?

Not directly, no, but I have known about Sage Ross, Frank Schulenburg and LiAnna Davis long before WikiEd was created,.

  • Have you ever edited on mobile? If so, what are your thoughts on it? If not, why not?

No, never. I use my phone strictly as a telephone. I am most comfortable working on a computer. I believe serious work lasting anything longer than a minute requires serious equipment such as a laptop or a desktop, just like any office or work station.

  • 'Is there anything you would change about Wikipedia?

Yes.

  • Feel free to also share anything else you wish to :)
This user drinks Burgundy and Côtes du Rhône wines


Retention

[edit]

AS of October 2022, of 539 user who who are in the '15-year' group, 517 have made at least one edit in the last year. [3]

Draft help

[edit]

Hi. I've noticed that you seem to have problems with almost all the pages you have created. I am working with a group of editors to improve the way new users are informed about Wikipedia's rules and requirements for new articles. We are aware that not all the essential help pages are easy to find, and that many of them are difficult to understand. Help us to help you by letting me know on my talk page if and why you have missed all the help pages that are currently in use.

New Page Creation/registering

[edit]

NPP: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Jorm_(WMF)/Archive_1#New_Page_Triage

Creation

User:Kudpung/YFA

[edit]

'Your first article': redrafted. Reduced from 40 minutes reading time to just over. 6 minutes. Three if the specific problem articles are sportspeople, contemporary music, and Bollywood. These are articles driven by fans. Interesting stats for sports bios here

Help:Introduction

[edit]

Look for it's place in the flowchart. This should come before the Wizard.

New Wizard RfC

[edit]

14 October 2017, 26 respondents. No opposition. Passed as unanimous. [4] That was exactly 5 years ago almost to the day (17 October 2022). A lot has happened since then and there has been a huge increase in in inappropriate or very poor new articles that clearly should be forced through the Wizard. The Wizard needs bringing up to date withiut it becoming a wall of text. Suggested: A more attractive design (border, page colour). Re-adding the former progress tabs. Last step offering a choice of thematic page templates. see also Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Additional.

On AfC

[edit]

AfC has nothing to do with any NPP backlog drives. Such drives may obviously cause a temporary slight increase in the number of articles moved to Draft. Draftification is not AfC and does not oblige an article creator to avail of the AfC process. Draftification is neverthelss a standard procedure that can be used by New Page Reviewers as and when they consider appropriate. There is no shame in having one's article draftified. Quite to the contrary in fact, it can be a far more friendly process that having an article marched immediately to AfD or PRODed, and if/when a draft is submitted to AfC, a lot of help might be forthcoming - which is not in the remit of NPP. NPP also has deadlines - AfC does not.

For flowchart

[edit]

I am grateful to Rentier who understands my explanations and who also expresses the same concerns. Every single paid edit or article creation is spam. Spam in some form or another. Articles don't have to be written in adspeak or be full of links to commercial sites to be spam. Any person or entity that benefits in any way from a presence in Wikipedia is a spammer. Paid editors are spam brokers. They are unscrupulous and deceitful.[1] They are like the people on the sidewalk who take pennies out of a bind man's begging bowl. We do not allow spam,[2][3][4] and most of the paid articles we identify are spam, spam, spam, and spam, and get deleted as spam. Moreover, there probably isn't a paid editor, declared or otherwise, who hasn't got a drawer full of dirty socks. Look At COIN and SPI just to see what we we are up against. One or two declared paid editors is not going to reduce that massive work load (all done free of charge), so why should we encourage them?

With anything up to $2,000 (or more) being offered for an article, paid 'editors' are not going to be deterred by honesty and ethics, and they won't be affected by the Wizard either. They take their time to study our rules, notability, and MoS scrupulously, They will calmly wait 4 days, rack up 10 insignificant edits and then dump their insidious junk in one edit when they think we least expect it and probably get WP:BOGOF too. Some of them might use their other Reviewer account to patrol it, and their OTRS account (diffs available) to get round any copyright for images. I haven't fought for six long years and spent 1000s of my $$ to get ACTRIAL launched so that we can advertise paid editing in the Wizard where all the new users now have to go. If users are determined to encourage it, all they need to do is launch a watchlist notice: Did you know? You can now earn mega bucks by writing articles to help companies sell their wares. Click here for details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk|TB|) 6:34 pm, 20 September 2017, Wednesday (5 years, 26 days ago) (UTC+7) Simplification Proposal

Elmslie

[edit]

https://malvernobserver.co.uk/news/delight-expressed-elmslie-house-wins-malvern-civic-award/

https://www.elmsliehouse.co.uk/blog/thepeople

http://www.the-malvern-hills.uk/other_history_elmslie.htm

https://norwoodstreethistories.org.uk/person/edmund-wallace-elmslie-1818-to-1899/

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/2146641017

https://thecountryseat.org.uk/tag/e-w-elmslie/

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1417165

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/2225755.vinegar-chiefs-old-home-to-reveal-its-secrets/

Shredding (guitar technique)

[edit]

https://guitarskillsplanet.com/what-is-shredding-on-guitar/

https://andyjamesguitaracademy.com/free1/welcome-to-new-frontier-course/module-1-introduction/what-is-shred/

https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/slash-reveals-doesnt-like-shred/

https://guitar.com/news/gear-news/charvel-launches-new-minimalistic-guitar-designed-for-shred-pro-mod-dk22-sss-2pt-cm/

https://www.musicalhow.com/what-is-shredding-guitar/

NPP

[edit]

Seven years ago, only 19% of India’s 1.3 billion people had access to the internet. That figure now stands at nearly 60%. [1]

NPP letter mailing list

  1. ^ Thapar, Aakriti (producer) (26 July 2022). "Digital India: How India's digital revolution is connecting millions". BBC NEWS. BBC. Retrieved 26 July 2022.

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Survey/February 2012

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX April 2012

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people BLPPROD created April 2010.

Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Archive_1#Problematic patroller WAID on NPP: This is nothing more than an unlabeled WikiProject: a group of editors who happen to like working on something and happen to want a place to talk about it.

Summer of research 2011 $125,000.

Sundries

[edit]

{{Non-admin comment|admin}} Every bit of help is needed, but have you fully read and digested WP:NPP and realised that it has a steep learning curve for something an editor might not be ready to commit to in depth?

Malvern Gazette history Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools
User talk:Katherine (WMF) User:Eetzie (Wikipedia), aka User:KStoller-WMF (on WMF sites). New product manager of the Growth team since around May 2022. Works with (or under?) MMiller_WMF (Marshall Miller).
See also:

According to the BBC, "...seven years ago, only 19% of India’s 1.3 billion people had access to the internet. That figure now stands at nearly 60%." [1]

  1. ^ Thapar, Aakriti (producer) (26 July 2011). "Digital India: How India's digital revolution is connecting millions". BBC NEWS. BBC. Retrieved 26 July 2022.

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

– Kipling Talk Britcom

This article is obviously not intended to be an anthology of British sitcom. What the contributors appear to have created is a list of sitcoms that contributed to the making of the genre a staple of TV viewing in the days when most households had one TV set and there were only a handful of free-to-air channels to choose from. This article shows the threads and overlapping talents of all involved, many of whom are sadly no longer with us. It's sheer nostalgia for older readers and a good history of the genre.[citation needed]

During the family evening viewing time, sitcom was a safe and entertaining all-rounder from cosy comedy to bring a smile to viewers faces, through camp and raunchy seaside postcard humour, to slapstick and uncontrollably laugh-out-loud, and all free of expletives, while nevertheless touching heavily on what in the 21st century is regarded as no longer politically correct but at the time was a good laugh for all viewers and targets of of camp, race-com, and politcom. It was a time when Brits would easily laugh at themselves.[citation needed]

With the freeing up of dozens of free-to-air channels and watch-when-you want streaming, diluting the ratings, the free use of expletives that are now almost socially acceptable, YouTube and TikTok and social media on smart phones have become the new audio-visual entertainment of the 21st century at least for younger generations, and intelligently scripted good British sitcom is a bygone era.


Source: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/the-last-laugh-is-the-television-sitcom-really-dead

The newly established National Comedy Awards, meanwhile, doesn’t include a sitcom category, while Bafta dropped its sitcom award in 2015 and replaced it with one for scripted comedy:

Those that sucuceed, do so on British TV because they still exploit the parameters the parameters of a conventional sitcom.

Looking back, 2005 seems like a golden age for the British sitcom. The Thick Of It, Extras and Nathan Barley all debuted. Peep Show was entering its imperial phase. The Mighty Boosh was in the process of becoming a pop cultural phenomenon. We had Green Wing and Nighty Night. The following year would produce Lead Balloon, The IT Crowd and Not Going Out. Even BBC1’s mainstream “My” sitcoms (Family and Hero) were still going strong. So why were people in mourning?

Phab

[edit]

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T311347

George Bukhari

[edit]

Graduated from Manchester Metropolitan University School of Theatre in July 2011 with a BA (Hons) Acting. Born in Burnage in Manchester. Age approx 33.[1]

  1. ^ "George thrills at London park". Manchster Metropolitan University. Manchester Metropolitan University,. 7 June 2011. Retrieved 29 August 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

User feedback

[edit]

Motivations for editing Wikipedia

[edit]
Q5a. Percent who started contributing to Wikipedia due to the following reasons. (n=4,930) meta:Editor_Survey_2011/Editing_Activities.
"Reasons for continuing to contribute", WP Editor Survey April 2011
"The motivations of highly active Wikipedians", Wikimania 2012 talk
  • "What makes you more likely to edit?" WP Editor Survey April 2011
    "What makes you more likely to edit?" WP Editor Survey April 2011
  • "What makes you less likely to edit?" WP Editor Survey April 2011
    "What makes you less likely to edit?" WP Editor Survey April 2011
Q7c. Percent who believe they might become less active due to the listed reasons (n=4,930) meta:Editor_Survey_2011/Editing_Activities.
(Q25. Below is a list of levels of engagement editors have with Wikipedia. Please select ALL that apply; (base = 5805) "Levels of engagement for Wikipedia editors", (WMF Blog: Highlights from the December 2011 Wikipedia Editors Survey, May 25, 2012)
"What might make you contribute more?" Arabic Wikipedia Reader Survey 2012
"What stopped you from editing Wikipedia?" Philippines Wikipedia Reader Survey January 2012 (see also [1])
QD3b. What prompted you to set up a user account? n=6378. (RETROACTIVE justification!) (WMF Blog: Highlights from the December 2011 Wikipedia Editors Survey, May 10, 2012)
"Why create an account on Wikipedia?" (IMMEDIATE survey on the page that new users "land" after they have created their new accounts.) Results of the account creation survey, January/February 2011. This data has been gathered as part of the Account Creation Improvement Project
60% of editors whose edits had been reverted without any explanation said that this made them less likely to edit, while only 9% of editors whose edits had been reverted with explanation felt less inclined to edit. (Video by Barry Newstead (WMF) watch )
41% is the mean number of test editors who contributed after being reverted and warned. 9% is the mean percent of test editors who contributed after being reverted with no message" (Wikimania 2012 talk "Welcome to Wikipedia, now please go away: improving how we communicate with new editors". Steven Walling and Maryana Pinchuk, commons:File:Template_A-B_testing_presentation_deck.pdf)
B3. Have you EVER edited Wikipedia (for instance, fixed a mistake or changed spelling)? (Base: 4000) Results of Readers Survey 2011 (Only 6% of Wikipedia readers overall indicate that they have ever edited Wikipedia content. In the US: 31%; Germany: 12%; UK: 9% [2]).
B5. Why don't you edit Wikipedia? (Base: 3461) Readers Survey 2011: Reasons for not editing
Global South User Survey 2014: WHAT FIRST MOTIVATED YOU TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA? page 235 and detailed on following pages
Global South User Survey 2014: WHAT FIRST MOTIVATED YOU TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA? per country
Global South User Survey 2014: WHAT THINGS MIGHT HELP YOU CONTRIBUTE MORE? page 214 and detailed on following pages


Pagesizes

[edit]

A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers.[ Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words (50 kB and above) it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style.

Readable prose size What to do
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

Worcester

[edit]
  • HTML document size: 348 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 80 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 97 kB
  • Wiki text: 86 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 36 kB (5962 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 10 kB

Malvern

[edit]
  • HTML document size: 512 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 107 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 282 kB
  • Wiki text: 149 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 49 kB (8133 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 27 kB

HCGS

[edit]
  • HTML document size: 184 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 30 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 75 kB
  • Wiki text: 40 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 17 kB (2899 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 7964 B

MC

[edit]
  • HTML document size: 189 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 27 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 78 kB
  • Wiki text: 40 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 11 kB (1902 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 8936 B
RfA votes

RfA/RfB voting history: Kudpung

Username: Previous usernames (pipe separated):

Kudpung has cast 254 support, 113 oppose and 53 neutral votes. The tool was unable to find votes in 22 RfAs/RfBs they've edited.

Supported

Graham87 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support, clearly, without conditions and per GiantSnowman. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Worm That Turned 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

MB (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ComplexRational (Successful, edits to page) Support - Fully qualified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ (Successful, edits to page) Support Can't find any reasons not to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato (Successful, edits to page) Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Whpq (Successful, edits to page) Support more than happy to vote early. Has written plenty of perfectly clean article to demonstrate he know all about content creation. New Page Patroller since 2016 and thoroughly 'all round', his vast and long experience obviates any further digging into his history (which would be too time consuming anyway) and checking any other criteria on my 'laundry list'. It's about time he was an admin, and who am I to argue with such respected nominators? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 (Successful, edits to page) Support . No concerns, but I hope they will have time to do some of the traditional admin tasks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

DanCherek (Successful, edits to page) Support - Dan has done a lot in less than two years, but I have been unable to find fault. The kind of admin Wikipedia needs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support - not only is new blood is certainly needed among the corps of 'crats, but it would it be impossible to dispute nominations from Barkeep49 and Worm That Turned, two of Wikipedia's most respected and experienced users. Lee's excellent admin work, a WikiCup winner and twice runner up, and his superb unwavering content building (not only for our shared passion), are some of the few reasons why (Bilorv's comments noted) I still occasionally contribute to Wikipedia. He's a fully qualified candidate and as per Newyorkbrad's reasoning, an easy support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin (Successful, edits to page) Support . Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sdrqaz (Successful, edits to page) Support - a nomination from TonyBallioni and The Blade of the Northern Lights needs no further input from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Firefly (Successful, edits to page) Support - No nomination by Barkeep49 needs any additional due diligence by me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Modussiccandi (Successful, edits to page) Support - No concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

TJMSmith (Successful, edits to page) Support per nominators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm (Successful, edits to page) Support - per Ritchie333, and demonstrates incidentally, that a user can qualify for admniship in just over 12 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hammersoft (Successful, edits to page) Support. Discounting the three or four who are banned or no longer aound, Hammersort is since April 2008, one of the most highly prolific contributors to WT:RfA where (I'll stand corrected) he appears to have mostly avoided agreeing with or supporting almost anything I ever said there so I'm not sure that not "...descend[ing] into personal affront" is quite accurate. There must be a reason for this preoccupation with matters adminship and now suddenly after all these years running for the bit, but as Scottywong points out, and as I'm not one for disturbing an (as yet) immaculate RfA), let Hammeroft indeed, in his own words: "JUMP! JUMP! JUMP!". They clearly have a use for the tools and I'm sure they will use them well – they will find out later soon enough whether or not they like the job, but beware of Wikipedia's Sword of Damocles . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson (Successful, edits to page) Support - The answer to Q5 (now hatted) was absolutely excellent. FA? Well, due to the way it is or has been managed in the past, it's a place I vowed never to go near, so any criticisms of what you did or didn't do there completely escape me. I seem to recall you and I had a disagreement at some time in the past, but whatever it was (and I may well be wrong - apparently I often am these days), I can't find any reasons not to support, so per Swarm, you're going to be an excellent Admin and let me congratulate you on what is looking to be an easy pass. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

LuK3 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support. per Dennis. Their work over the last 12 months is alone enough to qualify , and Amanda makes a pertinent observation with: Carelessly and being aware that we are all humans and that super dedication (addiction) to the project burns people out which makes them bad admins, are two very different things. - not likely to be any more careless than the admin who stained an otherwise clean block log. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino (Successful, edits to page) Support , per Ritchie333, and an excellent answer to Q10. Anyone with this candidate's experience and area of focus will find plenty of opportunities for exercising admin responsibility without needing 'to go over and beyond' with anything at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Red Phoenix 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support per TonyBallioni - and if only to point out yet again what ridiculous nonsense so many questions are - espcially from those who ask questions just because they can and think it's cool to do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support Iridescent's oppose is not entirely without merit and I'm not sure that according adminship almost solely for such a narrow band of work is really urgent - see my comment at Cwmhiraeth's ORCP, hence my views on DYK have not changed (although I got one myself more by accident than by design). Notwithstanding, SMcCandlish makes some good points for supporting and anyone as prolific as this candidate will probably come across some occasional need for the tools in areas outside their comfort zone where admins really are needed, so it's a 'yes' from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski (Successful, edits to page) Support - from my enormous passion for snooker, and with not far off half the supporters up to now being admins, it would be difficult to say no. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support- a lot of people spend a lot of time on the Founder's talk page and I've often wondered if they hope to gain anything by getting noticed there. However, Guy constantly addresses at least one particular serious issue which should concern everyone. It's not a reason to oppose a highly qualified, long-time user's bid for the mop. I've exchange many positive views with Guy over the years, and what's good enough for Floquenbeam is good enough for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (RfB, Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support per nom. Wikipedia needs more Bureaucrats. I can't see the candidate doing much harm in that capacity. The 'crat mandate is extremely limited, it's not like admins who have hundreds of different jobs to do - and get right . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support - About time. I am so pleased to see this. WSC was the first Wikipedian I ever met in real life and he went out of his way to travel a long way to meet me in the UK on one of my rare trips back to blighty many, many years ago. Over the years he has been extraordinarily helpful to new users and unwittlingly mentored many more. We have closely collaborated regularly on several projects both on and off-Wiki, including Wikimanias, meetups, reforms of RfA and NPP among others. In real life he is a mature and highly respected member of his community. Irrespective of any comments in the oppose section, recent activity has, IMO, clearly demonstrated that more active 'crats are needed, especially for closing RfAs. There is no one on Wikipedia who is not already a 'crat whom I could more highly recommend. If I were to prepend strong to my vote, which I never do, this is the most sincere RfA/RfB vote I have ever made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support There's not much left for Bureaucrats to do and one of the tasks is closing RfA. New 'crats jump to the opportunity to provide a timely close to obvious outcomes, however, when a 'crat chat is called, as one was recently, it seems to be a bit of a challenge to get enough 'crats together. We've had a couple of new 'crats recently and that might change things so adding Silk Tork to the list of genuinely active 'crats might not be a bad idea. As an admin he has performed 100% correctly, and the Arbitration Committee has lost a serious, fair and impartial member. Echoing Ritchie333's thoughts above, there is little chance that as a Bureacrat he will do anything controversial so I see no reason therefore why I should not support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger (Successful, edits to page) Support - Something is nagging me, but try as I may, I can't find any reason not to support. The content contribs are a bit underwhelming, but so were mine when I ran. I trust them not to break anything with their admin bit and that's the main thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill (Successful, edits to page) Support. I am very familiar with Rosguill's contributions, especially New Page Reviewing, where they are not only a prolific patroller but actively take part in discussions and developments. This is alone sufficient for me to recommend them for the bit, but I hope that becoming an admin will not detract from their work there - the one thing NPP needs is active admins among its ranks of the 90% inactive 750 reviewers. Patrollers with the admin flag can delete (or decline) CSDs on the fly while they also understand the criteria for granting reviewer rights at PERM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz (Successful, edits to page) Support. Obviously a fully qualified candidate. Stood up well to a barrage of questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (Successful, edits to page) Support - with the caveat that they approach gender related issues with great caution. Otherwise, more than sufficiently knowledgeable about policies and guidelines and can be trusted with the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree (Successful, edits to page) Support . I have recently raised the issue of questions yet again at WT:RfA and I am most impressed at the candidate standing up to Q17 by Coffeeandcrumbs. There are a couple of things with this candidature which give me pause, but nothing which would prevent me supporting (user can ask me on my talk page). However, these things are even further minimalised by the excellent, really excellent answers to the barrage of other questions. Like Germanophone nominator SoWhy, not a native speaker, but otherwise first class command of English, and who like the nominator, will make a first class admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

GRuban (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. As nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit (Successful, edits to page) Support - It's extremely rare that I even bother to read the user questions and the answers, but as my concern for the appropriateness of some types of question has been recently rekindled, I took a look. I must say that I have rarely seen such excellent answers, especially to such as one that is posed in defiance of the multiple-question ruling, the excellent and non-comittal answer to Q17, and the perfect understanding of the situation at Q6. The (active) tenure is short(ish), the edit count is good, the nominators have each made an excellent case, so therefore based almost solely on the clarity and perspicacity of the answers to all the questions, the candidate has more than demonstrated their suitability for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Kees08 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Anyone who regularly edits and consistently produces this kind of quality content already knows all there is to know about policies and guidelines whether they have done a stint in the trenches or not. So as much as I usually agree with JBH on most things, there’s no indication he’d not be a good administrator. In fact Kees08 doesn't need to be a 'good' admin, just being an admin will do because I certainly trust him to respect our policies and guidelines, be polite and helpful, and not abuse the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

GermanJoe (Successful, edits to page) Support. I've also never heard of GermanJoe before as he's a bit gnomish, but after spending a good hour researching, although he falls short on several of my criteria, his knowledge of policy and guidelines is more than adequate, he has a calm, polite, mature and helpful demeanour, and there is therefore no reason not to trust him with the tools or the sense of judgment that goes with the job of janitor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear (Successful, edits to page) Support . I communicate regularly with Nosebagbear and he is a pleasure to work with and fully competent to be accorded the bit. Q9 has nothing to do with RfA and is a time waster while Q12 is not, and should not be a deal breaker. Nobody is perfect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support - strongly. I have followed the Framban issue very closely. Not only can I find no compelling reason to object to resyoping, but I am fully convinced that in the absence of any publicly available evidence, the reason for removal of the tools is so vague as to never have happened. Moreover, it begs the question whether Fram has been made a scapegoat for more sinister activity within the movement. Certainly it has led to a huge breakdown in the Community's trust in the WMF, probably something just waiting to happen whoever was likely to be the catalyst. If there ever was any misdemeanour on Fram's part, he will certainly have learned from this, the greatest upheaval I have witnessed during my tenure on Wikipedia, and he should be allowed back to adminship with a clean slate - now is not the moment which users often exploit to dig up and settle old scores. RfA is neither a popularity contest nor a vote of no confidence, rather it should be based on the good a user does or has done for Wikipedia as a net positive. As stated elsewhere by Haukurth: ...the T&S action that led us here was a wildly inappropriate and counterproductive intervention in community affairs which should be undone as strongly and directly as possible. Therefore, anyone who is not fully acquainted with the history, new users and old hands alike, and those who are privy to the secret information, should kindly consider recusing themselves from this RfA, at least from the Oppose section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 (Successful, edits to page) Support Due to his work at NPP, Barkeep49 and I have interacted dozens if not hundreds of times over the past year or so. But it doesn't stop there, that work involves participating at Phab and with the WMF and Meta on the complex on-going improvements and enhancements to the Page Curation system. NPP is arguably the most important single content process on Wikipedia, and what he perhaps does not fully realize amongst all the other excellent work he does, is that he has become the de facto coordinator of NPP, a monumental task for which - despite what may be suggested in the oppose section - the admin tools are almost essential. Suffice it to say that if I had known he was willing to run for RfA, I would have offered to nominate in a flash. But this RfA doesn't need my vote to convince anyone what an excellent admin he will make and that's why I'm unusually voting late. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Izno (Successful, edits to page) Support.I have come across Izno a lot. With their experience, what they don't know already they probably won't. What they do know already is more than adequate for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford (Successful, edits to page) Support - admirably meets all the requirements for being an all round admin. Two years with this kind of engagement, especially to NPP, is more than enough to gain the required experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv (Successful, edits to page) Support . Editing has been more than just a bit sporadic over the years but it looks as if Brad will stay around if he gets the mop. Otherwise, fully qualified and trustworthy. The Signpost article is more than enough alone to demonstrate that Brad is no new kid on the block looking for something to brag about in the schoolyard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

AmericanAir88 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support - AfD matched the result over 90%. Content work/creations includes many lists, stubs, and DAB, but is adequate to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of what an article should be, although The Darien Times and Squid Noir should be addressed. For the rest, my 'laundry list' as some call it, although it is nothing more than the minimum and obvious requirements, is sufficiently met and I am confident they will not abuse the tools.. As an aficionado of aircraft, my judgement is not being clouded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq (Successful, edits to page) Support - about time (yes, I know, someone already said that). Totally unconvincing oppose votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - Absolutely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee (Successful, edits to page) Support. Experienced and trusted candidate and hoping that she will support our bid to improve relations with the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kosack (Successful, edits to page) Support , per nom.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (Successful, edits to page) Support I have never come across the candidate previously, but on an examination of their history I find nothing egregious. Solid, consistent work. For me, the tenure is a bit on the short side, but that said, some people are very quick to pick up the essentials of Wikipedia editing and policies, and certainly meets my criteria. A brilliant answer to Q23. Some opposes may be legitimate but on the whole are unconvincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS (Successful, edits to page) Strongest possible support (and that's the first time I've used any qualifiers on my hundreds of RfA votes). One can't expect everyone voting down there in the dungeon and torture chamber to really know what they are talking about, especially when simply piling on. and they almost certainly do not know RexxS personally. I do. Or worked with him off Wiki. I have. One can't expect them to know either what a thoroughly nice and helpful person he is to newbies. I do. RexxS is one user, like me a retired educator in RL, who has often told me that he is Wikibusy enough without wanting to have the mop as well. What is needed however, is precisely admins with his no-nonsense approach, his excellent technical knowledge, and his vast experience and outreach work which most of those with higher edit counts can't/won't match. I join with with Ritchie333, Swarm, Boing, WereSpielChequers, Drmies, and particularly Acalamari who puts it more eloquently than I usually now bother at RfA. These are the people who know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Primefac (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support. Primefac's work as the de facto coord of AfC is already more than enough to convince me that there is nothing standing in the way of him having the bureaucrat bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support - What a pleasant surprise, Amanda :) Seeing this even makes me wish I could come back to regular editing. A shame this rare RfB is sullied by a couple of votes in the basement, but what would any RfA/RfB be without at least some misplaced negativity? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Enterprisey 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support . I was neutral at the previous RfA. It was really an 'oppose' but there were already enough oppose votes to ensure it would not pass. That was three years ago and I'm very happy to say that this time, the candidate has my full support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 (Successful, edits to page) support. Solid reasons for wanting the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter (Successful, edits to page) Support, because I believe the claims to lack of experience and edit count are exagerated, for example see my - albeit cautious - vote here on the successful RfA of a user who had been registered for barely a year and who had around 8,000 edits at that time. Despite a focus on American politics, I personally do not see sufficient evidence of tendentious or POV editing by Galobtter on articles that support the claims made by oposers (many of them pile-ons). Most contributors edit in areas where they have a special interest, but this does not mean POV or bias. One of our best FA editors is mainly concentrated on music, for example; would one say he has a POV, or that my peer review of his Edward Elgar was POV because the composer lived in my home town? We need admins, sure, but of course not at any cost, I nevertheless think however, that the drama (and paranoia?) in recent RfAs is getting out of hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers (Successful, edits to page) Support - Per Moonriddengirl I absolutely and wholeheartedly endorse this application for adminship. I actually suggested to the candidate a while ago that they should consider running and would have nominated if I had known it was coming. The opposition is pure pettifogging, a failure to comprehend basic principles of notability, or in this case, non-notability, and a classic example of why so few highly qualified editors are prepared to go through this ridiculous ordeal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support - Fully qualified. I was particularly impressed with his excellent clueful participations at ACTRIAL and all things NPP/NPR and I hope he will come back to those areas when he has the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sro23 (Successful, edits to page) Support . Doesn't check all my boxes but I'm as fully entitled to ignore my rules as the candidate should be fully entitled to the tools - especially for SPI work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry (Successful, edits to page) Support - as Kurtis said: overqualified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

331dot (Successful, edits to page) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support. I abstained from the previous RfA because I was torn. I could see the way it was going, and couldn't find any valid reasons for adding anything even as a neutral vote. Lourdes has evolved a lot since then and and has made impressive amswers to the the user questions. Despite the comments by our resident opposer, I can't think of any reasons today why they should not be accorded the bit. In fact I think they would make an excellent admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cameron11598 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support - fully qualified candidate. Yes, I came across one or two things that I guessed some of our resident voters would take issue with, but certainly do not consider them to be reasons not to support. Apart from two oppose votes (IMHO), the rest are nit-picking, and at least two are from serial RfA oppose voters. I'll just add to this that Cameron is certainly soemone whom I would trust with the tools, and that's what RfA is mainy all about.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Harrias 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - while I understand the concerns of some who have suggested that a reconfirmatioon RfA is a waste of time, it is a perfectly legitimate excercise and should be accorded good faith rather than criticism. An excellent content contributor - there are people who suggest that such editors should be automatically accorded the bit, not that I agree. An excellent run in his first RfA in the days when 100+ supports was something to be proud of, and whoever the nominator was is of no consequesnce here. It takes a bit of courage to do a voluntary rerun (If I recall correctly, I believe some Wikipedias require it every 2 years or something like it - not that I agree with that either). I supported the first RfA and I'm doing so now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Muboshgu (Successful, edits to page) Support - fully qualified candidate. The opposes votes are unconvincing and are only there (as usual) to ensure that no RfA remains drama free, and no other purpose. Bonjour season of good will... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Joe Roe (Successful, edits to page) Support - fully qualified candidate; and nominated by no less two admins for whom I have great respect for their work on both RfA and NPP. The two 'Oppose' votes are entirely without substance. One clearly does not know what they are talking about, while nobody, not even me, gets every AfD vote or closure right - but this cited instance was a perfectly legitimate and I would quite possibly have deleted this via G4 even with the ability to view the deleted version. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni (Successful, edits to page) Support. I am really pleased to see this and if I had known it would be coming I would probably have been up there as the nominator. I once mentioned jokingly to him not so long ago that he should be an admin - his reply was 'Nah! I have seen the incredible hard work Tony has been putting into some burning issues since he has had more time to dedicate to Wikipedia, especially how he stepped into NPP after my quasi retirement from it, picked up the pieces and became its new de facto coordinator. His extremely delicate manner of handling some contentious issues, particularly when taming contumacious newbies who begin their Wikicareer by Wikilawyering and harassing the old hands. His knowledge of most policies and guidelines is second to none, and a solid content contributor to boot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl (Successful, edits to page) Support, of course. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ansh666 (Successful, edits to page) Support - might not check all my boxes, but I can't find any reasons not to support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy 2 (RfB, Unsuccessful, edits to page) Very weak support. There is a disquieting coincidence in the statements of both Iridescent and TonyBallioni, and Aiken drum (below) which echo exactly the thoughts and feelings I have over SoWhy for many years, proving I have not been wrong in avoiding responding to their his posts on various discussions - which is sadly not the way it’s supposed to work. Did very little for his first four years after which three months of significant activity was enough to be awarded the use of the admin tools - which probably would not pass today. There then followed a burst of activity during 2008-2009 which ended after January 2010 when his first bid for bureaucrat failed and practically withdrawing from significant activity for the next six years , with less than 1,000 edits during full five consecutive years, starting to edit in earnest again only 6 months ago. Most of the larger edits during the long quasi hiatus appear to be limited to votes on RfA and various RfC. SoWhy has edited 367 Requests for adminship pages - Support: 195, Oppose: 71, Neutral: 35, Unknown: 66 , but unfortunately I am unable to locate the tool that analyses these votes showin a % of how many times the votes matched the results, but in some instances his votes are pile-ons, or deliberate searches for rare errors which are insignificant in view of the candidate's high number of operations - so I see a character of inflexible perfectionism. The previous RfB (I haven’t fully analysed it) appears to have largely failed due to SoWhy’s involvement in the controversial breaching experiment - in which most of the participants were admins anyway (or have since become ones) and which I didn't think was such a bad sting operation, but there were other opposes unconnected with that which are still today not entirely without merit. Finally and most importantly, his editing history depicts a pattern where he has been careful to avoid making enemies from doing his job as an admin by not participating in controversial areas. In my own case for example, a bid for bureaucrat would fail miserably on a large opposition from people who I have correctly sanctioned, blocked, or whose contributions I have correctly reverted or deleted, or whose RfA or RfB I opposed, or, because of my high edit count in deletions and NPP, my few errors would be used out of context and out of proportion. Especially, perhaps by SoWhy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 (Successful, edits to page) Support- as nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - no concerns. (I voted 'oppose' last time) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Anarchyte 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support . I'm glad to see this new RfA from Anarchyte. On the previous RfA I was so torn I just could not make my mind up so I left an extremely cautious, non-committal neutral vote. I'm happy to say that I give my full support this time round, and to be one of the first to vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

ONUnicorn (Successful, edits to page) Support I've seen Unicorn around a lot in areas where I used to provide most of the initiative. We didn't always see eye to eye but what I always appreciated was her ability to both be objective and think outside the box. Unicorn has more than what is needed just for adminship - I'm seeing potential leadership qualities (and I mean leadership, not power wielding). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Clpo13 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - No concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing (Successful, edits to page) Support. I've done all the necessary research, and admittedly there was not a lot to do. WP:IAR is a policy - one of the shortest and most concise we have. I suppose this means also that I can safely make the unprecedented move of ignoring my own rules if they prevent me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. GoldenRing has demonstrated rare and extraordinary judgement in his answers to the questions, especially, and most significantly in his superb response to Q5. More clue in fact, than many of our current admins, including me. Important support comes from some of our most trusted users and admins who are seasoned RfA participants, such as Boing! said Zebedee, Ritchie333, Noyster, Andrevan, Dweller, Nick, DoRD, Mkativerata, HighInBC, Juliancolton, and Deryck to name but a few, with Gamall Wednesday Ida, themself not a prolific editor but who makes a very compelling argument for supporting, hitting all the nails on the head. It would therefore be totally amiss of me, despite some valid oppose votes, to not tender my support. This is one case where a user having the admin tools would help improve or maintain Wikipedia, however rarely they might use them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Amortias (Successful, edits to page) Support - Fully qualified candidate. I always respect Mkativerata's votes on RfA but in this case I believe he may be pleasantly surprised with Amortias. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposes (and neutrals) are unconvincing ad tend to reveal what I (at least) perceive as a new trend in RfA to try too hard to find fault for whatever flimsy reason possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Primefac 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support – No concerns. The opposers might have picked out something amiss with occasional AfD , but closing AfD is not an exact science and all admins sometimes get it wrong - including me. It's by no means the only area where admins work and there don't seem to be any other solid issues over this candidacy. I notice that one serial opposer is, as almost always, the first to get their opinion in the section, reinforcing once more the observation now beginning to be made by others, that it represents a pattern, giving rise to concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Cyberpower678 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support, as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth (Successful, edits to page) Support. If ever there was a reason to give someone the mop without all the drama of an RfA, this would be it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

K6ka (Successful, edits to page) Support. As Ritchie333 states in his oppose: ’’teenagers high-fiving each other with vandalism barnstars ‘’ happened to be also the reason the WP:CVUA was closed down a few years ago and re-started again from scratch, so I do have a certain foreboding of people who started their Wiki career before they were old enough to wear long trousers. Fortunately this not the case here and K6ka obviously does not appear to have been working towards adminship, but oddly that brings me to the essence of my concern: mainly, but mot only, the lack of article creation. There are a few valid points in the oppose section coming from people I enjoy working with, while other comments there I take with a pinch of salt. Failing widely to meet my criteria largely because some of the items the list are conditional on others (conundrum: you can’t be classed as a bad driver if you’ve never driven a car and don't know the difference between a clutch pedal and a rear view mirror), I could nevertheless not come up with the kind of flimsy cause to oppose as one of our regular oppose voters is wont to do. I therefore put my trust in Xeno whose opinions I trust and respect, and HJ Mitchell (who also ought to be a 'crat by now) who makes the most valid statement, in the knowledge that K6ka is almost certainly going to be a net positive and will probably not find himself at the centre of too much drama in horrible places such as ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Schwede66 (Successful, edits to page) Support as conominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate (Successful, edits to page) Support . I have never come across NRP which can also be as positive as as a user who is seen everywhere all the time. NRJ just gets on with the job of providing content and cleaning up the mess left by others, and would have had countless occasions to use the admin tools if he had them, particularly in the clearly described areas in his answer to Q1. With 355 votes at AfD at an extraordinary accuracy of 93.7%, NRJ demonstrates perfect confidence to be closing them as an admin, and these are not a hat collector's ‘go-with-the-flow’ votes. Polite and friendly discourse on their talk page which also demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of MoS, policies, and guidelines and enthusiasm to help others. We need more candidates like NRJ. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector (Successful, edits to page) Support . Long overdue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ad Orientem (Successful, edits to page) Support Fully qualified. I find it most refreshing to see a candidate on the right side of maturity and obviously of some life experience. There's nothing on Wikipedia that he does not know enough about to be given a mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Boson (Successful, edits to page) Support - Late to the party because I've been off doing my own research, and what do I come back to find? That Risker, Dennis Brown and a raft of other highly experienced admins have said it all above. The oppose votes seem to be the kind that are looking for any old reason to oppose because they just can't stand the idea that a candidate comes along without anything one can objectively complain about. The candidate meets even my RfA criteria which for many years were criticised as being excessively strict - but there is no mention in them about having a need to prove one's worth on the drama boards or AIV. And 16K edits is 16K edits whether they were done over 10 years or 10 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Samtar (Successful, edits to page) Support. Like anyone, I can be wrong, or at least indecisive, but with such overwhelming support including from a lot of people whose opinions I very much respect, it would be silly for me to remain sitting in the neutral section. Especially, as I said below, I have personally had the best collaboration with Sam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore (Successful, edits to page) Support 14 days ago I made a short, shortlist of potential candidates I would probably nominate before the end of the year. RickinBaltimore was on that list and I was very pleased to hear back that he was already in discussion with possible nominators. Anyone would be very hard pressed indeed to find any genuinely compelling reasons to oppose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Rehman 4 (Successful, edits to page) Support It's a long, long time since his last RfA, and a lot of good work and content since. Apart from that, admin on Commons clinches it. Absolutely no concerns.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 (Successful, edits to page) Support . I lack the authority to comment on the opposes below and my own research does not reveal anything egregious. Good balance of the right kind of edits in the right kinds of places and thoughtful answers to the questions above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support - classic profile for a Bureaucrat ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 (Successful, edits to page) Support. It would be very hard to oppose a candidate nominated by someone as thorough as Opabinia and her co-nominator, but I had to be sure and do my own research. All I came across were some oppose below that seems to be determined to maintain RfA as a horrible and broken process. An ideal, mature, highly qualified model candidate, we need more like BU Rob13 - if we can get RfA finally cleaned up.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (Successful, edits to page) Support. I knew this was coming and in fact if I hadn't been busy for the last few days in RL chances are I would probably have done the nomination myself or at least co-nom'ed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Tavix (Successful, edits to page) Support - fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (Successful, edits to page) Support - An editor of the calibre and maturity that should be the default for running for adminship. If a little low on participation in some maintenance areas and drama boards, his knowledge of policies has been more than adequately accrued through his vast experience in content work, and when given the admin toolset he will not hesitate to step up to the place and use them as and when required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 (Successful, edits to page) Support - Fully qualified candidate. Jason Quinn hits the nail on the head (again). The oppose votes are just the kind of thing that deter candidates of the right calibre from running for office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Amakuru (Successful, edits to page) Support. Classic example of the kind of candidates who should be coming forward but who are afraid of RfA and dscouraged by the kind of oppose voting below. Amakuru has shown here that fully qualified candidates have nothing to fear even if several of the support votes are from very new users with little experience and/or knowledge about what adminship is all about, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Widr (Successful, edits to page) Support: Fully qualified candidate. Whether they have made significant contributions to the traditional maintenance areas or not, anyone who has this level of dedication to the project and kept their nose clean for so long already knows all there is to know about using the tools with maturity and responsibility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 (Successful, edits to page) Support - Fully qualified candidate as per HJ Mitchell. Examination reveals no causes for concern and the block log is old-hat and not part of today's equation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Brianhe (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. I first became aware of Brian through his work on the Orangemoody investigations and clean up and I was most impressed with his engagement and thoroughness. This is a user who should have had the Admin toolset a long time ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

78.26 (Successful, edits to page) Support. I already did a research into this candidate earlier this month and estimated a high probability of a successful RfA. My only regret is that I have not been sufficiently available in the last two weeks to have actually nominated this RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught (Successful, edits to page) Support .Of course. I have recently reviewed this candidates work with a view to adminship. I can honestly say that it is rare for me to come across a user who so adequately fits the profile of an ideal admin.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm (Successful, edits to page) Support. (Note: I actually penned this before I knew when this RfA was going to go live). Consider this a 'scrape through'. I'm a bit concerned about all the effort he has been putting in to adminship issues so early in his Wiki career, 163 contribs to WT:RfA - by far his largest single area of participation. Of his 8,000 edits, around 3,500 of which are (semi)automated, were made in late 2014 with his monthly average having dropped significantly since. Being nominated by WSC relieves me of the need to examine his deletions. His 20 created articles, many of which are stubs, are short, clean, and well written - again looking (to me at least) like a requirement fulfilment for adminship, but which would probably get him the autopatrolled flag under the new low criterion. His first article was deleted. Q3: The answer is vague - disputes can easily arise from issues not connected with content. All said and done however, AFAICS, Biblioworm has done nothing egregious at all, and is always friendly and polite, has learned a lot about policy already and I trust him not to run amok with the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生 (Successful, edits to page) Support - not only, but also to negate a particularly disturbing oppose vote that carefully posits only a negative spin of a whole story - more here (and do please follow the link). Any other oppose votes are hardly compelling and come again from editors who regularly tend only to oppose RfAs and whose votes may rarely match the results. The candidate does not check all my boxes but what I see is regular editing over a great many years (hardly a flash in the pan from someone wanting adminship for a trophy to parade round the schoolyard), careful plodding, and gnoming, which with this candidate's level of maturity is essential work and can require a surprising high frequency of need to use the tools with a high degree of trust and intelligence. Whatever else needs to be said has been more than adequately covered by MusikAnimal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thine Antique Pen (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support - Cautiously, because I knew this RfA was coming and I was asked off-Wiki for my opinion and did my research. As a retired educator with 40 years or working with young people and having worked intensively at WP:PERM and seen all the hat collecting by younger editors, and having blocked dozens of delinquents on Wikipedia, I need a vast amount of convincing before I would suoport a bid for adminship from someone who hasn't even nearly reached the age of majority. However, in this instance I feel reassured by WTT and Yunshui and I'm not impressed by the lower section of this RfA which at the time of this vote is populated mainly by regular RfA opposers, and I certainly believe Thine Antique Pen's edit total of 61,000 to be somewhat more demonstrative of the workings of Wikipedia than those of one opposer's 93 edits to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. Paine Ellsworth is fully qualified. Blatantly vindictive oppose votes are typical of what brings the RfA process into disrepute and keeps candidates away. The totally exaggerated oppose theme is highly reminiscent of a sysop's attempt to derail my own RfA. The problem then, as it is now, is that later voters take it on face value without doing any research and simply pile on. I researched. I followed all the diffs. I see nothing particularly egregious in what is essentially a storm in a pipe bowl and I'm saddened to see a sysop at the root of it. AFAICS it's basically that typical Internet syndrome in which people deliberately look under every stone to see if they can find a cause to yammer abut being offended. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (Successful, edits to page) Support. 100% suitable candidate. I was planning on nominating Ian myself but Berean Hunter beat me to it. 'Nuff said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wbm1058 (Successful, edits to page) Support (moved from 'Oppose') Intrigued by the short nomination statement together with the fact that for some reason an otherwise fairly normal RfA has been turned into such a fiasco, I've spent a lot of time doing some further research. Wbm1058's Arbcom candidacy actually fills the gaps. He also has important technical skills, not least the ability to be able to address the horrendous task of hist merges. Without mentioning everyone in the support section who has said positive things, I think BusterD although he hasn't influenced my rare decision to move from one section to another, sums up what I now believe to be most apropriate. Add to that a large measure of gut feeling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support – Self-nom from a mature, experienced editor gets extra points from me too and it's nice to see someone who has seen it all from the perspective of solid content creation rather than just symbolically haunting all possible meta areas to fill the gaps in our criteria. The previous RfA is so long ago that I wouldn't even demean the candidate by looking at it. Good reflected answers to far too many questions. If ever there were a kind of editor who should be given the mop by default, Cyclonebiskit would be in the front of the queue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon (Successful, edits to page) Support. In spite of Ceradon's occasional inability to drop the stick, which of course was naturally respnded to in my traditionally pompous, old-fashioned Britsh English, and in spite of Bilorv's attempt (pre-empting an oppose from me) to turn yet another RfA into a drama fest, I actually believe Ceradon will make a very good admin. I'm impressed with this RfA on the one hand because it is nominated by WereSpielChequers who for private as well as professional reasons is one of the users I trust best and who showed me the darker alleys of Wikipedia's deletion policies and systems way back in the days, but also because I could almost support anyone for adminship who thinks so clearly and so accurately about NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. Like RexxS I have met Rich many times and found him to be a person of very mature age, temperament, and dedication to Wikipedia. Having read his history, I find it peppered with comments and actions by sysops who have either already slunk away or dissappeared under a cloud. Rich can easily expect more respect from the community than he's getting in the lower floors of this page - 'low' is the operative word and anyone who in all honesty would think again, would also find thart the arguments are not in the slightest bit compelling. I am greatly disturbed by SilkTork's attempt to completly scupper this RfA from the word go with such an almost unprecedented long speech while saying he isn't voting. It's a tactic I personally wouldn't dare resort to however strongly I felt. And for anyone who has been following recent discussions, such 'non-vote' comments do the most damage - every other oppose being simply an unresearched pie-on. An extroadinarily engaged editor, Rich is one whom we need to keep on board and trust with the tools too but I have no idea why he'd even want to go back to editing at all after this character assasination. Thank you so much to you down there in the bargain basements where words come hard and cheap. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao (Successful, edits to page) Support. Doesn't anywhere near check the boxes in my criteria and the opposers raise some valid points about a lack of work in areas where admin-type interaction is required. Nevertheless, I see a dedication to the project which means he stumbles often enough on issues that need admin intervention, and I see nothing to suggest he may go feral with the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN (Successful, edits to page) Support - my only concern is how he has managed to duck and weave from being a sysop for so long. My criteria are anong the strictest of all but on aggregate he passes by a wide margin. Thus if by my barometer I can make allowance for the lack of actual creations, I find the oppose votes totally unconvincing and that they don't take into consideration the rest of the candidate's excellent work. Tops marks also to Strad for his brilliant nomination speech. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Straightforward procedural re-sysoping by the community of an excellent former admin with not a cloud in sight.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333 (Successful, edits to page) Support – as nominator. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support. I'm a little bit late to the party than I usually am on RfA, but what an unusual party! With the exception of just a few editors whose comments I always greatly respect, some remarks in the oppose section come from editors who on other Foundation projects would not yet even qualify to comment on anything as serious as an RfA. I'm impressed that at least we have a request for the tools by a former admin and what we need above all else among our admins are people with demonstrated maturity. WereSpielChequers, Mkativerata (especially), SilkTork, and Newyorkbrad have done their homework leaving little else for me to do but to add my strongest support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

EuroCarGT (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. Not an easy decision because in spite of the candidate meeting my criteria and my not having found anything egregious in the candidate's history, I could obviously not ignore the reasonable oppose !votes. However, on balance, I still find nothing sufficiently compelling for me to oppose or even go nuetral. The candidate has my confidence with the caveat they tread carefully when they get the mop and ask, always ask for advice, before risking anything contentious. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan 4 (Successful, edits to page) Support I supported No.2 with this comment. I opposed No.3 with this statement. In my opinion he’s never really done any thing terribly egregious and he’s patiently sat these last 12 months out. On another note, we are one of the few Wikipedias not to insist on a minimum tenure/edit count to vote on RfA; whatever our guidelines suggest, I’m not impresses with some of the participation in the Oppose section. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Titodutta (Successful, edits to page) Support. Because Titodutta is so all-round and prolific and checks all my boxes, I had to look a lot more to see if there were any reasons I might wish to be more cautious about !voting 'support'. Naturally I didn't find any. What I did find however, is that it is almost essential for Titodutta with his knowledge of the Indian sub continent and its culture, to be an admin on en.Wiki. There's a lot of work waiting for him. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN (Successful, edits to page) Support as nominator. Late to the party, it's 08:30 a.m. here and all this was going on while I was in bed. Apologies for sleeping on the job. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (tlk) 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarahj2107 (Successful, edits to page) Support - a perfect reply to Q4 which is practically alone worthy of my support ;) A polite reply to Q5 that IMO doesn’t deserve a reply at all - the anon who appears to have a lot of Wiki knowledge can't even be bothered to grace us with an IP signature, now if that isn’t ‘sloppiness’ itself... Indeed, such participation at RfA is one of the things that has contributed to RfA's bad name; so don't worry about the DABlink notifications, I get them all the time. With 85% accuracy, a really good overall performance at AfD. A mature individual who fully understands how to communicate with the most awkward of customers, she comes with a solid educational and professional background and has added a vast amount of new content, but at the same time is not too proud to stoop to the unenviable and thankless task of NPP which she has also been doing for a very long time par excellence . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Czar (Successful, edits to page) Support - One of the oppose votes and one of the neutrals make some valid rationales for not being up here in this section, and they are expressed with dignity. I won't comment on the others. I am confident that Czar will take those two votes on board and perhaps reserve his judgment while taking his first baby steps in other admin areas. I trust him not to abuse the use of the tools and that is the most important thing of all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Qualified candidate. I don't see any real relevence in the claims made in the neutral section regarding Q7 & 8.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. I also have 100% confidence in Harry's nominations. The issues brought up by an IP in Q5 have indeed been taken very much out of context particularly when dealing with the kind of users Thomas was addressing. While not ideal comportment for an admin candidate, it's nevertheless the kind of comment I would have made in my 'younger' Wikipedia days, and although touched on in my RfA it did not prevent me from getting the bit. Thomas, calm down a bit, even when you are having to deal with blatant spammers and uncivil trolls (gosh, but I know how difficult it can be to exercise restraint with such people), but remember that the rest of your work on Wikipedia more than sufficiently qualifies you for adminship whatever might be said and piled-on in the oppose section. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support . I've spent two hours on this already and that's to long to be dithering between all three sections. I was originally going to park myself in the neutral section because although some valid comments in the oppose section and the strange obsession with multiple edits give me pause, nothing convinces me that I can make an outright oppose. After a final look, this candidate is hardly likely to to abuse the tools if he gets them, and knowledge of policy is not his weak point. So he gets my confidence with the recommendation that he tries to consoildate some of his edits into some larger chunks and/or takes a broader overview of what he wants to change before he presses 'save'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I JethroBT (Successful, edits to page) Support. An excellent opportunity for me to admit that for once, I don't need to do any research at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn (Successful, edits to page) Support. (edit conflict). Jack McBarn is a very familiar name and what he has done as an IP previously is of absolutely no concern of mine and is a very, very weak reason for opposing, especially when it has caused so many pile-ons from people who have simply thought 'Hey, this sounds like a good reason to oppose' and who themselves have low edit counts stretched over many years or simply come here to turn yet another RfA into a dramafest. In fact, any previous edits will have only contributed to his knowledge and posibly even compensate for the relatively short time he has been editing as Jack. While I can agree to some guarded extent with The view of the WMF is quite clearly that Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia is of secondary importance to the WMF's role as a software development organisation, whether one likes admins or not, RfA is not the venue for making strategic votes against adminship in general. I am slightly wary therefore of competent techies who may play into the hands of the Foundation, because I have very good reasons to be, and Jack will need to be very carful whose side he takes in WMF vs community software issues. I'm confident he will, and just as confident that he will not abuse the tools, so I'm far less worried about a perceived lack of activity in traditional administrative areas or content building. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dodger67 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. My comments in the 'neutral' section still stand as very much valid. The creation at Rajendra Chaudhary (Rajasthan politician) is still tagged and for an RfA candidate should not be (apparently this was not created by the candidate - only moved from Draft to mainspace with all its warts and wrinkles). While the participation at AfD is more or less adequate, 75% matching the outcome is rather low.Discounting the work on AfC because there has IMO been too much emphasis on it as the main claim for promotion, participation in other help venues demonstrates a solid knowledge of most policies and guidelines. I particularly appreciate his steady engagement and dedication to the project and his calm and mature approach to communication with other users. I was especially impressed with the answer to Q7 which clearly shows a deep understanding of some of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia core issues that the volunteer community has to contend with, and this more than anything else helped tip my decision to move my vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Philg88 (Successful, edits to page) Support - Having just spent the best part of the last 36 hours in airplanes, I like Anna Frodesiak's analogy. The candidate's name did not immediately ring a bell so I steeled myself for an hour's worth of research until I reached this discussion whereupon I realised I could just as easily have done what Go Phightins! did (!vote #36). In spite of one of the strangest edit count summaries I've ever seen for an established editor, this is one candidate that the community needs to have the tools more than Phil himself realises he needs them. AfD is a place where many admins prefer to !vote in order to help ensure a policy-based closure rather than doing the actual closing, or even shy away from complex issues altogether - the dilemma for the closer is when the numerical consensus is exactly the opposite to what policies and guidelines say it should be, and this is one area where Phil is going to be a huge asset; there is a monster backlog of such AfDs just waiting for him. I hope this RfA will serve as an encouragement to some of the admin don't-wannabees of the same calibre out there to come forward and run for office. Welcome on board, Phil ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Deor (Successful, edits to page) Support. It would be hard for any mature editor with such a solid and regular contribution to mainspace not to have picked up the rules and policies on the way - whether they have demonstrated that knowledge in the drama areas or not, and whether or not they have made dozens of creations. He maintains a calm disposition especially when challenged by some users who may have a less friendly approach towards their fellow editors. I underline the support by Dennis in this and other sections, in that I believe Deor to be a classic example of the kind of admin Wikipedia needs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yaris678 (Successful, edits to page) Support per HJ Mitchell's nomination - of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Acalamari 2 (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support for a very familiar admin whose work I appreciate. Happy to be the first here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Worm That Turned (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support of course, but you're actually not quite boring enough and I dunno how you're gonna fit all those name changes, bot approvals, and hundreds of RfA closures in with all your work in another place ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 3 (Successful, edits to page) Support . About time - 7 years is more than long enough to have learned from the issues mentioned on his last RfA and is now fully qualified. My pile-on support won't really be needed here either - I'm very familiar with MER-C and I can't argue with the nom/conom statements from so many highly trusted and well known editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cindamuse (Successful, edits to page) Support . About time. I have interacted with Cindy many times and have always been impressed with her interaction with others. I have no doubts as to her knowledge of policies and guidelines and for what she doesn't know already I'm sure she will not hesitate to ask for advice - as we all did, and still do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Acather96 (Successful, edits to page) Support - A return of three months is quite adequate in view of their previous experience. Doesn't quite check all my boxes though, but on the balance I'm sure Acather will make a good admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Trevj (Successful, edits to page) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc (Successful, edits to page) Support. Knowing that this was coming, I should really be up there as a co-nom, but it all happened while I was out of town for 36 hours. I don't add qualifiers such as 'strong' or 'weak' to my votes, but if I were to, this is certainly a candidate whom I most firmly believe would be an excellent admin. I first got to know Callanecc through his work at the WP:CVUA as one of the few mature participants there who had not turned the project into a MMORPG. His additional work as an Arbcom clerk and OTRS agent (and I know what that involves) should leave no doubts as to his knowledge of policy. Polite, level headed, always willing to help - even admins! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cerebellum (Successful, edits to page) Support - Having participated in 256 AfDs, the vast majority of which matched the outcome, I believe he knows enough about notability and deletion policies/guidelines; he may however need to brush up on what the community generally does with school articles. My criteria are probably among the most strict, but this support demonstrates that I can be flexible with them. I'm particularly impressed with his style of communication which is an example for everyone, and I'm sure he will ask for advice if he is unsure of anything. I look forward to welcoming him on board in a few hours time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Zad68 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Interior (Successful, edits to page) Support. It's actually easier to find reasons not to support than reasons to support if they are to be qualified with more substantial rationales than 'Why not?'. In view of the strong, and almost unprecedented number of co-noms, I looked even harder, and all I can come up with is 'Why not?' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Singularity42 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Superb answers to the questions. Has an excellent all-round knowledge of everything that is needed for admin work, including the even temperament to match. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Grandiose (Successful, edits to page) Support Qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley (Successful, edits to page) Support. When I was a naïve noob many moons ago, not knowing how important editcountitis is I created articles in Wiki markup off line then pasted the whole thing in one single edit to mainspace. Not much has changed since - I can sometimes spend a whole day reading through a long RfC, ANI, or doing an SPI for example before adding one single edit to Wikipedia. Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Huon (Successful, edits to page) Support. Huon has defended himself admirably under a barrage of questions (and multiple questions within questions), demonstrating that he can remain calm and refuse to be baited - an excellent quality for an admin. I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools and no successful admin candidate knew all the policies, guidelines, and essays before running for office, and still probably don't. I certainly don't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Kelapstick 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Fully qualified candidate. The total number of edits clearly demonstrates dedication to Wikipedia, and there is not a month without an edit in nearly 7 years. My own edit count history at the time of my RfA, for example, didn't look much better. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (Successful, edits to page) Support as co-nom. In my many earlier searches for candidates of the right calibre, I fail to understand why I missed Anna Frodesiak - still, nobody is perfect. That said, Anna is as near perfect as we could wish for a candidate to be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bilby (Successful, edits to page) Support . Fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mkdw (Successful, edits to page) Support - fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Legoktm (Successful, edits to page) Support . Has sufficient tenure and edits in a variety of areas in spite of the long relative absences. No reason to believe that the candidate would abuse the tools and he appears to understand quite clearly the differences between CSD and AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Paulmcdonald (Successful, edits to page) Support. Can't think of or find any compelling reasons why not to. I can understand sScottywong who raises some interesting points, but I'm impressed with the reflection and maturity in the responses to all the questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

BDD (Successful, edits to page) Support. There are a few valid rationales in the oppose section - which has degenerated into the typical example of why suitable candidates are reluctant to run for admiship - but my research plus instinct confirm that this candidate is mature and can be trusted not to abuse the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Shirt58 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Concurring with Worm's nomination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret 3 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Some of the comments in the oppose section have their merits while some others are just pile-ons, votes from raw newbs, or from voters who should find a new hobby. On the face of it, Secret has far more than enough experience and should not be judged on events of the distant past. I voted neutral on the previous attempt and I am far happier supporting this RfA than I would, for example, for some marginal, relatively new, hat-collecting teenager who happens to check all my boxes. His work as an admin would be very much under the loupe anyway, and as long as any advice he gets is given in a collegial manner, he will be a net positive to the corps of sysops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Miniapolis (Successful, edits to page) Support Like several other !voters, it took me a long time to make my mind up. DGG makes a sound rationale to oppose, and the candidate doesn't quite tick all my boxes. However, I'm impressed with the content work and general engagement, and I trust that she will take note of the advice and comments here. Rather than go neutral, I have enough trust in this candidate to tip my scales to 'support'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

INeverCry (Successful, edits to page) Support. Moved from 'neutral' based on the support from some of my respected colleagues. The concerns expressed in my neutral statement still stand, that is, that the candidate does not provide me with sufficient metrics to meet my criteria. On the other hand, as stated, I have no reason to believe this editor would misuse the tools or his privileges of judgement. As all admins probably do most of their serious learning on-the-job, I am confident that for what he does not know already or is unsure of, he will indeed either ask for advice or watch carefully how we do things here before acting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lord Roem 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support. As per my oppose vote in the previous RfA, I'm now happy to offer my solid support. Without prejudice to the concerns expressed by the opposition below, I'm actually quite impressed with his work as an Arcom clerk and the sincerity with which he has calmly responded to the heavy discussions in the question section above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi (Successful, edits to page) Support. I won't pretend that I thought he was already an admin, because I knew he wasn't. He soon will be though, and it's about time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

KTC (Successful, edits to page) Support. A candidate with more than enough experience and maturity. I'm often skeptical about what the WMF does, but I'm not in the slightest concerned about her involvement in the Foundation or WMUK and find that the claims relating to them in the question and oppose sections seem to be looking for reasons to oppose rather than state any concrete valid claims. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Harrias (Successful, edits to page) Support With his impressive content contributions and length of tenure, if he doesn't know what adminship is all about by now, he never will. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bgwhite (Successful, edits to page) Support . It's about time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

QuiteUnusual (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support . Although the edit count distribution and the few personal messages at first gave me pause, I'm happy to take his work on Wikibooks - a Wikimedia project - into consideration. He doesn't check all the boxes on my criteria either, but again, quite unusually, I feel I need to make an exception because I have rarely seen such excellent answers to the many questions, and they clearly demonstrate to me that this is an editor who can be trusted with the tools. While some opposers raise some interesting points, any bright line for copyvio/plagiarism is the subject for another venue, and the concerns expressed do not reduce my trust. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Σ (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bagumba (Successful, edits to page) Support. No concerns. Plenty of experience. Meets my criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius (Successful, edits to page) Support. I have been watching this since it started and I thought I had already !voted (sooo many RfAs to watch recently). Shame on me for not doing so earlier. No concerns - again, the early Worm is catching the good candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mlpearc (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. I constantly see Mlpearc around everywhere, have interacted with him many, many times in a most positive and pleasant manner. His work on files, where we have backlogs, is indispensable and the tools are almost a prerequisite for his work there. He checks all my boxes, is an experienced, mature, and level-headed member of the community, and all I can say is that it's about time he was given the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

28bytes (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support . It's taken me a while to catch up on, and get my head round the Rlevse debacle. I have always admired 28's level-headed approach to all things meta, and I have no concerns whatsoever with him being a bureaucrat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

De728631 (Successful, edits to page) Support - I have never come across De728631, and I haven't been able to come across any reasons why I should not support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

SarahStierch (Successful, edits to page) Support. Another no-brainer. The comments in the neutral section, although they express relevant concerns, are unconvincing - when they get the bit, users with Sarah's editing history will probably do more admin actions on-the-fly than many other 'active' admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yunshui (Successful, edits to page) Support. Yunshui has been on my secret list of possible potential admins, and Worm - whose work on RfA issues is exemplary - has beaten me to it. Vandal-fighting is essential and I hope that as an admin Yunshui will continue to serve (perhaps even more so) at CVU and its associated projects, especially in order to keep them on a mature track. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten (Successful, edits to page) Support. A classic example of what we need as admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (RfB, Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. Absolutely. I can't think of enough words to express how much I support this, so this is enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Berean Hunter (Successful, edits to page) Support . About time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Zagalejo (Successful, edits to page) Support - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 (Successful, edits to page) Support Can't find any compelling reasons not to trust this candidate with the responsibility and the tools. The opposition is unconvincing, and if Tim Riley is supporting, I'm most happy to pile on and follow suit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenks24 (Successful, edits to page) Support - for more reasons than I can be bothered to list. I've done my research and all the other supporters and the nominator have posted everything I would have said. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong (Successful, edits to page) Support Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MikeLynch (Successful, edits to page) Support. Mike will be a huge asset to the corps of sysops, most especially on India related topics, projects, and education programmes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Slon02 4 (Successful, edits to page) Support ; I opposed Slon's previous RfA. A couple weeks ago I thoroughly reviewed his editing, with a view to nominating him myself, and found it not only to meet all my exacting crtiteria, but also found every reason to strongly support a new RfA. He has addressed all previous criticism, and I hope that the community will concur. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support: Absolutely. With nearly 4000 AfD !votes, with 85% accuracy he obviously knows what he's doing. To pick out one or two that backfired from that number would be silly. Probably everyone has some slight leaning towards either deletionism or inclusionism, so what? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights (Successful, edits to page) I thought I knew all about NPP until Blade showed me some of its more obscure corners. We've worked hard together on NPP, and on desperate projects to improve it for over a year. I knew this RfA was coming and it should have come a long time ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

CharlieEchoTango (Successful, edits to page) Support: No concerns. No candidate can be 100% perfect. The competency for the quality and volume of work this candidate does is sufficient to convince me they need the tools and can be trusted with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven Zhang (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. I see Steven everywhere and I have absolutely no reason to believe he would abuse the tools. The opposition is unconvincing - if Steve had joined the project two years ago , they'd be none the wiser. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dayewalker (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support - Easy decision. The lack of own creations is more than adequately compensated by the candidates edits to mainspace - all manual except 2 (two)! and the the solid experience on noticeboards, and high level of civility when communicating with less civil editors.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Swarm (Successful, edits to page) Support. If I had known this was coming up I would have been a co-nominator. Swarm opposed my RfA, but ironically has become one of nicest and most clueful editors with whom it is my great pleasure to collaborate. I wholeheartedly support this candidature, and strongly echo all the sentiments above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Redrose64 (Successful, edits to page) Support - I come across Redrose regularly and I've been really sitting on the fence here. I did my research as soon as the RfA was transcluded. The candidate does not meet my criteria but the high edit count in this case is indicative of precision and good content work; the 95 clean creations convince me that they are already well versed in policy, even if activity in those policies is somewhat low to demonstrate that knowledge. Their excellent answers to questions, including the unusual ones, prove a high level of integrity and trustworthiness for candidate who will not make many errors when their tools are granted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anomie (Successful, edits to page) Support - About time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Richwales 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid (Successful, edits to page) Support Yes - Why not? Certainly trustworthy and experienced enough. Demonstrates excellent diplomatic skills when faced with inappropriate questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ks0stm (Successful, edits to page) Support (edit conflict) Although the candidate does not check all my criteria, I trust Ks0stm not to misuse the tools. Points have been raised in the opposition section about age/maturity which I tend to agree with somewhat, but do not find them compelling enough for me not to voice my support; I tend to see those comments directed at age criteria in general for adminship, rather than an evaluation of the candidate's expected performance as an admin. I see no obvious patterns of behavior that would not be befitting for an admin and I am sure they will take this and other concerns expressed by the opposition on board. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Tyrol5 (Successful, edits to page) Support I guessed this RfA was coming up and I had already done my research. If I had known when it would be coming up, I would probably have been the nominator. He beat me to it. The answer to Q3 probably alludes to this diff. Golly, that's just a standard "Im just letting you know..." message sent as a courtesy - not a criticism, and nothing to worry about whatsoever unless you're getting ten a week of them. A thoroughly qualified candidate; I've been watching since voting opened and I'll just make my !vote now before it closes and wish Tyrol all the best for the promotion that should be coming in a few hours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support - I see no reasons not to support. The candidate clearly has an in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and his other user rights already demonstrate the required level of trustworthiness - adding 'bureaucreat' is a logical step. The debate by the opposers on the candidate's semantics are unconvincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Worm That Turned (Successful, edits to page) Support - Very easy decision. Although he barely scrapes through on some of my criteria, he has some very strong support here which I am please to put my name to. Worm and I have collaborated and crossed paths in many different areas and I know his work well. He has voted on over 30 RfA and also knows how to research and provide complex data, so he certainly knows what is expected here and would not risk this self-nom if there were any doubts as to his competency for wielding a mop handle. He is a mature, intelligent individual with a professional approach to his work here, and above all tact and diplomacy come up trumps every time. His creations and contributions to GA demonstrate a clear knowledge of the principles involved. His work on deletion and page patrolling may be low but they may not be his area of special interest - it might be the main occupation for many admins but there are plenty of other areas where his knowledge and communicative skills will be a great asset to the project. His work on adoptions is exemplary and leaves no further doubts as to how Wikipedia works.. There are absolutely no reasons to believe he would abuse the tools and he will probably use them sparingly to begin with. I wholeheartedly look forward to welcoming him to the corps of sysops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimp (Successful, edits to page) Support The template work is essential and he needs the backstage pass. We occasionally grant the tools for specialists and as this is such a case I'm not worried about him not meeting all my criteria. I have every confidence that he will use any other tools wisely when he gets used to them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support. I was looking at 28Bytes just a couple of days ago with the intention of asking him if he would like to run again. I found that not only one, but three nominators had beaten me to it! There's not much more that I can add to those, except that I fully endorse them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jsfouche (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. There are valid points in many of the opposition statements. These problems of approach to maintaining the encyclopedia do not display behavioural traits that require a long time to overcome, and can be addressed in a day. I am therefore confident that the candidate has demonstrated sufficient insight to take those issues on board and adapt his housekeeping tasks accordingly. I trust the candidate not to make abuse of the tools and I am sure that he would ask other admins for advice if he is not sure about something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

January (Successful, edits to page) Support - Fully qualified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Maxim 2 (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Support - moved from 'neutral'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Drmies (Successful, edits to page) Support - Fully qualified. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Logan (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support, I don't have anything to do with IRC so I must discount any comments about it. We have no control how people express themselves off-Wiki. My concern is that people express themselves on talk pages and debates in a correct manner, and I trust him with the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadads (Successful, edits to page) Support - I first came across Sadads through his work on the Ambassadors progamme and was surprised that he was not already an admin. However, if he's going to be given the tools, and it looks very likely, I would like to think that he will do more background research, especially for example when mass nominating editors for autopatrolled rights, instead of leaving it up to the admins to find that many of the candidates are/were not suitable. He must learn to do this himself if he's going to have the button to accord user rights. If he would slow down a bit and apply adequate research in all areas he's going to be active in, then I see absolutely no reason not to support. A totally dedicated Wikipedian with the best of intentions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DeltaQuad 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - I see DQ around a lot now which I didn't before I got the mop myself. Being nominated by a participant whose oppose !vote last time caused a lot of pile-ons (including mine), I'll have to follow Courcelles again and this time pile on with support. The excellent work at SPI more than adequately compensates for any claims of too little content work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support His first RfA was brilliantly handled without kow-towing to the corps of questioners and unconvincing opposition, and I see the same bold frankness in some of Sarek's responses here. Some comments of his elsewhere have caused me to raise an eyebrow in the past but nothing, absolutely nothing has made me doubt his suitability as a sysop. Everyone, including admins, can make mistakes and sometimes get drawn into issues they should preferably have stayed clear of, but insisting that sysops be infallible reinforces the idea the adminship is indeed 'a big deal' and a very big one too. It ain't - it's actually a mug's game, but someone has to do it, and Sarek does it rather well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell 3 (Successful, edits to page) Support - We don't have many admins of this calibre. If anything, we should be cloning him. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (Successful, edits to page) Support - I come across this candidate's work regularly, and after having rechecked I can support without any hesitation. What he doesn't know now, he can do what most new admins do: learn it on the job, and I know personally that he won't hesitate to ask if/when he gets stuck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dylan620 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support Meets my criteria. The answer to Q7 struck me as a bit odd, but neither the question nor its response have really anything much to do with whether Dylan will make a good admin or not, and I'm sure he will. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bahamut0013 (Successful, edits to page) Support - I don't need to add a comment here because anything I could have/would have said has already been said, so the answer is most definitely YES! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano (Successful, edits to page) Support Could have run for office a lot sooner. Everything fine, broad experience, clean content work, and a well balanced pie chart on a high edit count of the right kind. Meets my criteria. Kudpung (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Feezo (Successful, edits to page) Support - Moved from 'oppose' because 1. I've been able now to see their content work. 2. Their highly concentrated work on page patrolling is going to be a huge asset that I hadn't considered before, 3. I'm satisfied with the expanation for the long absence, and 4. Because adminship is a matter of trust and while nobody is perfect (especially new admins), I have absolutely no reason to suspect that he would abuse the power of the bit. I still maintain my comments below that broadening their sphere of activity would be a plus. Kudpung (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fæ (Successful, edits to page) Support I come across Fæ regularly and have no qualms about their eligibility to adminship. They will have provided their true identity and details of their past to become an OTRS assistant and I feel sure that any concerns about a previous existence are unnecessary. Kudpung (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

JaGa (Successful, edits to page) Support - Drmies and Chzz have said it all. Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gfoley4 (Successful, edits to page) Support. Based on some recent work in the last couple of hours that left me impressed, and on more research, I see no reason to remain in the 'neutral' section. I also like his civility and ability to deal with difficult 'customers'. Kudpung (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee (Successful, edits to page) Support I don't need to run any of my usual checks - if I had known he had this escapade planned I would have nominated him without hesitation. Kudpung (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Snottywong (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. I have collaborated a great deal with Snotty and I know his work well. I most strongly support this nomination in every way possible. Kudpung (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

5 albert square (Successful, edits to page) Support - I was going to go 'neutral' but I'm not going to be the first one to break the magic spell. There is a high number (73.67%) of Huggle and other automated edits edits leaving only 8,837 'real' edits. This meets however my criteria. Neverthelss, although there is proportionately little involvement in Wikipedia projects and policies, I cannot see any salient reasons not to trust this candidate with the tools, (I can't do my research to the full extent because X's tools are partly down or disabled: creations, RfA !votes, etc). Kudpung (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo (Successful, edits to page) Support - has the profile and history of a candidate who has the potential to be a keen and trustworthy sysop. --Kudpung (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Gimme danger (Successful, edits to page) Support - Actually, the candidate only barely, if at all, passes my own criteria: too many auto edits, too little substantial own creations/major edits in article space, no interest in the RfA system. The list goes on, but on the basis of trust, the candidate has mine, and has adequately demonstrated more than sufficient patience and dedication in the onslaught of far too many pile-on subtle, and trick questions, and opposition diatribes. I wholly share Keegan's comments above, too.--Kudpung (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lear's Fool (Successful, edits to page) Support: I'm a little disturbed by the 58% auto edits, but as the candidate (just) passes on the rest of my criteria, and as this is a !vote of trust that the candidate will not run amok with the tools, he has my confidence.--Kudpung (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds 5 (Successful, edits to page) Support- We rarely share the same opinions on various debates, but I happen to know for a fact that you are an extraordinarily dedicated Wikipedian with a vast experience. There are absolutely no reasons to assume that you cannot be trusted with the tools. Kudpung (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerem43 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support - No reservation whatsoever in supporting. Jerem reviewed and passed one of my GA and I was impressed with his active help, suggestions, and polite approach to the task. I'm also impressed by his diversity of interventions across the board. --Kudpung (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Panyd 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - as per nom.Kudpung (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick (Successful, edits to page) Support I've been aware of Sphilbrick's work for quite a while and I've looked extensively for a chink in his armour. I couldn't find any. To those who are opposing simply to retaliate, and to those who are neutral because they think he chose the least opportune moment to run: it's the best time, because it's nothing compared to some of the drama he will encounter when he gets the mop, and if this is the way he handles the scandals, I'm convinced he's fit for the bit.--Kudpung (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

VernoWhitney (Successful, edits to page) Support - I'm a stickler for content, but this candidate's work in an area that is particularly complex, the sensitivity required for OTRS, and an endorsement by Moonriddengirl, leave me no option but to make an exception to my rule and offer my support!--Kudpung (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support In spite of his tendency to TLDR, and his rather subtle use of borderline incivility, I am quite familiar with his work and have every confidence that he will use the tools with the greatest discretion.--Kudpung (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Vejvančický (Successful, edits to page) Support - Can't find any reasons not to, and Vejvančický's English is excellent.--Kudpung (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496 (Successful, edits to page) Support: - without any reservation. I trust this candidate, who most certainly has far higher levels of civility and maturity than those I have come to regard as major criteria.--Kudpung (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Silver seren (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support. being nominated by a sysop who has a well studded belt of FA stars, and the positive voting from other aédmins, confirms that I am not wrong in lending my support too. --Kudpung (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Eagles247 (Successful, edits to page) Support Nobody knows all the rules, and an occasional mis-tagging is not the end of the world.- we all make mistakes. What impressed me most was the extraordinary low percentage of automated edits. --Kudpung (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman (Successful, edits to page) Support - I hope that the 20 'optional' questions are exceptionally related to the candidate's lopsided pie chart, otherwise we have a perfect example here of why fewer and fewer editors are prepared to run for office. Whatever the candidate's reasons are for such narrow specialization, we need dedicated plodders like this. If he were to create an article, I'm sure it's quality would put a lot of us to shame.--Kudpung (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BigDom 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - I left rather a long oppose speech on your last RfA. I also left a personal note on your talk page that if you you follow the advice in the opposes, I would support your next attempt. I think you did,.--Kudpung (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - Also confidence in the nom. A serious coaching programme that has answered most of the things I look for. A serious editing history that supports the candidate's RfA. --Kudpung (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong (Successful, edits to page) Support - Lots of edits to article space. regular contributor in many areas. Knows how to properly create pages. Sound judgement, and stays incredibly calm even when goaded. Absolutely no reasons not to give her the tools.--Kudpung (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dana boomer (Successful, edits to page) Strong support Dana could have / should have been an admin a long time ago. For once I'm able to !vote for an editor with whom I have greatly interacted. If we want a true role model of how an admin should be in every way, this is it - and yet another reason why we don't need to lower the bar. --Kudpung (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Michig (Successful, edits to page) Support - Another editor of the calibre that the Signpost article was hoping to recruit. No need to lower the bar to let Michig in.--Kudpung (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic (Successful, edits to page) Support. - A level headed and regular user with sufficient experience in all the pertinent areas. --Kudpung (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Airplaneman 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - In view of the overwhelming number of support !votes, I have searched hard to find a reason to oppose, or to be neutral. I couldn't find any - of course.--Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

WOSlinker (Successful, edits to page) Support Among other reasons, as per Mlpearc (#42). Nothing to do with countitis, but anyone who has clocked up 40,000 edits on templates and posted a further 2,000 messages talking about it must know what they are doing. This is hardly a borderline case - at least not yet.--Kudpung (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (Successful, edits to page) Support - more than enough content creation and contributions of the right kind to demonstrate this candidate's empirical knowledge of policy.--Kudpung (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (Successful, edits to page) Oh alright, Sandy, I've been hovering here with a mouse for 20 minutes, but I'm really afraid of wet noodles! Support.--Kudpung (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jmh649 (Successful, edits to page) Strong Support. Objectively I see a committed dedication to expanding the encyclopedia - and that's what it's all about. Apart from that , his communications with others are, if anything, a bit on low side. Subjectively, I feel he has the maturity to use the tools responsibly even if he has been mildly waspish occasionally - and I think most of us have been forced into situations like that at some time or another; Without checking the backgrounds of all the voters, it does possibly appear as if some of the pile-on opposers are detractors who live in glass houses and just scraping the barrel of semantics to interpret reasons of incivility to oppose. When I discount those votes, I certainly trust this candidate with the mop.--Kudpung (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jc3s5h (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Support: I've been teetering on a 'neutral' here because I'm not sure the candidate needs the tools for he work he does, and I find the self-nom rationale a bit thin - though this seems to have been compensated for in the answers to subsequent optional questions. Whether the candidate uses the tools or not, I trust him with them, and I trust his sense of jedgement in instances where he does not need to use them, but will need to demonstrate the maturity we generally hope to expect from admins. Therefore I see no reason not to offer my support.--Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fainites (Successful, edits to page) Support - I'm not sure if this candidate really wants to be an admin. he has however clearly demonstrated the level of maturity that is expected from an admin and whether he uses the tools or not when he gets them, I certainly trust him to use them correctly. Fainites promotion would thus clearly be a net benefit to the project.--Kudpung (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nev1 2 (Successful, edits to page) Very Strong Support - Of course - and welcome back.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mkativerata (Successful, edits to page) Support This candidate demonstrates a level of maturity and professionalism that seem to be becoming rare among recent RfA candidates. Throughout his work, I find no reasons to hesitate in supporting. --Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fetchcomms (Successful, edits to page) Support - I can find no reasons, including gut feeling, for not supporting this candidate.--Kudpung (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Theleftorium 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - (moved from 'neutral'). Here we have one candidate who has really learned from his previous RfA. Appears to be a good all-rounder, and earlier slip-ups were probably simply part of his learning curve. Most of his creations are nevertheless very cleanly presented. I'm impressed with his answers to the additional questions (which I generally hold for an unnecessary evil in RfAs). I belive when he says he will stay out of areas he has less experience with untill he has observed more how other sysops successfully deal with various situations. Now as 'poacher turned gamekeeper' I'm sure he will be a good Wikipedia housekeeper, and after further research and reflection, I see no reason not to give him the mop & bucket.--Kudpung (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (Successful, edits to page) Support - An excellent response to Q6. Properly active for 12 months since May 2009 with monthly edits steadily on the increase. A good balance of participâtion in most areas. --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Soap (Successful, edits to page) Support Not a prolific content editor, t'is true, but very consistent work on everything a janitor can do without the tools, including a lot of RfA's! My !vote at this stage is probably superfluous.--Kudpung (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Arsenikk (Successful, edits to page) Support - All round talent. A clear understanding of the need for article building. Might not actually need the tools, but I see no reason to refuse them. I'm sure he would put them to good use and with sound judgment.--Kudpung (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tide rolls (Successful, edits to page) Strong support - Content contribs and edits in other areas are exceptionally low but this candidate is a dedicated janitor. Random stabs at the user's archives show great attention to civility and explanations for edits, and demonstrate a high degree of comprehension of guidelines. Someone I would turn to without hesitation for advice on editing or suggestions for conflict resolution..--Kudpung (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - has a clear understanding of the rules of article creation especially BLP. and most other aspects and it looks as if the mop will be used with discretion if not all that regularly. Anyone can make the occasional genuine mistake. He has leanred through his previous RfA and will be on his mettle in the future, so I see nothing to object to his promotion.--Kudpung (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ceranthor 3 (Successful, edits to page) Support - I'm not one to be impressed by a large creation count, particularly of one-line stubs and redirects, nevertheless he has hugely contributed to quakes & volcanoes, he has a well balanced participation in a diversity of encyclopedia-building activities, and looks like a consistent editor with staying power. I can't see any strong reasons not to support.--Kudpung (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Excirial 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support Any enthusiastic, highly active, and reasonably conscientious user is bound to get into an occasional tangle with other editors. I don't think Excirial's history is a reason to oppose his nomination, but when (and I say 'when') he gets the tools, he will need to remember that he has become a role model. --Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Kingpin13 2 (Successful, edits to page) Support - Everything I would have wanted to say about Kingpin has already been said above.--Kudpung (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposed ScottishFinnishRadish (Successful, edits to page) Oppose, it's almost a shame to find myself down here. However, for someone who at first blush appears to be squeaky clean, they don’t actually check all the boxes on my ‘laundry list’ which while long, is one of the easiest sets of user criteria for a pass. I’ve often said: ‘users who join Wikipedia with the intention of becoming an admin some day have joined for the wrong reasons’ ; that, together with a major focus on maintenance areas and such a consistent high AfD score reinforces that opinion. The further I dig, time and time again I find myself concurring with @Hog Farm, Fastily, SandyGeorgia, and Joe Roe:. The Radish has done the governance stuff, if they would spend the next 12 months making the segments of the coloured edit count clock spin the other way, it would be a 'yes' from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

DatGuy (Successful, edits to page) Oppose. (Moved from Neutral) I'm really sorry that I can't bring myself to support, it's extremely rare that I oppose an RfA of a candidate who has done nothing wrong. However, my concerns are not only the same as Fastily's, but the opposes of Softlavender and Hammersoft and others have reminded me of WP:ADMINACCT which I hadn't thought of mentioning. Taking on the responsibility of adminship means having an impact on areas that need the skill and discretion of the role and being around when required, but already only a fraction of the 1,000+ admins are doing that. The very low and inconsistent editing for 5 years doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools. I'm fully aware that we need more admins, but we need truly active ones, and that's mainly the problem. I'm convinced that this is not hat collecting and that there is a genuine desire to help and if there were 12 consecutive months of solid participation, I would support in a flash. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Wugapodes (RfB, Unsuccessful, edits to page) I am certainly not displeased with your work in senior office so far, and if I had not been preoccupied at the time, I would have supported your RfA. However, TonyBallioni does raise some very salient points, as does Barkeep49 while abstaining. I would add that the style this RfB does not convey the modest approach that seems to be more in character for 'crats. If this should pass - and most RfB do - I would hope that what tends to come across as a political campaign speech will not be a politician's typical empty words and will be backed up by the promised activity, particularly the clerking of RfA. What gives me further pause is that IMO this RfB comes a tad hard on the heels of your RfA and the election to Arbcom (where you are currently inactive); however, like Tony, I might well support a new bid for 'cratship when you are no longer a member of that Committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC).

Ceradon 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose . The community demands more activity and staying power from a candidate who has only been registered 2 years. The very sporadic editing pattern does not suggest any reasons why Ceradon would want the mop with the tools and responsibility that goes with it. I'd consider supporting after 12 months if the boxes here are checked - the list looks intimidating but it is far from the most demanding of criteria practiced by many voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn 2 (Successful, edits to page) Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee, and having read the entire resyoping request. Jackmcbarn is a name I'm familiar with and the time has passed so quickly that it's already 3+ years. No malice aforethought - I did actually support (at some length) the first RfA, but I would expect to see at least a year's solid new work to at least partially demonstrate that they will be around to stay for a while. That said, even at the best of times, the admin work was not particulary prolific, but I kinda accept the common argument that everyone does what they can. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Creffett (Successful, edits to page) Oppose Some of our most trusted and experienced admins including HJ Mitchell, SoWhy, DGG, and Ritchie333 (I have read the talk page) to name but a few, have sufficiently outlined why adminship right now might not be a good idea. And I'm afraid In have to concur with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek (Successful, edits to page) Oppose. Sorry to do this to your nominee Barkeep49, but it can happen to any of us that the RfA process reveals things that we as nominators did not, or could not have been aware of until they were exposed by those who know. So when TonyBallioni, who mainly supports RfA candidates, and with a 'not a jerk' vote, opposes a candidate, it's not without a solid reason . A reason so solid that with K.e.coffman for whose work I have a very special respect, and Boing! said Zebedee and Lourdes, also opposing, is sufficient to convince me that CapitainEek has some way to go before developing the kind of judgement needed for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi (Successful, edits to page) Oppose . Mainly per Ritchie333 and SMcCandlish but other opposers have also made appropriate observations. There are other issues that give me pause, but as this is enough already, I don't intend to dig out the diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ergo Sum (Successful, edits to page) Oppose for the same reasons as the concerns raised by MelanieN, Nosebagbear, Oshwah, Fastily, JBW, and Bradv. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Greenman (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I have reviewed every single one of the candidate's 347 creations. The danger of mass creating stubs is what is clearly demonstrated by their large number of articles tagged for attention, including unsourced or poorly sourced BLP that do not meet notability criteria, and some articles which I have had to PROD. Despite the large number of pages created, they do not pass my criteria for according WP:Autopatrolled which require all created articles to be of clean format and free of tags or taggable issues that would raise he attention of New Page Patrollers. The candidate's creations are rarely complete even as stubs - in the majority of cases even the stub tag is missing - the very item that might just attract the attention of someone who might be disposed to expand the article. That being said, if a stub is capable of expansion, why cant the creator not do that expansion? My mantra has always been: 'If one wants to police Wikipedia pages, one should also prove they know how to produce them,' nevertheless unlike some RfA voters, I don't go so far as to demand a FA or two and a raft of GA. Some of the earlier articles might just scrape through a request for Autopatrolled, but the rest and any future creations clearly require the scrutiny of New Page Reviewers. I also concur with others that there is insufficient work in maintenance areas including AIV, ANI, AfD, etc which does not inspire confidence in sufficient knowledge of policies and guidelines, and no work at all at NPP which though not required, is one of the best learning and starting tasks for aspiring admin candidates. There is a clear lack of use of Edit Summaries, which are important for an admin or maintenance worker. I am concerned about the COI issue - as I understand the rules, it is not only about specifically being paid to edit, but being a salaried employee of the subject of the article is a very strong Conflict of Interest. I am not doubting for a moment that the candidate can be trusted not to abuse the tools, but he required experience is just not there. My own RfA criteria, which are far from being the most severe, and on which I often allow a lot of leeway, are unforunately not met. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I initially forgot to sign

Ammarpad (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose -- I share the concerns expressed by TonyBallioni and Deacon Vorbis, but additionally his claim that a new one-line stub on an apparent species of animal ending in '...they feed on pizza and they are known for smoking weed using a bong' is 'not vandalism', and not recognizing such spam as Modernpaper.co as a blatant advert give me pause. Failure to identify inappropriate content is just as serious as a wrongful deletion. I am also concerned about the acerbic tones employed in various places including near-PA in his comments on candidates in this last year's CU election. The account was registered in early 2015 but they did not start editing until September 2017. They edit almost daily round the clock and although this demonstrates someone who suddenly has a lot of time to dedicate to the project, and in that short period they've racked up a staggering 39,000 edits, only a fraction of these constitute significant contributions of new content. In this short time, 92.2% of their votes on nearly 700 AfD's where vote matched result which on the surface looks good (my own are 'only' in the high 80s), but the high number of AfDs and the late voting are not uncommon in users who are deliberately working towards becoming an admin as soon as possible. I regret I am unable to support at this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Philafrenzy (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I'm late to this RfA and unusually, I haven't done my own research. However, many well established RfA voters have done theirs and fully described their concerns. So as per Drmies, Explicit, Swarm and others, whose concerns are very real and valid, I am unable to support this bid for the mop. Even if the actual rate of close paraphrasing were low in comparison to the sheer amount of contributions, it's a disqualifier for adminship, and the issues over images also give me pause. Notwithstanding, Philafrenzy is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia and will learn from the issues highlighted in this RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I'm voting later than usual, because I was actually intending to sit this one out (rare for me). That said, although I'm never swayed by other voters, now that I've seen comments in line with impressions that I've held for quite some time, I'll say this: GMG does a lot of good work. His content is fine, not to mention a FA which he mastered almost single-handed - no mean task, and his knowledge of policy is more than adequate. However, perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I've never been very keen on his outspoken manner. He's gone into this RfA with a lack of modesty in the confidence that it will be a walk in the park and a fait accompli. I took a lot of flak on my RfA for a lot less, and that was in the days when 100+ support (no watchlist notices) was something to write home about (or in this case, tell my grandchildren), and every single oppose was a dangerous one. I don't believe that an offhand or ungraciously nonchalant or cool manner of expression is appropriate temperament for an admin; especially borderline PA (IMO) at Arbcom members (and I'm personally no fan of some people on that Committee). I hope that these issues that give me and others pause, will encourage GMG towards less flippant and unreflected commentary in the future. So as this RfA will probably pass anyway, I hope GMG doesn't take my comments too personally - I highly appreciate his participation and support on various topics, where however gruff, he usually gets it right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hoppyh (Unsuccessful, edits to page) No (self)nomination rationale. Is this transclusion complete? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Rickyc123 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Does not meet my criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb 4 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose: Headbomb does indeed provide very valuable contributions to the project - and works hard at it. I’ll just reiterate some words used in a previous RfA: your responses to editors regarding the MOSNUM dispute were rather abrupt and dismissive; bossy, rules-mongering; terse and cold; arrogant and brusque; very arrogant attitude - it seems to be a recurring theme. This very accurate oppose statement by Ched in RfA#3 sums the candidate up well, while beginning with: '...an excellent editor, and a tremendous asset to the project...' , and if I were here assessing an editor whose work I was not aware of, my vote would be almost identical, including, as I have also witnessed on other occasions, his tendentious disparaging remarks about Britain, which are not made in a forgivable humorous way. I can understand Sarah's comments, I've been avoiding Headbomb ever since the British issue some 7 or 8 years ago. I’m known for not mincing my words when the occasion demands, but there’s a difference between being pithy, and being brash - Headbomb's issues are probably due to spontaneity and a lack of diplomacy, but are character traits that are not conducive to adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Crboyer (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - does not meet my my RfA criteria, which while strict, are far from being the most demanding among those that are often practiced by RfA voters. Created articles consist of a single totally unreferenced BlP and a DAB page; it's my contention that if a user wants to police pages, they should know how to produce them. The candidate's intended sphere of admin activity is too limited to demonstrate a need for the full set of tools, and does not provide any insight to their qualities of judgement in situations that traditionally require admin intervention or closure. While I have absolutely nothing against against self noms, this one is the shortest self nom I believe I have ever seen from an established editor for a serious attempt at RfA, and to me it imparts an over-confidence such as : I don't need to say more because this will be enough for me to pass anyway. Clearly the advice page at WP:RFAADVICE was not studied, which while not obligatory, IMO is the minimum any candidate should do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Add: When I began typing this, it was only the second 'oppose'. Looks like while I was typing and the ensuing multiple nedit coflicts , several other users got in quicker with very much the same rationales as I have mentioned here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Godsy (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose (quite strongly, actually). While there are indeed some very dubious oppose votes here and I’ve absolutely nothing against self-noms from clearly well established editors, I firmly do not believe that Godsy has the right temperament for adminship, although their keen interest in the way Wikipedia is run is to be welcomed. SMcCandlish has echoed exactly the thoughts I had when I was about to vote here but was called away to something else. Richie333 also makes some very salient points. KMJKWhite highlights an issue with multiple edits which I had already identified in Godsy’s participation in RfCs where he doesn’t seem to be able to make his mind up or get his post correct - this sometimes approaches nearly a hundred small edits. Only a very in-depth research of his entire history would reveal how much this issue accounts for his edit count and if it really is problematic but it is a sufficient additional reason to give me further pause concerning his bid for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah 2 (Successful, edits to page) Oppose.I don't like having to do this, Oshwah, but in what I believe is an unprecedented move for me in the over 300 RfA I have voted o, I am moving my vote based on the comments of other participants in the Oppose and neutral sections. Many users, myself included, and particularly, for example Drmies, Montanabw, SMcCandlish, Wehwalt, Chris troutman, MelanieN and others, have graciously placed their participation in the neutral section but with such detail, the strength of their arguments leans strongly towards 'opposes'. The 30 or so actual oppose votes are also based on serious research and concerns. Even under the new, more relaxed standards, these numbers taken together are not insignificant and under pre-reform circumstances, the caution expressed by these voters would probably have precluded a promotion, and therefore I am unable to remain the neutral section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose per Dank and because this issue which took me over 30 minutes to read through and check, is so recent that it was ill advised to run at RfA at this time. Wherever the fault lies, it's always best to allow plenty of time to blow over such incidents. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Midas02 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - Lacklustre nomination; no experience of maintenance tasks whatsoever. Clearly a candidate who hasn't bothered to read any of the advice pages, giving rise to concerns that as an admin, they wouldn't read instructions either. Clearly not ready for adminship and not likely to be for a long time to come. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Excellent content work, particularly to MilHist, but significant issues have been raised in detail with poignant accuracy by SMcCandlish (though I would probably have presented them somewhat more softly) which I have double-checked. My respected colleagues in the support section may indeed have not recognised these issues. Many aspects of the work of admins can be learned on the job but the required sense of judgement for administering some of these tasks can not. One either has it already or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then one should not be seeking adminship. If one does, then sufficient evidence should be served up to demonstrate it and leave us in no doubt. I do not see enough work of this kind for me judge that this candidate is ready to be a sysop. More wok in those areas and I would almost certainly support another time round. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

nms642 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Can't read English or at least is totally unable to understand simple instructions. Not good qualities fo admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I want first to make two things perfectly clear: 1) MontanaBW is a content provider and reviewer par excellence and I personally have the very best of collaborative relations with her. 2) I was aware that this RfA would be coming sometime soon and I had already drafted an 'oppose' rational, hence my vote is in no way influenced by those of other participants. However, it is not a coincidence that so many in this section (and neutral) are echoing the reasons I had listed in my original draft.

I have seen Montana around as long as I can remember, and I have been around for getting on for 10 years and I have always been impressed by her content and the assistance she has provided to others whom I have referred to her for help. On the other hand, I have always been saddened by her frequent brash and snarky outbursts which, together with a staggering almost 400 edits to this talk page, the least of which are about collaborating on WP articles and policies, are the elephant in the room; I think that she doesn't always realise that snark is far from always the result of a bear being being poked - some bears are actually quite happy to do the poking and provoking and to defend them might be misplaced. There is just too much drama feeding, and many of her comments lead me to believe that she might not be able to be 100% objective and impartial when judging issues in the capacity of sysop at ANI or closing AfDs. I am really sorry to oppose, but I firmly believe that Montana does not have the right temperament for adminship and would be happier just continuing her superb work in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Doniago (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose I was going to start doing my research for this candidate today, but a cursory glance at some of the moves to oppose and the other opposes and then following up, I obviously don't need to bother. Not even a redirect created. Very poor performance at AfD. And of course there's the canvassing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Liz (Successful, edits to page) Oppose. This is difficult for me because not only do I appreciate the energy and enthusuasm Liz displays, but the nominators are among the handful or so of admins for whom I have the greatest respect, know personally, and over many years have come to regard as very good friends. Their rationales and indeed those of many of the supporters are of course totally beyond reproach but there is a possibility that they may not be quite as familiar with the candidate as some of those in this oppose section who are also wrestling with their conscience for being down here. Although concern has been raised about the lack of solid content work, that's not why I am here. Because I am quite active in a fairly broad spectrum of Wikipedia's front line areas and deletions, before there was even a breath of rumour that Liz would be running for adminship, I mentally noted some issues that were giving me pause. Those same concerns have been accurately identified by Manul, Drmargi, Altenmann, and as Mkativerata points out, referring to a nominators totaly inadvertant asteism, Liz appears to dash from door to door in all the corridors of Wikipedia making comments that are often only a shallow analysis of the situation, and are wont to make make me call from my office door and say 'Hey, Liz, what's the hurry? Come in, pull up a chair and let's see how we can address all these issues you feel so strongly about, less often but in more depth and more accurately.' Dennis Brown, Casliber, and Sitush save me having to repeat my own observations, but Bishonen and Drmies say best what I have been sensing for a long time. And Liz, my bark is worse than my bite, and my 'office' is always open, in fact chances are that I have just put the kettle on... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb 2 (Successful, edits to page) Strong oppose(edit conflict). It is extremely rare that I use qualifiers such as 'strong' or 'weak' in my RfA votes. I was so concerned with the lack of content creation and the poor quality of the articles that I did not bother this time to continue my research, and to be fair, I made a 'neutral' vote. However, thanks to Stfg bringing to light this blatant COPYVIO that is only 10 days old, there is no way now that I can remain in the neutral section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - I must concur with Softlavender but on his previous RfA I voted neutral in a detailed rationale in which I did say that I would wholeheartedly support another RfA. The advice was not taken and therefore I must most regrettably vote Oppose this time. Recent discussions at WT:RfA and other places remind that edit count goes both ways: too little contribution to content leads the community to doubt sufficuent knowledge for policing new pages, while an overwhelming respectable record of FA, GA, DYK, and whatnot have not left time for familiarisation with essential meta tasks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyberpower678 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose (moved from 'neutral') per my comments in the 'neutral' section below. As this RfA progresses, as evidenced (to me at least) from his other work, I'm still not convinced that Cyberpower has fully understood that adminship needs someone with some sense of organisation and priorities, along with more than just a basic knowledge of programming languages if one is running at RfA on the premise of becoming a 'tech admin'. Cyber has neither, as demonstrated with his talk elswhere of still insisting on rewriting tools rather than porting perfectly functional versions by other devs to en.Wiki, and taking even more bot tasks from other people. He means well and he's a nice guy, but just does not have the capacity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Mdann52 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - Deletions are the grunt work of adminship so that's where I look first and foremost for competence for the use of the tools. I made an almost TL;DR speech about it on the candidate's RfA #1 and I'm afraid most of it is still relevant today. Dennis makes no bones about it in Q9 - although rather more boldly than I would have ventured, but admins do need to demonstrate a fairly keen sense of judgement and AfD is one of the places where it can be measured. The low score at AfD is for me the main deal breaker. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Voidxor (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose regretfully this very well intended RfA. Based partly on Q8 but mainly after careful consideration and tweaking of these stats, like Peridon above I still can't find enough experience in maintenace areas that demonstrate sufficient confidence and knowledge to be armed with some of the tools and the level of judgement that go with Wikipedia mops & buckets. The comments from my colleagues in the Neutral section carry some excellent advice whch I wholly endorse and as soon as those boxes on my list of criteria can be more or less checked and after a thorough read of WP:Advice for RfA candidates, I will be more than happy to be up there in the Support section at the next RfA. Till then (and I look forward to it), do keep up the good work and don't hesitate to ask your peers for any advice on the way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As11ley (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I recommend withdrawal and a new attempt in few years and/or at least 3,000 mainspace edits. With only 523 edits the candidate is totally unqualified for adminship. This amount of participation in Wikipedia, however well intended, is not sufficient to demonstrate or prove any understanding of even basic policies. The most disturbing aspect of this RfA is that the candidate has not read any of the RfA/Adminship advice, guides, or last minute caveats and hence they cannot be relied upon to read and understand any other instructions or policies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Everymorning (Unsuccessful, edits to page) I'm sorry Everymorning but I do not think you are ready for adminship yet and it comes too hard on the heels of the advice you solicted from me barely a month ago. It's not neccessarily a case of how many edits you have, how many redirects you made, or how many short articles you created, or the experience you have. You need to prove that that experience demonstrates a good knowledge of policies, guidelines, and procedures that admins are expected to have, and also importantly, their sense of judgement in certain situations. Another thorough review of your editing history still leaves me with the impression that you are probably not quite sufficiently well versed in several aspects of the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Admittedly you have achieved a high edit count, but IMO this only demonstrates again (at least to me) that that you are still too eager to be an admin and that is what you have been working towards - wanting to be an admin should never be the main reason for joining Wikipedia. As you also once told us your age, I cannot ignore the fact that you may be too young; we have no minimum age rule for adminship but voters are entitled to their opinion and that is mine for the moment. I suggest you keep up the good work you are doing but that perhaps you should be spending more time on your school work, because I certainly know how much time one has to devote to Wikipedia to rack up up the number and kind of edits you are doing and it is extremely rare for anyone to do so many monthly edits whatever they are. I reiterate my comment on your earlier RfA, and the other advice I provided off-Wiki, which is still very much my opinion today. Give it time - I didn't become an admin until I was 61 and six years on Wikipedia ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Cadillac000 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. By not reading the advice you were given several times before proceeding with your transclusion you have failed the first test for adminship. Admins are expected to be able to read and absorb instructions, evaluate situations, and apply reasonable judgement. The fact that you are unable to judge whether or not you are ready for adminiship has disqualified you. Sorry to sound so harsh, but per an analogy I use quite often: If you walk across the street againat the big red 'Don't walk sign', you might get hit by a truck. You might also be charged with jaywalking'. Stay enthusiastic, stay around, read the rules, policies and guidelines, read WP:Advice for RfA candidates thoroughly and when you meet this set of criteria, I'll nominate you. You may also wish to read the current thread on WT:RfA because it directly concerns this kind of application. You are welcome to join the discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ethically Yours (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Sorry if this is going to sound blunt, but by obviously ignoring every single piece of advice about running for adminship, including the in-your-face template that I toughened up only last week, you do not inspire confidence that you will read and apply any policies, guidelines, or other instructions and advice if you were to be a admin. FWIW, some advice you should have read are here and here and if you had, I'm sure we would not be here. 3,000 edits to mainspace, hardly any in maintenance areas, and only 50 edits in the last 6 months neither convince me that you have a real interest in adminship nor that you yet have a compelling need for the tools. I would suggest that if you are now fit again, you demonstrate a solid number of contributions over the next 6 - 12 months then try again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

RegistryKey (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Sorry if this is going to sound blunt, but by ignoring every single piece of advice about running for adminship, including the in-your-face template that I toughened up only this afternoon, you do not inspire confidence that you will read and apply any policies, guidelines, or other instructions and advice if you were to be a admin. FWIW, some advice you should have read are here and here and if you had, I'm sure we would not be here. Keep up the good work you have started, do some NPP and vandal patrol first, vote on some debates, RfA and AfD, and and come back to RfA when you have digested the criteria that the community generally expects for admin candidates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. This diff although edited out, is still in the history and hence still part of the project. It clearly demonstrates your line of thinking. The work you have put in since your previous RfA reinforces that statement, and while not particulary hat collecting, is indicative to me at least, of still being over-eager to get the mop and that for the last 16 months you have been fervently working towards that goal. My neutral vote on the first RfA listed my many deep concerns, while in my comments on the 2nd RfA the "perhaps" is unfortunately still "perhaps". 'Managing' not to get blocked, warned or argued with again probably means that you have had to try hard to avert things that most of us avoid subconsciously without any effort. Along with your AfD results still being sub par, that Freudian slip today was the deal breaker on my maturity barometer. I still don't believe you have that certain je ne sais quoi[citation needed] to be an admin and I would not feel comfortable just yet with you having the tools and making the kind of judgements that are entrusted to admins. A solid nomination next time round from a well established user would help restore my confidence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Armbrust 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose – I don't think I've ever had to make a more reluctant oppose on an RfA. I had always believed that lessons learned from his previous RfAs and his block log would eventually lead to be deserving of the admin tools for the impressive maintenance work he does. As one of the most frequent admins at PERM over the last few years until I took my break earlier this year, I was always grateful for his 'clerking' of the pages, where I often scolded other users for unnecessary meddling in what is essentially admin territory. Armbrust is clearly a dedicated Wikipedian but unfortunately, he has always had a slightly blunt side to his character and there have been numerous lapses of accuracy. These are issues that I cannot easily overlook however much I would like to see him getting the tools some day. But it's not for now - the issues brought up by Cunard, in his comment as to why you are not ready for adminship can't be ignored, just as the block log which is going to take a bit more time to be written off as history. Please keep up the good work, be a bit less argumentative, demonstrate that you can be more of an admin than one who just needs the tools for all that monumental maintenance work you do, and I'll see my way to supporting the next trip down this road - if it isn't too soon after this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I supported the previous RfA quite strongly but I'm afraid I just cannot do that this time round. The sparsity of his answers to the questions suggests that he assumed this run for re-sysop would be a fait accompli - which it isn't. While the last block was exactly 2 years ago, for an adminship candidate the log gives me pause and based on it if this were to be a first RfA I would probably oppose or at least vote 'neutral' with a negative lean. Finally however, and most importantly, I could never consider supporting a candidate who is still under any sanctions and I would generally expect a full year to have elapsed before (re)running. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sue Rangell (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I used to work a lot at entangling complex SPI cases; I enjoyed the detective work involved in tracking down serial spammers, POV pushers, and socks with other agendas. I really did begin to think that having the CU tool (fully aware of its usage regulations) would help me in my work and encourage me to do more of it. So, already an experienced user and admin to boot, although realising that I could apply any time a call for CU candidates came around, I enquired if becoming an SPI clerk would help me become even more routined with the process before applying for the tool. To my astonishment, the reply I received, broadly interpreted but in no uncertain terms, was "run along and play, get some experience on Wikipedia, and stop hat collecting". Well, I did better than that - I pretty much stopped bothering with with SPI at all. The moral of this story is that I'm not going to support an RfA which is to be used as a stepping stone to CU. When I saw this RfA I recognized Sue's name immediately but I couldn't quite put my finger on why - which was odd. Then it dawned on me, being the active coord of WP:WPSCH for years, that she had created dozens of one-line stubs about schools. Now even I can do better than that on-the-fly while I'm doing everything else, so I'm not overly impressed with her 53 article creations. Apart from the fact that she hardly checks any other of my boxes, I'm afraid I also have to concur with Sven who rarely gets things wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

New Age Retro Hippie 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. (moved from neutral). A check on the most recent 50 or so of the 202 articles created shows that while some appear to be very well referenced, many are are unsourced or needing additional references and are also tagged for other maintenance issues. While I do not insist that a huge amount of content work is needed for adminship, I do expect that creations, if any, should serve as good examples and be free of issues. Roughly 42 edits per month average over the past two and a half years but with breaks of even lower activity. A burst of some activity in the four months leading to this nomination, but IMHO, still low. There is too little recent interaction with other users to estimate if the issues in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A Link to the Past have since been addressed or how the candidate would react in contentious or stressful situations today. Total AfD pages edited: 281: 2013 (3), 2012 (2), 2011 (27); only 52.4% matched the result. Only 23 uses of Twinkle which possibly demonstrates little use of user warnings. Five PRODs in 2012/13 but no other significant work at CSD. No edits to policy pages. 2 edits to guidelines. No reports to WP:AIV. No reports to WP:UAA. Limited participation at WP:AN/I and nothing since 2011 and nothing to WP:AN since 2007. Although not recent, the extent of the block log gives me pause. I'm afraid I cannot really support this candidate at the moment, but perhaps some solid, regular contribution to maintenance areas would change my mind in about 6 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

TheAustinMan 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Since the candidate started editing regularly in May 2012 there has been an average of 233 edits per month, of which 71.85% are to articles. I don't think there can be any doubts that he has sufficiently contributed to content and satisfied the community's requirements in this respect. However, in that period there were 208 edits to Wikipedia space, or 10.9% per month and participation in only 4 AfD in almost four years. The remaining participation in maintenance areas where candidates are expected to have demonstrated their future admin judgement is negligible and nowhere near checks my boxes with which I am generally quite flexible. Echoing Boing! said Zebedee's thoughts from the candidate's first RfA: "...although age itself is not specifically a barrier, I think it will be a few years yet before a candidate of this age would have sufficient maturity", on age and maturity I do not see anything other than average good behaviour for a person of his age, but I see no evidence that this is exceptional and that it equates to that of an adult; the interaction with others is too low for me to apply any real metrics and the first part of Q3 is not addressed also leaving me rather in the dark as to how he would (re)act in contentious situations. That said, to balance the equation, if he would apply his his editing to maintenance areas over the next year or so, I'm sure that we are looking at a potential admin in the not too distant future. PS: Callanecc made his comments while I was researching and writing this so they were not taken into consideration. That said, I think he makes some very valid observations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Jinkinson (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Five months active editing. Of 23 AfD voted on, only 68.2% mqatched the result. There are self-admitted errors that are too recent. Requests for user rights were all made recently within a few weeks and unfortunately I had to remove one 10 days later that I had already accorded. Jinkinson requested feedback only a few days ago on a possible nomination, which, as I usually do, I replied to by email; he has apparently chosen not to follow my advice (which of course is his prerogative). I'm afraid all this demonstrates, to me at least, that he is too eager to become an admin and still has some way to go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Mdann52 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I am tempted to simply say 'Not yet', or 'As per user:X', but that is not my way, and would not be fair. WP:G13 is a very new criterion and once the monumental 60,000 backlog (now down to around 40K or so) has been cleared, new G13 will only be a steady trickle. Although each one needs a check to see that the bot has not made an error, the deletion is procedural and does not take more than a few seconds unless one really wants to single out a potential rare page for retention. Serious help at AfC is required on the backlog of submissions, and controlling the quality of the other reviewers. There is a kind of esprit de corps between admins that when on new page patrol, in all but the most serious cases (such as an attack page, a heavy copyvio, or a multiple recreation) that they generally tag an article for another admin to delete rather than summarily deleting it themselves - at least that ensures that the tagging tool informs the creator correctly, and provides them with at least a few minutes to react. AfD certainly needs more experience before being an admin, 85 AfDs would normally be sufficient but where only 65.2% of the votes matched the outcome, a knowledge of policies and/or guidelines is not fully demonstrated. I feel that the candidate should wait a bit longer and review the policies behind the admin instructions, especially for CSD which can be hard to judge delete/keep, should be reviewed and understood before applying for adminship. The answers to the questions are a bit shaky and demonstrate on his own admission that he is not really sufficiently prepared for what adminship involves. Although none of us knew it all - and still don't - before becoming admins, we had generally accrued a broader experience through our routine editing, participation in discussions, and content building. Keep up the good work at AfC, broaden your experience with all forms of deletions and come back in a few months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lugia2453 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. My own research concurs generally with the other participants in this section so there is no need for me to repeat it all. In addition however, I'm always wary of of editors who main occupation is to police the project rather than build it, but although some, especially younger users, join Wikipedia with the express intention of becoming an admin, I do not believe that this is the case here. One of the best vandal fighters on Wikipedia perhaps, and it's a vital task, but anti-vandalism does not an encyclopaedia build. 57,413 (87.37%) edits are automated of which 46,400 are Huggle and 5,767 are Twinkle - including probably the majority of the 26,716 user talk messages. There are an impressive 1,316 reports to AIV but again that's not hard to achieve if vandal fighting is basically most of what one does. I see there have been significant contributions to AfC (a system about which I am particularly concerned) and Wikipedia needs all the help it can get there. I cannot support however due to the minimal actual content building and experience in many other areas, which summa summarum fall very short of my criteria. If Lugia2453 could take time off from his machine gun shooting of vandalism for 6 to 12 months and spread his talents around the other semi admin areas more, I think there would be a fair chance of a future run being successful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ginsuloft (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. What you have been doing in the areas where you have been active is truly admirable. However, and based on your tenure, it looks to me as if it could possibly be a race to become an admin in the shortest possible time, believing that a high edit count is the most important factor. The problem is that those edits are not in the areas that show the kind of judgement that is required of admins. Notwithstanding the short tenure, if half those edits had been in the areas I look for, I'm sure you would have brilliantly demonstrated your knowledge of policies, deletions, copyvio, SPI, closures, helping others, creating content, etc., but as many have mentioned, your experience is not broad enough for us to have any metrics of what you might do if you had all the admin tools. I think among others, that Stfg and TParis, and SilkTork have summed up well anything else I could have said, except perhaps that if you were to slow down a bit, do some edits that take a long time such as unraveling complicated issues, and broaden your experience to cover my RfA criteria, then I'm sure I would be a firm supporter of a future run, but I strongly recommend taking your time in getting there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Trappist the monk (Successful, edits to page) My concern is that you are asking for admin tool access for something very specific (access to fully protected pages) where we do not have (yet) any possibilities for unbundling the tools. While your need may be justified in order to avoid making numerous edit requests, the problem is that I need to see sufficient experience in most meta areas where the admin tools can be applied if used, and that they would be used judiciously. Put another way, admin candidates need to have demonstrated that they can inspire confidence to use all the tools in the set whether they say they will use them or not. You have already stated that you do not like being reverted and on that, a review of your interaction with others - which is also sparse - leans towards being terse at times - a random look at some of those messages demonstrates to me at least that they could have been friendlier for someone aspiring to be an admin.,. I see that you have created a certain number of articles about ships/yachts, but some of them are very thin on references while some have dead links and others have no references at all. While content creation is not obligatory for adminship per se, I feel that any creations should be free of major issues (I'm not aware of any special notability dispensation for ship articles). There is also the question of your user page - although it's not obligatory, I can't think offhand of any admins who don't have one - having a user page with at least some basic information would demonstrate some willingness to being accountable as an admin. The bottom line is, although you do excellent content improvements and appear to have a good grasp of WP:MoS, you do not check all my boxes even on aggregate, so I cannot see this singular request as demonstrating sufficient experience to be granted all the admin tools and the responsibility of non-tool judgement that comes with the bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose, per my !vote on his previous RfA. I only !voted neutral because in spite of the many issues I listed, I didn't want to pile on, but the reasons still stand because IMO this new RfA comes too hard on the heels of the previous one, and I don't believe that an editor can mature that much in only 11 months to the point of being granted the tools and the other responsibilities that comes with them. That said, he is an enthusiastic and valuable content contributor and should be encouraged to keep up the good work. Perhaps in another 12 months I may support. 12:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

NewFranco (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Hi Franco. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but unfortunately there is no way that the community will be able to take your edits as an IP into consideration. With only 372 edits and only 201 of those to article space, there is no chance that your RfA will succeed. Candidate are expected to have made thousands of edits and demostrated measurable skills in a multitude of areas. You may wish to withdraw now. For more info, you might like to read this page: WP:Advice for RfA candidates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

yougo1000 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. yougo, you are definitely not ready for this yet. You would need several thousand edits, an unblemished editing history for at least a year, perhaps even longer in the light of some of the recent mishaps, you would need to demonstrate a level of maturity comparable to that of an adult, and to improve your English. Continue to edit, do it nicely, and don't hesitate to ask me if you need help with anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AppleJack-7 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose . I appreciate your enthusiasm AppleJack-7 , but as others have stated, you do not meet the minimum of requirements generally expected by the community. Do make an effort to read all the advice pages about admin candidacy before trying again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Pjoef (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Boing, Beeblebrox, Wikins, and Dennis Brown have already said what I would have added, so this is not a pile-on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Piotrus 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose (moving from neutral). The fact that he rarely responds on his own talk page (ca. 700 posts in all this time) is probably not an issue, but it does not make it easy to follow and evaluate his interaction with others. Piotrus is an excellent content contributor but appears to like too much getting involved in politik so there must be some reason why he attracts polemic. We have Wikiholics enough, we have Wikilawyers enough, and Piotrus has hats enough and enough to do without needing another one. A mature and highly qualified individual who is occasionally a tad too rash and garrulous, hence I am not wholly convinced of his ability to adopt and maintain the essential neutrality and coolness that is required of sysops. I never use qualifiers such as strong or weak in my RfA comments, but FWIW, this is borderline but sufficient for me to move from neutral. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Theopolisme 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Strong oppose. Lack of maturity, lack of precision, poor accuracy of judgment, and over eagerness to become an admin. That all sounds harsh, I know, but I have followed Theo's work since his participation on the ill fated counter vandalism academy which had to be completely restructured due to its having become little more than a social gathering of over enthusiastic high schoolers, and his first run for adminship. Rightly or wrongly I conclude that this a case of a user who has joined Wikipedia with the determination to become an admin - he may well make a good admin one of the days but he still needs to be pulled up regularly, and while he may feel that I've been stalking him, it is nothing more than the fact that he keeps turning up in thet places that I have on my watchlist, such at those that are basically strictly admin areas. Sorry Theo, but like much advice I have offered you on various things, IMHO, you are definitely not ready for the bit yet and as I said when you asked me offline recently for advice, this application comes too hard on the heels of your previous attempt. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

Anbu121 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I do not doubt for an instant that Anbu's contributions are sincere and with the best intentions - we do need editors to look after the quality of articles from the Indian subcontinent. However, I concur with several of the concerns voiced here, and a thorough review of his talk page suggests that his communication may sometimes be a tad too bitey. From my own experience from working in India, this may not be so much of an issue, but the cultural dichotomy needs to be understood if/when interacting as an admin with users from other regions, especially Western ones where sensibilities often run high. I think if he can address these points and his misjudgements at CSD and AfD over the next few months, I would be ready to support a new RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

TommyBoy (Successful, edits to page) Oppose. Townlake and Swarm have said it much the way I would sum up my own findings. Doesn't meet my criteria for lack of metrics, but I'm sure if he did he would be trusted not to abuse the tools or the responsibility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

AutomaticStrikeout (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose Keen, honest, civil, and reliable, but still far too unsure of many policies and guidelines. These proposals here and here appear to demonstrate that he is not yet sure of how Wikipedia works. His 52 AfD votes matched the result in 76.2% of the time but the number of AfDs is probably to low to attach any substantial metrics to. However, his answer to Q4 doesn't convince of sufficient knowledge of deletion, his page patrolling gives me pause with around 20% of his recent deletions being tagged with the wrong criteria, and this is well below par for a reasonably practiced non-admin patroller. It's important to get these criteria right, not only to avoid wrongly deleting articles as an admin, but wrong tags also send the wrong message to the creators. On some admin areas that require knowledge he is still unsure of the procedures as demonstrated by his comment at one AfD nomination on 4 October: "I'd speedy this, but I don't know what, if anything, is the proper criterion for that" and only seven weeks ago states "I don't entirely understand how sockpuppet investigations work." He was given some good advice at his recent editor review but has still chosen to run for admin when probably he should have waited longer. If he keeps up his current rate of work however, he will increase his knowledge exponentially, and in another six months or so I'm almost sure I would support a re-run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Floydian 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose (strongly). His answers to Q3 give me pause; now is not the time for him to start addressing his civility issues. 'Abrasiveness' is putting it mildly - Floydian is from nature combative, sarcastic, and at times, insulting. His spate of disambiguation attempts (all failed) in late 2010 could be interpreted as POV pushing, or at the very least, time wasting - Floydian created a series of move/disambiguation discussions claiming primacy of North American cities (especially Canadian) over famous major UK locations. None of his proposals were met with consensus in favour of them, and many comments were clearly derogatory towards UK users. He sometimes deletes rather than archiving his gross incivility in his talk page. , . Multiple snide and argumentative remarks in his FA discussions Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2 also do not impress. With only just over 60% accuracy in his AfD comments, sufficient knowledge is not demonstrated for use of the deletion tool, and/or closures and evaluating consensus. Wikipedia's principles, and policies can be learned and knowledge improved, but generally a person's character traits won't, and his ability to get along with his fellow editors still leaves much room for improvement. He has not taken on board comment in his first RfA], and I would like to see at least another year of trouble-free editing before he presents again for RfA. (Assorted diffs: , ,, , ,Talk:Cambridge#Requested move2010, Talk:York#Disambiguation required, Talk:Cornwall/Archive 10, Talk:Peterborough#Disambiguation required, Talk:Sydenham#Disambiguation required). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Theopolisme (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I had a feeling this RfA would be coming. While I heartily join with all those who have praised Theopolism's enthusiasm and engagement for Wikipedia, I am also 'old school' (very old for some...) and must reiterate True Silver's concerns about the CVU Academy that it 'speaks more of treating Wikipedia like a social networking site than an encyclopedia' . I have commented several times that I find the CVU project has become unnecessarily bureaucratised and has introduced pseudeo hierarchies and leaderships. Such pursuits appear (to me at least) often as stepping stones for hat-collecting where it should be clearly understood that user rights are not rewards for good work. That said, I encourage Theo to keep up his good work, but he does not yet meet all my RfA criteria, and I'm not sure he has read this; its reading is of course not mandatory, but I feel it may have prevented what here is, IMHO, an RfA a tad too early. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Master&Expert (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Enthusiastic and with good intentions, but unfortunately, the candidate does not meet my my RfA criteria - even on aggregate which I'm usually happy to take into consideration. The number of mainspace edits is far too low, and although my vote is not guided by the votes of others, I find that JamesBWatson and Scottywong have said anything else I would have mentioned. I would suggest the candidate take a good read of WP:Advice for RfA candidates, and tries again in not less than 6 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

SwisterTwister (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. The candidate is enthusiastic, friendly, and I have enjoyed the best level of interaction with him, even though I have had to pull him up several times on his NPP work. And there's the rub - NPP and deletions are the area where I work most and where I patrol the patrollers. With the greatest respect for the nominator who shares my concerns for the state of NPP as a process, I find DGG and Boing sum it up well - I have the same concerns and there's no need for me to repeat the same diffs. His answers to the questions seem to have too little depth and reflection and where disputes would be concerned - because all admins get involved in disputes as part of the job - this gives me pause. More content work, less superficial talk page interaction (one can go OTT on barnstars, welcomes, and WikiLove) and a longer period of solid, unproblematic NPP, CSD, and AfD, and more demonstration of knowledge of policy, and I'd really be happy to support a re-run in about 6 months. In the meantime, if he needs help on anything, he knows he can always call on me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

WinEuro (Unsuccessful, edits to page) And please also read WP:Advice for RfA candidates. You do not need admin tools to move pages - see WP:MOVE instead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Kiefer and Equazcion raise valid points. That said, the candidate simply does not meet my my criteria. When these, or an aggregate of them are reached, I would be happy to support a future attempt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Vibhijain (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Vibijain's strengths almost certainly lie best in our en.Wiki articles on topics from the Indian sub-continent, and helping non-native English speaking editors from that region, and I believe that he should concentrate his skill set in that area where his local knowledge and communication skills with his fellow native editors would be a great asset to en.Wikipedia. There is a huge amount of work to be done within the scope of the India Education Program, especially as an ambassador for example, without the need for the use of admin tools - and it is almost certain that the local chapter in Delhi would welcome him on board. Vibhijain began an editor review only 10 days ago. I think he should have allowed time for more comments to arrive before running for office. Has voted on 153 AfD but 71.9% where the vote matched the result is, IMO, too low. Candidates also need to demonstrate their handling of conflict, because any admin who uses the tools will encounter delicate situations, and I would like to have more reassurance that the candidate would react appropriately in stressful situations. Ca 10,000 edits and 9 months are not alone sufficient grounds for adminship and Vibijain still does not meet all my criteria. I cannot therefore support at this time, but he has already known for a long time that that I am more than willing to help him develop his skills, and I'm sure this English will improve with time, especially when he has completed his education - I have lived and taught in Delhi and I know that very high standards of language can be achieved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dipankan001 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. A keen, cheerful, polite, and enthusiastic editor but a clear case of WP:NOTNOTNOW and needs some way to go before meeting my criteria. Recent blunders such as this also demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the scope of admin work.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. No compelling reasons for according this user the tools; no convincing arguments that they would be used wisely; insufficient demonstration of required interpersonal skills; general lack of experience in admin related areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Faustus37 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. No compelling nomination statement, and very short answers to the questions, the candidate has obviously not read any of the vast amount of advice that is available to RfA candidates, and incusion/demletion issues apart, is possibly not fully aware of what being an admin actually entails. Reading advice pages, how-tos, essays, and policy, is part of being an active Wikipedian before attempting to convince the community that one is ready for the admin tools. Taking part in collaborative and semi administrative areas is essential for demonstrating the interpersonal skills and knowledge of policy needed for adminship. This candidate has done practically neither at any level that permits an evaluation of how the tools would be used.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian (Unsuccessful, edits to page) A mature editor and and excellent contributor of over 50 articles, however many are still tagged mainly for sourcing. While some editors may maintain that content work is not necessary for adminship, any creations should demonstrate a knowledge of the quality that they are going to expect from others, especially when involved in deletions. With only 1,532 edits to mainspace out of a total of 2,504 in 6 years (an average of 32 edits per month), very little vandal fighting or new page patrolling (deleted edits don't show any CSD or PROD activity), only 11 edits to AfD (37.5% matched the result), and 77 21 to his talk page, there is too little to be able to assess how he would perform if accorded the tools. At the moment I cannot see how the tools will help him in his work, but some concentration on meta areas over the next six months or so that clearly demonstrate familiarity with policies and admin related operations may well prove that Deathlibrarian has the qualities to be a fine sysop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

SpeakFree (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. A clean block log, and an impressive number of creations and although (I've only reviewed a random 100 of them) they are mostly stubs or very short articles, you have demonstrated that you know what content work is all about. Only 31 votes to AfD (according to SW's tool), and of your 317 deleted pages, if one deducts the U1 and the files, there is little left to demonstrate a knowledge of deletion policy, and there have only been a handful of manual page patrols in the last six months. If you believe you really need the tools, you would have made the effort to produce a far more compelling self-nomination statement or perhaps even asked someone to review your work who might either have proposed you or suggested what you might still need to do to get up to scratch. On 15 December however, you withdrew an RfA transclusion; I'm assuming that you felt you were not ready for adminship at that time, and I'm curious why you have changed your mind only two weeks later, because I don't think you are quite ready yet to take on the challenges of adminship. That said, I have no reason to think you would abuse the tools and if you can do more work in meta areas over the next 6 months, such as for example, AIV, and demonstrate your knowledge by helping others, and without any of your creations or files being tagged or PRODed, you will be in with a chance and I'll most likely support your next RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A520 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose . Not ready for this yet I'm afraid. Did you read all the guidelines at RfA guide, RfA Miniguide, and especially Advice for RfA candidates before attempting this? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Buggie111 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Having reviewed your recent deletions, I find your A3 tagging to be too fast, while others fall very short of the mark for an accurate criterion, and some pages, particularly attack, and vandalism/hoax, that should clearly have been deleted but where you only applied maintenance tags. (see list on talk page). I'm sure that these are only momentary lapses, but they are too many for recent patrolling and reflect on your ability to assess other patrollers' CSDs accurately and whether you will check taggers' tags before deleting. I also find that among your 20 or so !votes at AfD that a hit of 72.7% does not adequately reflect that you will be able to close AfDs with confidence. Where candidates have taken an interest in participatiing at RfAs, I also take it into my assessment and considering your own situation (16 edits to AIV) I'm rather surprised at the comments , and this !vote. You have made valuable creations with your articles on battleships and you have demonstrate that you know what creation and mainspace editing is all about, however, I'm sorry, but I do not feel that you are ready to face the challenges of adminship at this time, but I would like to see you try again in 6 months or so when you have more clearly demonstrated your knowledge of deletion and AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

BusterD (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose: This AfD had a very clear consensus for 'keep' with very strong rationales, and should have been closed without comment. I would have expected the candidate to have accumulated a solid understanding of evaluating a rough consensus, having participated in over 563 votes at AfD, but his explanation here demonstrates that he still has some way to go. Although many will argue that creation and content work is not essential for adminship, where significant content work is concerned, it will be taken into consideration and ought to be of a reasonably high quality. Unfortunately, of his 60 or so creations, although referenced, over 30% (see list on talk page) have no or very few inline citations. Where his research is based mainly on printed sources, this should be very easy. For an admin, a good understanding of referencing techniques is essential, especially where the evaluation of the accuracy of content and notability of other articles is concerned, and could have an impact on his CSD decisions. On checking his deleted contribs (mainly in his own user space) and page patrols, I see very little NPP work or CSD tagging, and not enough to be able to evaluate his performance. Just under six months ago he was warned for 3RR - possibly an isolated occasion, but he should know better. To conclude, I would say that Buster is a keen and civil editor - even able to defuse conflict. However, I'm sorry, but I just don't think he's quite ready for the challenges of adminship yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Latish redone (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose . Sorry, but with only 59 edits in three years.- even with the 953 mainspace edits as User:All in, this is nowhere near enough to provide a profile of what you would do as an admin, and the nomination statement does not provide a compelling reason for needing the tools. You do not appear to have followed the links to any of the various guidelines and advice pages on becoming an admin, and what admins do. I also recommend that you should consider withdrawing your nomination - I do not think there is the remotest chance of this RfA succeeding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ItsZippy (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose Certainly a very civil editor and with a heart in the right place, but Malleus, Mkativerata, and Fastily have said the essential Does not meet any of my criteria and 3 months and 3,000 edits are insufficient to prognosticate on a future performance as an admin. I would suggest reading WP:NPP and helping out with those urgent tasks - to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of page quaulity and deletion policy. Following through with participation in WP:AfD, WP:AIV and other administration-related areas, as well as working on a help desk would also broaden your own knowledge as well as illustrate how you would handle users' problems. Do also read WP:RFAADVICE before trying again in 6 months or so. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

N5iln (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I'm not altogether satisfied the the answers to Q. 5, 6, 8, - they do not demonstrate to me that your knowledge of CSD is sufficient. Although you have now modified your signature due to the advice on this RfA, please see this section at SIGNATURES, I'm surprised that you would not already have realised the inconvenience of such signatures. You have a healthy number of edits, good work at AIV, and your enthusiasm is in the right place, but I do think your knowledge of deletion policy still has some way to go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

TedPavlic (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose Unfortunately too little activity, especially in key housekeeping areas to apply any metrics for assessment, and my criteria in particular. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Timl2k4 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose Unfortunately too little activity, especially in key housekeeping areas to apply any metrics for assessment, and my criteria in particular. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Although we occasionally make concessions for candidates who are highly specialised in narrow fields, having examined the candidate's template work, I don't believe it to be a sufficiently compelling reason to accord the tools. Probably the major part of admin work concerns deletion/non-deletion and helping to maintain the quality of articles by tagging new pages for improvement, and making some improvement on the fly - and this includes looking out for copyvio. I do not see any significant activity in these areas and would not be comfortable in according syop rights to a candidate that has not demonstrated some measurable activity in page patrolling. With regards to the issue on the talk page here, I look for clean, or cleaned-up, articles prior to nomination. I would possibly support a new RfA in six months time if these issues are addressed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ebikeguy (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - This is the ideal Mr Nice Guy who should be the backbone of our corps of admins. Unfortunately the practical experience is not broad enough and not numerically suffficient to draw any conclusions as to how he would use the tools and re/act when the going gets hot. Just doesn't match all the metrics on my checklist. When he does, he can be sure of my support. Note that no candidate has succeeded with less than 3,000 edits since 2009, and that one had over one million edits cross-Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hazard-SJ (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - I'm sure that you would not abuse the tools, but I have concerns that your work to date does not demonstrate broad enough experience. However, as soon as you can meet my criteria you can be assured of my support next time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ZooPro 4 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. No one will disagree with you that the RfA process is in need of reform for the reasons you state, and there is now an active project whose goal it is to finally get some changes made. I don't think however that using your RfA itself to tell us something that many old hands here already know, is the right way to go about supporting that move. If it's an experiment, I admire your courage; if you really believe that this will earn you enough support to get the mop, I think you're wrong, because it demonstrates a combative side to your character, which would be unsuitable for the role of admin. Nevertheless, I commend your work on zoological articles, and very much hope that you will continue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

NickPenguin (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. Too little activity, especially in semi admin areas, to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and experience of what can and will be done with the tools. User:Chzz also makes some valid points. I would be happy to support a future run as soon as my RfA criteria are largely met. Kudpung (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dusti 4 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose per Townlake and Boing. Kudpung (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Inka 888 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I know that in the past some editors have got the mop with only 4,000 or so edits, but with bots doing much of the work these days, admins need to have good communication and mediation skills. With only 1,150 edits to main space and the majority of the others (50%) to user talk, and very few to project space, I feel there are not enough contributions of the right kind yet to be able to measure how you would perform as an admin. The number of RfA !votes also seems top-heavy compared to the rest. I haven't done any further checks but I'm sure that Chzz is right with his research and I trust his judgement, and Korruski makes some very valid points. I think you should consider continuing to work on the aspects of Wikipedia that you are still not quite confident with. When it when it it becomes routine in a few months, and preferably with a few nicely created articles, you should should work for several more months without the main idea of working towards adminship. --Kudpung (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - I'm not in this section to pile-on, but for for me, you blew it with your answer to Q5 - some worse publications of my past behaviour were vented on my own recent RfA (but they were in the distant past). You are highly communicative, but User:GorillaWarfare makes some pertinent observations, as do many others, and I'm deeply disturbed with the message you sent to Fastily. I'm occasionally accused of wordiness myself, but I get the feeling that your responses are TLDR, an attempt to be a little too smart, and an unusually undue effort, bordering on sparring, to defend your RfA. If it is an example of the way you will be engaging in the inevitable conflicts you will be involved in as an admin, I seriously do not think you already have the right approach for mediation. I don't think this is a trait you can change in a day or even in six months hence. Nevertheless, I hope I'm wrong, because you are a mature and intelligent individual with bags of energy, your other talk page communications, if wordy, are reasonably civil and polite, and your work on the Ambassador programme is beyond reproach. I admire your enthusiasm and courage in coming forward to be considered for adminship and holding out to the bitter end. Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Slon02 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose I'm also concerned with the accuracy in tagging. Speed of tagging is not of the essence, I suggest you review WP:NPP and take a calmer look at what can be done. I'm also not entirely convinced that you will be able to remain objective in debates that would require your intervention as an admin. Kudpung (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

RadioFan 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. JamesBWatson has said most of everything I was going to say. Question 4 was quite easy, but even a helpful prompt still didn't bring forth an answer that inspires confidence in your knowledge of deletion policy. I'm sorry RadioFan, but I don't feel happy with the idea of you having the tools just yet. Kudpung (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCopter 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose . In addition to the other comments and advice you've been given, two things in your talk page discussions give me doubts: there is not enough interaction to demonstrate how you would conduct a crisis or give advice to others, and there seems to be some misunderstanding among you and your colleagues as to our policy on ownership of articles. There is a lot of good information on preparing oneself for adminship, plus a couple of dozen excellent user essays - do read it all, but do also remember that experience is the most important thing, and which you still lack. Get it all together before you try again. and perhaps consider some coaching. Good luck next time! Kudpung (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Glane23 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - also most reluctantly. I would have been tempted to support just to outbalance the needless pile-on due to the honest approach to blocking using an unfortunate expression that looks as if it has been taken out of context and used to undermine your RfA. However, I don't believe tactical !voting to be an expression of confidence in a candidate. I most regretfully have to oppose however based on a the lack of active participation of semi-administrative tasks as per HJ Mitchell and Jim Miller. There's a lot we can do there without needing the tools, and by doing so, we gain the experience and the insight to policy that we need to be able to use the tools with confidence when and if we get them. People always learn a lot more from hands on experience, rather than from just observing what goes on. If you can offer more, regular !votes/comments/advice on, for example, RfC, Afd, ANI, Deletion revision, and on some other noticeboards and help desks, and more content building, I'm sure I would happily support your next RfA. Kudpung (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

ErikHaugen (Successful, edits to page) Oppose Erik specifically wants to be able to do history merges. Adminship is however a ticket for 'access all areas' especially deletion processes which are a core function and go hand-in-hand with page patrolling. Messages on his talk page would appear to indicate an error rate at New Page Patrolling that may be inconsistent with the level of knowledge of deletion policy required for using the tools with confidence and reasonable accuracy. He has demonstrated some knowledge of content building, which is of course fundamental to the learning curve; however, his experience is limited to 11 short stubs, some only one line, one still tagged for references while another is little more than a list of red links. Of the longer creations, it looks as if other editors have contributed the bulk of the content. I'm !voting late(ish) because I wouldn't want these issues to contribute to any pile-on opposition, but after much reflection, and a look at the other !votes, I think I'm echoing the sentiments of others in this section, especially SilkTork, and HJ Mitchel. Kudpung (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Core2012 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose Clearly does not yet fully understand the importance and scope of admin tasks and the level of responsibility they demand. The first few thousand contributions to the encyclopedia should preferably be to content building: writing and/or improving articles. Close as WP:SNOW. Kudpung (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reenem 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose I'm sorry to add to a pile-on, but after doing my own homework, I really can only reiterate User:Sven Manguard. Kudpung (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Laptopmaker (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - per WP:NOTNOW. With only around 30 edits and two of those on 27 August were really not quite the right thing to do, you are not yet ready to be considered for adminship. Do take the advice the others have given you above, and make a couple of thousand good solid contributions you can be proud of, including the creation of some new articles. You don't need to vote for yourself on your own RfA - do take a look at some of the recent RfA of other candidates, especially some that have failed, to understand the process, and to see what you will need to learn about all the different Wikipedia policies.Kudpung (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

PresN (Successful, edits to page) Oppose - Ironically, a few hours ago in another discussion, I said something about 'not needing the tools' to be a weak reason for opposing on an RfA. Here, however, I'm afraid, together with the low importance attached to making edit summaries, and with what I feel is rather a vague notion of where the candidate would be active with their average of ten edits a day, is enough for me to suggest that s/he does not need the tools just yet. Getting more into the thick of things and racking up some broader experience to include NPP, AfD, vandalism, and other areas that demonstrate measurable skill of judgement in the more contentious areas, then coming back here again in six months would move me to support whom I have no doubt is a trustworthy editor.--Kudpung (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Richardcavell 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I'm sorry Richard, but a random stab at your creations convinced me that I needed to visit a bigger selection of the 100 on X's tool. The majority are dab pages, some of which in my opinion have dubious function, but I have deeper concerns about your knowledge of the fundamental principles of article creation. I have said on RfA before, that while an impressive creation count is not paramount, I do feel that anyone wanting to police other authors should at least demonstrate goodwill and clean up their own sub standard creations before running for offiec - however old they are. Some of the more striking poor creations are: Peter Taylor (composer); the very short List of Big Band Musicians that hasn't had an edit since it was created 10 months ago, , , http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Goalsneak, , I'm not sure of the usefulness of (maybe there's a guideline I have missed), and , , , , , , . I only came across two that were reasonable BLP, but they were the work of a great many other editors after the two-line unreferenced stubs you made and never returned to, and I am particularly concerned about BLP stubs such as , , and this, tagged for notability two years ago , and finally the fairly recent bot report at User talk:Richardcavell#Unreferenced BLPs. BLP is one of Wikipedia's most critical issues; deletionist or inclusionist apart, admins need to understand the policies and be objective in their implementation.--Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Armbrust (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - per WP:NOTNOW. Christopher Connor sums it up well and after following up, I don't want to pile on more rationale. Armbrust appears to be a friendly, helpful and civil editor, and we all make occasional mistakes, but his editing pattern is still too unstable. If he can work on those deficiencies of AfD judgement, lack of edit summaries, and other points, I would probably find my way to support a new RfA in about six months time.Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Falcon8765 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose Sure, plenty of admins find niches, and I definitely do not believe in editcountitits, but eighty-three percent automated edits out of a total of 50k does not leave enough manual edits in all other areas to make an objective assessment. His work is not diversified enough to demonstrate access to all areas with absolute confidence, and his take pages (perhaps I just hit the wrong archives) attract a rather high degree of possibly invited ruddiness - there must be an underlying cause why people should single out this editor as a target for incivility and excuses for using bad language. All this plus an unconvincing self-nom suggests that the candidate is not yet ready for the tools and can still do an excellent anti-vandal job without them.--Kudpung (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride 4 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose.I was on the fence after doing my own research, and I nearly stayed completely out of this one (like not even going neutral). I think Malleus support has a point about the BLP, but now after following up on some of the opposes such as those of Ciçndamuse, GorillaWarfare., and Boing, and the lack of a convincing self-nom as to why he really wants the tools again, I'm not left left warm to the idea of him being an admin again. He's a great asset to the project in other ways and he can still be that without the tools.--Kudpung (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Saverx (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose per WP:SNOW.--Kudpung (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare (Successful, edits to page) Oppose - On the question of creations, I think it's reasonable to expect an RfA candidate's own creations, however few they are, to demonstrate that the candidate has a fairly sound knowledge of content policy. GorillaWarfare's contributions do not. My opinion here is that a little more experience and an increased sense of judgement are needed - things that will come with a few more months of more experience. One way to get the CSD issues right is not to tag if in doubt, but to watch the page and see what the more experienced patrollers do to it, and if you visit a lot of AfD debates, don't feel compelled to leave a comment each time, but come back and see how it was wound up..--Kudpung (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DeltaQuad (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose As per every one of the opposes above in particular the comments by Courcelles, Pointillist, Salvio. I have run my own checks, and the maturity issue is one that especially strike my mind. --Kudpung (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Connormah 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Weak Oppose - I was really impressed with all the answers. Then I started checking the candidate's editing history. If those 15 easy, short, creations had been immaculate, and demonstrated a clear understanding of MOS, sourcing, and references, and didn't have any ugly tags on them , or if they had at least been been cleaned up before accepting the nom, I would have been going for a strong support. Sorry, but admins have to know how to create articles if they are going to police others.--Kudpung (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ArcAngel 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. WP:NOTYET. Too close to the last RfA without a convincing accumulation of new experience and new edits. Adminship - IHMO - is not for a once-in-a-while editor. There is plenty of good work to be done without needing the tools.--Kudpung (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

MGA73 (Successful, edits to page) Oppose - on technicalities rather than what appear to be the (self)nominee's genuine reasons for request. Experience on the en.Wikipedia goes before experience and/or privileges on other Wikimedia, which clearly excercise very different criteria of quality, and while a high edit score is not a qualification, only just over 1,000 over a period of nearly 2 years does not demonstrate consistency or knowledge of our processes. Nor does it convince of a future, more intense committment (although this is also not an exigency). Only 237 edits have been made to file space, a number which many 'non janitor' editors casually make on the fly while contributing in other areas. AFAIK we neither have provision for temporary adminship of this kind, nor admin tasks dedicated to different areas (except perhaps minor privileges for for reviewing, rollbacking, account creation, etc., for example), and admins are at least expected (but not obliged) to get involved in a variety of tasks. I would most likely support a new RfA with a truly significant increase in contribs, but probably not in under 12 months from now. --Kudpung (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC).

Herostratus 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose. I was going to say more (I usually do) but in this case I feel that Iridescent has already said it all.--Kudpung (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner (Successful, edits to page) Whilst I am fully aware that a high edit count is not a criterion for adminship, NF has a relative low edit count (around 4,000) when considering that about 25% are automated. and only just over 2,000 edits to article space. Only four short creations, one a stub (I'm not sure of the policy on ski resorts but this might ring a tad promotional), two are very short, (but neverthless GA), and one unreferenced article. Contribs/creations also include a recent article that was unanimously deleted at AfD. I'm sure NativeForeigner has a basic knowledge of most of the policies and principles but has only been active during the past 6 months or so, and looking at his work to date, I'm not sure that he even really needs the tools yet. IMO (s)he has not yet accumulated significant practice that would demonstrate the sense of judgement needed for wielding them. Another six months perhaps at the same rate and doing the housekeeping that he already can without the tools would probably see him/her better prepared for the tasks of sysop.--Kudpung (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Youndbuckerz (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - I would suggest closure per WP:NOTNOW & WP:SNOW. This RfA may be an expression of humour in GA, but IMHO it's a time waster.--Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

AlexandrDmitri (Successful, edits to page) Oppose as per ImperfectlyInformed and Jclemens - they've said it all. I've checked everything out and there's no need for me to add anything. --Kudpung (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unionhawk (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - I admire Unionhawk's bravery and enthusiasmfor his selfnom. He's contributed to a lot of RfAs and he knows what he's got coming. At first view, a balance of allround participation although perhaps not enough on Wikipedia talk. Understands the need for edit summaries but tends to use the summaries as a substitute for article/user talk page comment. Very, very low on creations, which are mostly very short stubs, or even unreferenced articles. Low traffic on his talk page and an annoyingly monthly archiving of just one or two posts. 30% automated edits does not demonstrate a solid knowledge of policy and significantly reduces the real edit count. There's really no substitute for the kind of experience that can gained through making and discussing major contributions over a longer period of time, and more participation in Wiki talk and policy making. And that is what is needed here. He appears very polite, helpful, and civil. but it is marred by too many WP:BITE and snarky comments. Reading between the lines, I'm sure his intentions are good, but I'm opposing because I believe he can do just as much good work with the editing tools already at his disposal until he has more experience.--Kudpung (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

BigDom (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - It is my opinion that sysops should set an example if they are going to use a special set of tools to inform, encourage, educate, and pass judgement on other users. These actions are important amidst the common contention that admins are here just to delete articles and block users. I'm not convinced that BigDom's use of edit summaries is consistent enough. I'm also not sure that the candidate understands the difference between References and External links, and the reasons why we have those two distinctions. There are still too many Wikipedians who believe their edit count is a passport to adminship and that quantity is far more important than quality, I am not overly impressed by the number of created stubs or their notability (or lack of it), or the hig number of redirects counted as creations, or what in my opinion is a clear misunderstanding of the system of classifying articles as stub/start class etc. Admittedly the candidate makes very few semi-automated edits from Twinkle or Friendly, but that assumes also that welcoming or warning other contributors has been low on the priorities, as has, to judge from the ratio of article space to various talk pages, his general enthusiasm to be part of the greater community, and to be active in a broader diversity of topics. I'm sure that given time, BigDom would make a great admin, but only after becoming a more all-round editor and participating more in discussions, and cleaning up his own articles. I would like to see several months without a single complaint on his talk page, and then a new attempt at RfA.--Kudpung (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Gobbleswoggler 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - HI, with regard to the edit summaries, it would probably be best if you were to get used to always making them before you become an admin. The same goes for one or two other tasks, such as regularly looking at your talk page and taking part in discussions. Nobobody has been rude to you - there have been plenty of friendly requests on your talk page to conform to the way some things are done on Wikipedia, but if you choose to ignore them, then the tone of the requests will become stricter, but not ruder. The admin tools will require you not only to fight vandalism, but also to do many other operations that require an acute sense of good judgement. I don't think you have this yet, and you probably need to get a lot more experience before becoming an admin, so I would suggest that we all agree to close this second request as per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW, and give you a chance to apply again in several months time.--Kudpung (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jmcw37 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - Because 1. the candidate has a low count in the areas where admins are likely or supposed to be reasonably active, and able to excercise sound judgement, and 2. because instead of answering the questions directly, he/she is telling the RfA reviewers how they should evaluate him/her.--Kudpung (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Frozen4322 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Oppose - Whatever the intended area of specialisation, IMO adminship requires at least some significant experience in contributions to articles, and other maintenance tasks, in order to fully understand the challenges that article contributors are faced with, and then to apply the admin tools diligently. I oppose this AfD because I do not believe that Frozen4322 with his/her short membership and low edit count has gained sufficient all-round experience. A look at the comments Frozen's talk page and archives does not convince me that he/she is ready for the admin tools, and that the tools already available to registered users and/or rollbackers are suffient at least for a while to continue his/her valliant fight against vandalism. I too, support the suggestion of early closure perSNOW or NOTNOW. --Kudpung (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Shushugah (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral I'm not going to pile on with an 'oppose' but although the candidate has done nothing really wrong I'm not convinced (yet) that they will make a significant impact to the corps of sysops. Registered in 2015 but did not begin editing until 2018 after which a 2-year hiatus ensued. Participation picked up slowly in 2020 but has been very low this year. I would like to see an 12 months of recent regular activity. My criteria have been cited; they are far from the strictest but their scope has led them to be referred to many times as 'Kudpung's laundry list'. That said, it boils down to insufficient experience in the traditional governance areas. I therefore don't think I would be able to support even on balancing some items against others, so on aggregated it fails. I would almost certainly support a second attempt if more boxes were to be checked on my criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Money emoji (Successful, edits to page) Neutral.This is probably one of the most difficult decisions I've had to make in well over 400 RfA votes. Wikipedia desperately needs people to work at CCI, (COIN is also a very important area and one often leads to the other), but single purpose RfA don't generally go down too well with the community and the tools are probably not going to be further unbundled any time soon. I don't often vote 'oppose' and probably I'm even less frequently in the 'neutral' section, but I'm really on the edge here. With the greatest respect for the nominators (who are also friends, but I'm not letting that cloud my judgment), some things can come to light during the course of an RfA that they did not weigh significantly or may not even have been aware of; the George Ruban RfA was such an example - one which I nominated but lost. The outburst referred to by Rhododendrites is something many of us, including me, may have wished to have said at some time or another, but if you make a statement like that while you are an admin, you'll be at Arbcom before you wake up the next day in your time zone, for making a PA at an albeit vague and non-identifiable group of people (although according to Jehochman A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity.) So fairly recent statements like that do not instill confidence that it won't happen again, particularly if you are an admin who chooses to work in the trenches where such people will come out of the woodwork at any opportunity to attack you to the point you loose your cool or burn out. In addition to the above, my criteria - often referred to as my laundry list is in fact one of the least demanding sets of conditions, but they are not met. Many highly experienced users, including admins, have voiced their opposition to this RfA and made legitimate rationales. I can't vote either way. If the bid for the bit fails, I hope ME will not be too disappointed and accuse the community of an unjust consensus. If it passes, his work will be invaluable in the areas he wants to be active, and I hope he will take on board the comments of the oposers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) I was neutral the last time. I do not doubt the sincerity of any of the votes in the 'support' section especially those of the highly experienced editors, while there are nevertheless at least some solid opposes such as Beeblebrox and Fastily to cite just two examples - ones which my own - now redundant - research would have revealed. The candidate has a truly excellent record of content contribution and creation and at that volume of work could well find some of the admin tools extremely useful. However, adminship is not accorded as an award based on content performance and achievements alone; it also requires a mature approach to contentious areas and I am not wholly confident that he has the temperament for it. I must therefore remain in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Daffy123 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral - There is nothing I could do to influence the outcome of this RfA by voting in either section. So I'm really just registering my participation. That said however, this looks like a classic example of a candidate who either did not read the advice pages or who chose to ignore the councel in them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

L235 (Successful, edits to page) Abstention. As I do not have time to do any research of my own (recently criticised in a previous RfA), I'm just registering that I am nevertheless following this RfA but have nothing to comment apart from concuring with the fact that sometimes lower edit counts are due to a lot of time consuming work , on- or off-Wiki for the project, that is not reflected in an edit count . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor (Successful, edits to page) Neutral . Unusually, for the second time in a row I'm on the fence at a RfA. The candidate meets all the 'strict' criteria on my 'laundry list' with ease thus proving that despite the relatively short tenure, they are not as difficult to meet as some RFA detractors might claim. However, two issues give me pause: one is the way in which they sailed rapidly through the list of minor rights acquiring them all; the other is that after checking the last 40 or so AfD participations I find that his votes are almost always either the last or the penultimate one after the outcome is fairly clearly established already. I'm not going to be accused of bad faith by spelling out my concerns, but it's enough to put to me in the neutral section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - just placing a neutral vote here to register my participation. It's an edge case and I can't make my mind up. I would like to thank Pbsouthwood for answering my question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Pvmoutside (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral . No point in piling on, and no reflection on those who supported among whom are admins and editors whose opinions are highly respected. Juliancolton sums it up well. I think we failed at ORCP - me and Ritchie333 included - possibly by being lulled into believing that one fairly recent RfA had set a new tone for the process, but this should not be taken as a criticism of ORCP which on the balance actually does quite a good job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dane (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. I prefer to stay out of this because it's fast becoming archetypical of the kind of RfA that discourages potential candidates of the right calibre from coming forward in the first place - and that's what the major problem of the RfA process is all about. I will say this though: a) The fact that I might recently have supported a candidate who possibly did not check all my boxes does not mean I have set a precedent for my future participation in RfAs. b) While I firmly believe that unqualified support votes are a clear endorsement of the nomination(s), unqualified oppose votes, for me at least, carry no weight. c) WP:ORCP is a purely informal, no-obligation process - IMO, what it does and/or what its outcomes are/were should probably not be topics of discussion in an actual RfA. It's nevertheless an excellent initiative and one which I very much support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RegistryKey 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral –this leaves me in no doubt that the candidate did not read any advice pages or review any previous RfAs before deciding to go for it. The candidate is obviously a great guy and a mature person but there is a problem where common sense just does not realise that this RfA has very little chance of succeeding - and that's the flaw in the candidate's powers of judgment. I would love to be wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. Wikipedia has always been a complex and often confusing and contradictory world and I see highly experienced and well respected long-time regular RfA participants on both sides of the fence here, among whom (without being particularly selective) are Wehwalt, DGG, SilkTork, Opabinia, Risker, Ritchie333, Boing, and JamesB. Their rationals are important whichever way they have voted, while among the many other good faith votes are quite a few that appear to be simply pile-ons from the transient visitors, the curious who have seen the advert on their watchlists, and some who seem to have a propensity to only vote one way on all RfA. I do have an opinion on the candidate but I'm not going to voice it here, preferring to abstain until perhaps my vote might change he tally (but not sway the opinion) in a close call. Frankly this is one of those rare RfA where I would prefer to be reading the consensus rather than adding to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral, leaning support. Four years is long enough to forget a troubled history but as I'm trying to be on a Wikileave at the moment, I don't have time to do my usual research of his collaboration over the past 12 months - which is the period that really matters - and that's why I cant offer an objective vote in either of the other sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

APerson (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral - I've been researching and deliberating over this RfA for some time now but at the moment I honestly can't decide which way I should go. If it's a close call, I may come back towards the end and make a 'casting' vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. It comes as a shock and as the most pesky proponent for RfA, Admiship, and desysoping reform, I'm going to have to sit here and cogitate for a while. If I then move to another section I will do so late because I feel that this is one debate where everyone should speak for themselves and in this instance I do not think any pile-ons 'per Kudpung' would be helpful. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

GamerPro64 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral - On the positive side, GamerPro64 has exactly the kind of maturity, responsibility, trust, engagement, and composure that make an ideal admin. However, these qualities require the support of sufficient experience in admin related areas and unfortunately he does not meet my criteria on any of them. All admins learn a lot on the job, but most of us had an all-round, more-than-just-basic knowledge of most of the processes involved and were able to clearly demonstrate it, and show that in doing so our error rate was acceptably low. If this experience can be demonstrated over the next six months, and especially if the candidate reads WP:RFAADVICE, and although not mandatory, but as a courtesy to our readers and users make a slightly more comprehensive user page, I would certainly and wholeheartedly support another RfA . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

AlanM1 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. If one discounts all the bot messages, there is very little left in the candidate's talk page archives that is interaction. There is even less that demonstrates much in the way of getting seriously 'involved' in the running of the Wikipedia (beyond templates) that would denote sufficient experience or even a strong argument for the tools. Reasonably active admins are going to get involved in drama sooner or later, but although always courteous, there is no measure of how he would apply his judgement in slightly more contentious or controversial issues. The lack of work in deletions also gives me pause - Alan hasn't done anything wrong anywhere AFAICS, but he hasn't done enough of the right things in the right places for me to be able support this time round, and doesn't meet my criteria. More work in maintenance areas other than routine anti-vandalismsm and I would probably be able to support another time. NPP would be a good place to start and demonstrate a high accuracy of CSD, PROD, and AfD tagging - and equally reverting/declining some poorly calculated tags made by other patrollers, and the use of the NPP comment box to provide new page creatrors with tidbits of help and advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Arumpostasest (Unsuccessful, edits to page) There are enough opposes that it's quite obvious that this RfA won't pass. Admins are expected to have a fairly good knowledge of policies and guidelines, so apropos guidelines and advice pages, did you bother to read WP:RFAADVICE ? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

StringTheory11 (Successful, edits to page) Neutral. It's rare to find me in this section because I'm usually able to do enough research to place a clear !vote one way or the other. However, I must share the opinions in this section of two very experienced editors/admins, namely DGG and Dennis regarding concerns about deletions and AfD. I'm letting myself be influenced here because if it weren't for their going neutral, I would probably be !voting 'oppose'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. I'm not going to pile on. Suffice that I opposed the previous RfA and that I feel this one comes too hard on the heels of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oanabay04 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral - just not to pile on. I think there is a sufficient number of well expressed oppose votes already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

TCN7JM (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. I'm not going to pile on with an oppose here, but some of the answers to the questions give me pause, and I'm particularly concerned with the issues mentioned by WereSpielChequers. I'm heartened by the admission of earlier vandalism (once mentioned by Carrite) but this may demonstrate some unresolved issues of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral - I was asked 14 days ago if I would review this possible candidacy. Due to heavy commitments in RL I didn't get round to it but my advice would have been to wait a while longer until the issues mentioned in the oppose section had been addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Auric (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral leaning oppose because while I haven't done any research yet, I find the nomination statement insufficiently convincing and the answers to the questions significantly lacking in depth. I would have expected far more for a serious candidacy and from their nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Buster7 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral: Someone who wants admin tools has usually identified a clear area where they would be most useful and can demonstrate what they have done competently in those areas right up to the limit of not having the tools to complete the tasks; however I don't really see that here. I'm not confusing this with the sometimes perceived requirement to prove a need for the tools, but the answers to some of the questions are sufficient to give me pause. On the other hand, I can't find anything sufficiently egregious for me to want to oppose, so I'll stay here in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mattythewhite 2 (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - valid concerns have been expressed over AfD but not enough to make me want to oppose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

KumiokoCleanStart (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. I've met Kumioko and know him to be a dedicated Wikipedian with the best interests of the project at heart. I generally agree with most of what he has to say around the 'pedia, but I'm really just popping in here to put in an appearance and I will be staying in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Jason Quinn 2 (Successful, edits to page) Neutral. Basically as per Yunshui's oppose vote. I'm sorry, but you talked yourself out of any convincing reasons for wanting the mop before this RfA even got off the ground. Come back in a few months with a more compelling self-nom, or better still a recommendation from one or two established users, and I'll do the research I usually do. I'm pretty sure you will meet my criteria metrics and then I will be happy to support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkwind (Successful, edits to page) Neutral . Candidate hasn't done anything wrong as far as I can make out, but I need to see more experience in solid content work for someone who would have the power to police articles, and I need to see more interaction to evaluate the parts of adminship that don't actually need the the use of tools. There is support and opposition from editors who make valid points and whose judgement I trust, but they seem to have balanced each other out, so like Someguy1221, I'm caught in the middle. A change of focus with more emphasis on collaborative work in admin areas and I'll most likely support the next RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral . Very generally as per Scottywong and without prejudice to a re-run in the not too distant future. Possibly an over enthusiastic nomination that was accepted in good faith by an ill-prepared candidate. There is no doubt that Northamerica1000's experience would put him in the league of admin 'possibles', but more in-depth examination by the nominator, and self examination by the candidate and reading some of the the advice pages beforehand may have been more appropriate. The candidate has handled this RfA particularly well, but has responded to fairly obvious issues that could/should perhaps already have been identified and addressed before RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Gigs (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral - to avoid a pile-on. With the exception of this month, possible due to the participation in this RfA, Gigs' edits have averaged 49 in the last 12 months. While some RfA candidates in the past have have successfully claimed that the course of their editing could involve many uses of the admins tools, I don't see this as being the case here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral - avoiding a pile on in the other section. Like many enthusiastic new and/or younger editors Sprinter seems to believe that the path to recognition is by joining the project and jumping straight into maintenance areas with both feet. With only 3 edits to Wikipedia space he was transcluding his first RfA and he's been on my watchlist ever since. Just over a year ago he was asked to act with more maturity, after which he was indef banned from the GA process (although this was later modified). I was concerned over his unauthorised survey only 9 months ago, followed by the issues with his blocked alternative account. Problems with his use of AWB only 5 months ago followed by an application to be part of the RfBAG group gave me concern and only 3 months ago he gets blocked for messing about with bot business and appears to blame the tools for his errors. His 50 most recent AfD !votes match the closures only 33.3% of the time, and his NAC just 24 days ago, reverted by an admin and closed by another with a different conclusion, was far too complex for any NAC. Having !voted on 45 RfAs (matched the end result only 54.5% of the time) and reading all the advice pages, he should have been aware that this call for office is very much too soon. Although tutored by our most patient mentor I am convinced that there is still a significant maturity issue that only time rather than Wikipedia experience can address, and I can't see myself supporting another run for at least another 12 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ekabhishek (Successful, edits to page) Neutral. While I have no reason to believe Ekabhishek would misuse the tools, I need to see some significant work in meta areas where admins are expected to do plenty of research and use their judgement, especially on deletions. There are some valid comments in the oppose section, but I have no evidence on which I could oppose the candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral, Ryan is enthusiastic, his intentions are in the right place, and he generally makes intelligent and generally well reflected contributions to various discussions - many of which I appreciate - although this thread strikes me as being very slightly presumptive; it is however a year ago - I would hope that Ryan would check more on the background of users before engaging in such dialogue. However - and I may be completely wrong - his engagement in meta areas, especially on adminship issues, and the 'I would like to be an admin' userbox evokes a possible concern that he may have been working towards adminship since joining the project. While he has a total about nine months of truly solid, active editing, although the May issue is about a year old, it gives me pause. Some of the opposers make valid points, especially MelanieN . I am also concerned about the Youth Energy Summit!. I'm not going to oppose, but I cannot support due to the failure to meet points 16 & 20 of my criteria. With all due respect to the nominator, the fact that is is a 'neutral' vote! and neither an oppose nor a support, should not be taken as discouraging, and I hope that Ryan will continue to do great work. Should this RfA not meet the community's approval, I would nevertheless overlook those points in my criteria if there is an improvement over the next six months, when I would be happy to support a re-run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertyus 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. I almost made an oppose vote very early in this RfA and the rationale would have been very much on the lines of what many other opposers have since voiced. There's no need for me to pile on now, but I would just like to record my presence here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Richardcavell 3 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral (not leaning either way). RfA is not just a question of ticking all the items on one's/my list of criteria. It also involves evaluating the candidate's participation, motivation, and need. As I'm completely undecided, I've been looking at the rationales of those who have voted one way or another - something I generally do not take much into account. There are some big guns in the 'support ' section whose opinions I always respect. However, there are some opposers whose work in Wiki project space I also hold in high esteem. After following this RfA since it started, I still can't make my mind up, and in any case a vote now won't change the outcome. I hope Richard will continue to do great work in the knowledge that there are always admins around whose opinions he can seek if he feels a button ought to be pressed somewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

TParis 2 (Successful, edits to page) Neutral. This is a truly neutral comment and is not to be interpreted as a 'weak oppose'. I am recusing myself from !voting 'support' or 'oppose' because although I very much appreciate the comments in the nomination statement, I would not wish the community to assume it had influenced my opinion on the candidate. However, there is strong support from regular experienced RfA participants, and the oppose rationales are unconvincing. I'm sure the community will reach the right consensus, and the closing bureaucrat will summarise accordingly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

RHM22 (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - (Moved from 'Oppose'). I've had another very long think about this, and although the candidate does not meet my criteria, in this particular case, trust trumps them all sufficiently for me to move here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutralhomer (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral − I've never come across you or your work (contentious areas have never been my haunts) and there is nothing personal in my not supporting. However, while on several points you do not meet my my criteria for a pass mark this time, I will not pile on with an 'oppose' !vote. I'm sure that when a few months more have elapsed and you have taken all the advice on board, I will be able to offer my support next time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Neelix (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - moved from 'Oppose'. User talk:Keepscases question #13 impresses me - although I don't generally ask questions, it's one I've often pondered asking at RfA, and I'm disappointed in your answer. However, in view of the support you have, I have now been able to review a lot more of your contributions, and I no longer see a reason to oppose, so I'm moving here. The comments in my oppose statement still stand, and I hope you will take them into consideration in good faith, in your work as an admin. Kudpung (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ctjf83 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral - The candidate has my full sympathy for their RfA being turned into yet another RfA fiasco for off-topic reasons, by participants who should keep their innuendos out of the trick questions they pose, and take their opinions and comments to the appropriate talk pages. But an NAC 15-hour-early supervote close of an evenly-balanced discussion so close to, or during a candidate's RfA, clearly shows that the candidate cannot yet be relied on to exercise due care when carrying out the kind of admin tasks that require a mature sense of judgement. If the candidate had not got involved in this AfD (of which incidentally I was the nominator, although I don't personally care which way it goes) they would have had my clear support !vote. --Kudpung (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cprice1000 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral to avoid pile on. Best advice I can give in addition to the others, is to take a good look at the failed and successful RfA throughout 2010 and see what you are up against. It might might take much more than 4,000 edits to get it right. Kudpung (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Guoguo12 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral I cannot find any negative reasons to oppose, but I do feel that the candidate would benefit from more all-round experience and more participation in Wikipedia semi-admin areas (particularly, but not only, AfD) before being ready for the mop. Kudpung (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

TheCatalyst31 (Successful, edits to page) Neutral. I think there is far too much fuss being made out of the Q4, it's typical of the pile-on opposes that the so-called 'optional' questions section spawns. However, I generally expect sufficient content building in order to be convinced of an understanding of basic policy concerning article production, and I don't think that 3 short GAs with 23 - 35 edits each, and 2,500 one-line settlement stubs really do it.--Kudpung (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Alansohn 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral because there is little to be gained by adding to the pile-on 'opposes' , and BrownHairedGirl's comment above summarises the situation well. Nevertheless, the comments of those who have cited lack of collaboration/communication, and blocks, appear to be well founded. Even if the civility issues are borderline, they are frequent enough to suggest that the pattern of communication may only tone down after a period of concentrated effort. The high edit count is not a qualification - a gnome who has made 15,000 'contributory' edits to article space that take 20 minutes each, or who even prepares longer edits /articles in their user space or offline, has done as much or even more for the encyclopedia as a vandal fighter using a software solution to make 150,000 edits at the rate of 20 a minute. As long as it's not just a 'beat the bot' exercise, the candidate is already providing a vital contribution without the tools, and when he has had the patience to diversify, and make edits and decisions that take more time, and that will demonstrate a clearer understanding of some of the core policies, that will be the time when the next RfA will succeed.--Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Connormah 3 (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - I'll be overly fussy again, but a bit less severe: I !voted oppose last time based on lack of understanding of the need for his own recent unreferenceed BLP stubs to set an example to others, and the fact that he promises to do everything right if he is promoted. I still say that admins should be a role model and a breezy six weeks down the line isn't enough to convince me of a change. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though, and assume he is in the process of improving, and I move from oppose from last time to neutral this time. And please note that neutral is neutral - it's not a weak oppose.--Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mandsford (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - Just so that we are quite sure:to me neutral is neutral- it's not a 'weak oppose'. My first thought was: all one needs to do to become a sysop is to choose a single domain of maintenance and stick with it until one has accumulated enough edits to run for office. That might be true, but I find the candidate's AfD comments a tad too inconsistent - but that may be due to a lack of my own experience at AfD. A very one-sided pie chart. I can't honestly see how the tools would be an enormous advantage to him except for occasional admin closures. He certainly probably knows all about deletion policy - but what does he know about the rest of the areas where admins are expected to use the tools once they've been given them? I don't see a great model of civiity on his talk page, but perhaps I just hit the wrong archives. I see no reasons strong enough to oppose whatsoever, but I see no special reasons to support either.--Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thumperward 3 (Successful, edits to page) Neutral. I've come across Thumperward many times, and while the edits are generally good, I too notice a tad too much drama to make me comfortable enough to enter a 'support' !vote. However, do remember that 'Neutral' is definitely not an 'oppose' either.--Kudpung (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Waldir (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - After going through the usual checks, and leaving the candidates's user pages till last, my optimism was marred on discovering that discussions on their talk page are in some other language.--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bradjamesbrown (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - far too many Huggle edits out of a relatively low edit count. Too short a time as a regular editor. Too little article building. But shows promise. --Kudpung (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Shirik (Successful, edits to page) Neutral As per User:Immunize. There seems to be a reasonable balance (but not quantity) between main page contribs and discussion about them, but there is a big difference between the time people have been users, the number of months in which they have made an edit, and the number of months that demonstrate a regular, stable commitment to the maintenance jobs that can already be done without admin tools. --Kudpung (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Blurpeace (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - Basically as per Shadowjams oppose, but not enough for me to oppose at this stage. Blurpeace has only contributed four short creations and they are not altogether of a quality and/or significance I would expect from a (future) sysop, and many of his/her other main space contribs seem to be small, minority edits. With just over 5k edits, I think maybe a more balanced contribution profile would be preferable. I'm also wary of RfA candidates (or contributors in any kind of debate) regularly following the opinions of others; it might look to some is if the candidate is trying to curry favour with a sysop. I may of course (hopefully) be completely wrong, but the possibility is staring me in the face. Finally, although it is totally optional, I feel that an admin should be prepared to be a bit more open on his/her user page - one short line and four neutral userboxes do not convey enough for me to know with whom I am dealing and to establish confidence.-Kudpung (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jamesofur (Successful, edits to page) Neutral - I am firmly against high edit counts as being regarded as a path to adminship, but I have seen a lot of RfAs from really experienced users fail, so I think a bit more all round experience is needed here. --Kudpung (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanchardb 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Neutral. I'm totally opposed to people getting the mop & bucket based on a very high edit count of which a significant number are automated or semi automated, because it smacks of drive-past tagging. Nevertheless, the inevitable collateral damage by such a high edit count in his case seems to have been proportionately very low, and I think l we need more of this kind of janitor. I think Blanchard needs to be given time to demonstrate that he better understands the principles of CSD,and reflects for a few seconds longer before pressing his buttons.. --Kudpung (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unknown

These are RfAs/RfBs that the user has edited, but the tool was unable to parse a vote for.

力 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Evad37 (Successful, edits to page) Sir Sputnik (Successful, edits to page) Robert McClenon 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Vin09 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Ferret (Successful, edits to page) Supdiop (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Nrwairport (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Addshore (RfB, Successful, edits to page) Jasper Deng (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Writ Keeper (Successful, edits to page) Keelan717 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Jc37 (RfB, Unsuccessful, edits to page) Secret 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Reaper Eternal (Successful, edits to page) Guoguo12 2 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Ttonyb1 (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Moxy (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Kudpung (Successful, edits to page) Rami R 2 (Successful, edits to page) The Arbiter (Unsuccessful, edits to page) Diannaa (Successful, edits to page)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Kudpung/sandbox&oldid=1265446370"