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

FINAL (98/2/0); Scheduled to end 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) - I've seen this user fight vandalism as well as doing some mainspace edits. Recently, I've seen him/her make lots of constructive page moves by correcting spelling/grammar on the name of articles. So ladies and gentlemen, it's time to vote for Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry! NHRHS2010 talk 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: Quite simply, anything and everything I can get my teeth into. It irks me somewhat that some important pages have huge backlogs, whereas other pages and tasks - such as WP:AIV - are frequently cleaned. I think part of the burden of adminship is having to curtail editing of your 'favourite' articles, in order to help with the arduous day-to-day tasks that need fulfilling in order for the project to flourish. That said, WP:ANI has recently become something of a haunt of mine, and WP:AIV is still a key area that needs constant supervision.

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

A: Hmm. Sadly, I think I'm stronger on the 'upkeep' side of things, and in any case my memory is rather poor! I've made some decent 'meaty' edits recently, however - take the series of articles surrounding Korean People's Navy, for example. My first decent foray into creating templates was on this series of articles, and seeing as navies are my specialist subject, I also cleaned up List of active North Korean ships, and added a fair bit to Sariwon class corvette, created Sang-O class submarine, Soho class frigate and Najin class frigate - granted these are all stubs, but I've tried to keep it down to the bear minimum of information that can be accurately sourced. Which, as you can imagine for the North Korean Navy, is practically nothing!

I feel I should mention here a recent foray into meatspace which I made: Cmhoadley (talk · contribs), and a host of other newly created accounts, created articles on non-notable professors. Perhaps twenty or so articles. I tagged one or two for speedy deletion, and notified the users concerned. The speedies - and an AFD in one case - went by with nary a murmur from the community. It had been notified at WP:ANI that a possible CoI 'attack' was in progress, however; and I participated in the discussion.

A few days later I received an email from Mr Hoadley, stating that me using the term 'meatpuppet' was offensive, and that I should really apologise. I sent him back a firm email explaining that no harm was meant, and that the term was accepted as a piece of 'lingo' in Wikipedia, albeit an easily misunderstood one. Mr Hoadley emailed me back apologising, and we got a rapport going. Apparently, his students were creating the articles, and had become disillusioned by their Wikipedia experience. I offered to write an open letter to the class, explaining what had happened and that no harm was meant and offering my advice and guidance, as well as the help of any other editor they may care to ask. Mr Hoadley asked if instead I would consider doing a talk on Wikipedia, its ethos, how I got involved in it, etc; to a class of 20 or so graduate students at Penn State University.

I accepted, prepared one or two quick wikilinks, and launched into a 90 minute long question and answer session mentioning everything from Wikipedia in the PRC to the conflict of interest issues, to the key idea that Wikipedia is a community. The talk was well-received - not bad for my first public talk - and I think that perhaps, this is my best contribution to Wikipedia. One that involved no physical edits, just a willingness to get involved. As far as I am aware, the students are still happily editing Wikipedia. _{I will endeavour to contact them - or Mr Hoadley - if required, although DGG (talk · contribs) and my autograph book (linked to on my userpage) should confirm this!}

Q2a I can confirm that you did what you said, but I am not sure that the result was optimal; per [1], and [2], and private communications, the students have been mostly blanking their pages, and the instructor seems to have received very negative feedback from his administrators. Nor am I sure my own part in the matter was optimal. The department seems to be under of the impression that someone from WP officially complained abut the instructors behavior, How do you think these situations might be better handled?DGG (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: You're right - it wasn't optimal. The issue of potential COI vandalism got reported to the University, which in turn got through to several important professors, who are no pressuring the class and students not to edit their articles, as "only I should edit them". I think the best way to solve this would have been to nip it in the bud. Perhaps when users sign up, they should be presented with a page asking them if they are from a business, a school, etc; they can then be directed to a simple page telling them three (or about three) basic rules, and a template that should be added to their page. One of the main issues we discovered here was that so many important pages are hidden away. We need to make Wikipedia clear and easy to understand for new users - especially those from businesses or schools. In that way, we can cut out well-meaning COI and NN articles from both sources, and make sure that they become postive editors. Regarding this, I've since spoken to Mr Hoadley, and assured him that his student can continue editing under personal accounts should they wish Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: Ah. Several hundred, mostly debating with newer/single purpose accounts. Originally I was brusque (although not rude), as back then I tended to view any users that might have had a conflict of interest with the utmost suspicion. I think that quite a few of us have done this at some point in our editing careers! About a year ago, however, I discovered that although it takes more time and more effort, you get a much better response off people if you explain to them in real terms, and simple language, exactly what is happening and why the decision has been made.

This works with long-standing users too. Assuming Good Faith is a rule that thousands of us - administrators included - fall afoul of, and it's too easy in some respects to simple slap templates on a non-notable band page, block the user, and alienate him from Wikipedia totally, or start off an edit war with another long-standing user.

Now to answer the question: Currently, I use a mixture of templates and explanations for new users. For more experienced editors, I enter into a discussion, and unless anyone else pipes up about the problems, I'll generally back down.

Optional questions from Mr.Z-man - Please answer as if you were an admin. Mr.Z-man 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. A user, indefblocked for creating hoax articles is requesting unblock with the reason: "If people don't like it, I won't create hoax articles." What do you do and why?

A. I leave him blocked, with the suggestion that he reads the rules and creates a new account. He would have been warned after his first hoax (uw-4 is needed to justify a block of this sort really). I'm all for assuming good faith, but I also know that when the line is drawn, it has to be drawn firmly. In response: if the articles were malicious and not very obvious, then the user needs to stay blocked, as he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand what an encyclopaedia is and is not.

5. An admin deletes an article with the reason: "CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material" and another admin undeletes it with the reason: "deletion was neither discussed nor justified" because the AFD was 6 months ago, SNOW closed in less than a day, and many of the AFD concerns were addressed in the newest version. The article is a list of notable people who have taken a certain type of drug, most of it is not sourced. What is your general opinion of the situation and what would you do?

A. It sounds to me as if the admin who G4d the article may not have read into the history of the article before he or she deleted it. The article itself can probably be salvaged, as long as it's well-sourced (shades of WP:BLP creep in here). The key wording in the deletion policy here is that the article can be G4ed, "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." As a.) The article is not substantially identical to the original, and b.) The changes to the article in the meantime at least make a token effort to improve upon the previous version; the undeleting admin is firmly in the right here. My actions: Inform the G4 admin of the situation, and suggest that an AfD may be more appropriate if they still feel it's not important. Then inform the undeleting admin of the discussion, as a matter of courtesy!

6. Can you explain why you made this page for deletion? Do you think we should delete an article after we've merged the content somewhere? (hint: we almost never do, I don't want this to sound like a trick question) --W.marsh 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: In this example, the article was about a (in my estimation) non-notable subject. The article did have some meaningful content, however, so I was reluctant to speedy it outright, especially as the user who created it obviously cared greatly about the subject, and was only trying to help. I'm never keen on being bold about subjects I know little or nothing about, however, and the notability guidelines for "video game character attack moves" are hazy at best. An AfD, in my opinion, was the best way to go after a disputed prod, as a 'merge' template would likely have gone unnoticed for several months, leaving a not-notable orphaned article with poor formatting and no sources floating around in the ether. An AfD got the job done quickly, with consensus, and with the backup of an AfD if it got recreated after being deleted.

7 If you get promoted, would you be open to re-call? Explain why or why not. Thanks for your time.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: Could you clarify this for me? I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to - my job? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get promoted to adminship will you be open to recall. Thanks for your time:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 23:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you place youself open to recall, you are open to resign your administrator flag here if a required number of users come and ask you to do so. See WP:RECALL. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Yes, I would be open to recall. I don't think that adminship is a promotion; which is I think why I got confused! I think ideally I'd like another admin to put forward the nomination, or what seems to be the standard of 'six requests from users with more than 500 edits/six months of space'. Adminship is a badge presented by the community, and I don't see any reason why the community shouldn't take it away again if they request it. The 'threshold' is there to make sure that any requests for me to step down would be in good faith, and truly the wishes of the community at large.

8. As an administrator, you will be tasked to enforce regulations, by blocking if needed. How will you enforce naming regulations because you're name is longer than the recommended length. Will you abide by the rules that you enforce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WP2007 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: In my line of (real-life) work, things like this pop up from time to time. I will happily abide by the rules which I enforce - if there is a perceived problem with my username, I will change it. I believe the ruleset allows my username quite happily, however, and I can't envisage any circumstance in which a username with 30-35 characters (like mine) is the sole reason for a block. It'd be much better to deal with it by friendly discussion with the user, and occasionally calling in other policies as required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 06:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 04:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: It's set out at WP:BP, and it's one I fully support and adhere to totally. I "...should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator... it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator.". If they refuse to participate, or are unable to do so - or if it's something I vehemently disagree with - I'll take it to WP:AN, although in most circumstances I imagine that I'd be happy to let the block stand.

10. I like your username. You mentioned past accounts. [3] Did you switch for branding, or was there some other reason, or no reason at all? - Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Thankyou! To everyone who has commented on it - good and bad! My old username is my hotmail address, plus my username on practically everything else - myspace and the like. I didn't want the two worlds to collide, for privacy reasons and reasons of possible vandalism! There was no specific reason for the new one, but I felt a new name was required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. A user comes to you to tell you that an AFD you closed as keep is for an article that is a recreation of an article previously deleted by AFD, and recently salted as the result of a DRV discussion. Nobody had mentioned this during the AFD. Looking, you see that the article was also created by a sockpuppet of an account participating in the DRV, clearly at a time they were very angry. That is the only contribution of the puppet (puppetry obvious from username.) What action(s) should be taken? GRBerry 06:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: If the page has been salted, how was the new article created? It's my understanding that if a page is deleted and salted, it can't be re-created by anyone other than an administrator who can unlock the page. Am I missing something out here? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we rarely salt all possible title combinations. In this case, the old article was under an artists plume-de-nom, the new one at the artists real name (which wasn't mentioned in the old article). This example is a slight variation on a real situation discovered last night. -- GRBerry (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry before commenting.

• Question #5 makes me think of this for some odd reason. Not really sure why. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that perhaps if one use was willing to chaperone the article, it might be ok - WJBscribe (talk · contribs) makes a perfect point, however. The article would need to be accurately sourced - it might be a project one day for the future, perhaps. It'd need an awful lot of work however. Perhaps it's akin to communism or the like - a sound idea, but would it work in practice? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just noticed how my three category edits listed on the talk page are all from Category:Russian porn stars... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support as nominator. NHRHS2010 talk 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I have a high opinion of this editor, and believe he would make an excellent admin. Good luck! Heather 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I have only seen positives from this user's contributions and interactions with others and they look well rounded. TigerShark 00:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. the_undertow ^talk 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I like the cut of your jib. Jtrainor 01:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong Support Why hello there Chase me ladies! I actually thought you were an admin, until I installed Hodgepodge, and was quite surprised not to find your name highlighted in cyan! Anyway, you routinely make well-thought-out comments in AfD discussions and you clearly know policy well. I can't find any reason NOT to support! NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, yes. Will ^(talk) 01:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Absolutely a great editor. With regards to question 4, if you expect to a user to create a new account better make sure that the "prevent account creation" option isn't in place (just a technical detail, not a hesitation of any kind). Apart from that, big thumbs up! — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You're right Daniel, and I did think of that - I didn't mention it however, as I've got a tendency to overexplain things! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support I thought you were already an admin! You're more than deserving of the admin tools. Bon courage! Icestorm815 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Definitely knowledgeable, no evidence to suggest he's untrustworthy. Go get 'em! VanTucky ^Talk 01:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Of course, excellent in NP patrol This is a Secret ^account 02:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - he's beaten me to the punch a number of times while on NP Patrol and has a good history. No reason not to support. --tennisman 03:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support I've seen this user in several places around the 'pedia, always contributing constructively. Good luck! GlassCobra 03:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support Just looking through his list of edit's, and answers to his questions, I can tell he'll be a great administrator. --businessman332211 03:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support primarily because I love your name (kidding). Never noticed any issues from you. Answer to question 5 is fine (with regard to deletion policy), though, as Z-man has noted, you would also need to address any BLP concerns by immediately excising anything that isn't fully sourced. I'm sure you're aware of that and just forgot to mention it, but nevertheless, important to remember. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. I Hereby SUPPORT this nomination. Maser ^(Talk!) 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Thousands of edits and years of experience makes this user a great choice (although not guaranteed).--Astroview120mm 05:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Love the name! Viridae^Talk 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support No concerns here. Happy to give my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Worst. Name. Evar! - great candidate, though. Helpful, kind, non-BITEy. Should make a fine admin. (PS: WP:CHU is just down the hall ;) ) - Alison ^❤ 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. What? Wow! I was seriously thinking of nominating you the other day! No joke! You seem calm, rational, smart, and, civil. And, from our interaction the other day, you're good at explaining things :) SQL^{Query me!} 06:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Good work, seems trustworthy. Pigman^what?/trail 07:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Chase the vandals, you'll soon be admin! :P Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Offered to nom a while back. Wait, no I didn't. Why not? *slaps forehead* Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support only ever seen sensible and constructive contributions from this editor, and will make a fine admin. Bencherlite^Talk 09:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support A hefty edit count but not only that; the experience and question answers also demonstrate a well-qualified contributor who understands. Phgao 11:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per Alison but also with Alison on the name:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. I've seen this user around a bit, doing good work, showing good use of policy. --Bradeos Graphon 15:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. I'm SJP, and I support this message:) Good luck!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 15:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Good work all around. Good luck. — Jack (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Strong Support and don't listen to the people complaining about your name, as I rather like it. Incidentally, as a member of the Officers Training Corps myself, I have the highest respect and appreciation for the British Armed Forces and everything you're doing to keep this great country safe. Plus, you're a well-regarded editor who will make a good admin, as per everyone's comments above. Walton^One 17:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody's complaining (hence the smileys). I think the candidate knows me well enough to know that, too ;) Hence this comment last August - Alison ^❤ 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

34. Over and Out - Roger that above. Rudget _zŋ 17:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support I've seen the Cavalry ride through and make short work of vandals. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - I've seen a consistently high caliber of contribution from this user, and have an extremely high level of trust. Would be a definite asset. - Philippe | Talk 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Wah! What an ingenious username!! Should I ever request another username change, I'm going to ask you to choose for me. Regarding the rest of the issues: Seems pretty much in order. — Dorftrottel⁠ 19:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support I often saw this user. We need your help on WP:AIV.Carlosguitar 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oh hell yes per excellent and well-reasoned work at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong Support I have seen this user make incredible changes to Wikipedia, this user will undoubtedly make and Excellent Admin. TOL 20:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. I keep seeing this user pop up at WP:AIV - good stuff. And awesome name. Neil ☎ 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Yup, good user, great at AIV - also I've checked your AfD comments and fined you to be a great help there. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Seen good things at AIV, appears unlikely to use the mop other than as intended. LessHeard vanU 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Good AIV work. Simply brilliant. Twenty Years 04:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Nothing to make me oppose. Mr.Z-man 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Good man, good speller, good contributer, and soon to be good admin from the looks of it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support First off, like other users mentioned, your user name is amazing and everywhere I see it, it makes me crack a smile. Looks like a great nomination, understands policies, and I like to see editors go above and beyond the call of duty for Wikipedia. I think it may be snowing ;-)
    Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Thought you were already an admin Support Lara❤Love 07:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Chased the some of the same vandals. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support without hesitation, and a fantastic username to boot! --TeaDrinker 18:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Seen him around, helps out with image issues, good attitude, killer username. Give that man a mop! -- But|seriously|folks  18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support--MONGO 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. From a fellow user who has one of the "best usernames on Wikipedia". :) Acalamari 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Another "I thought you were already an admin." Better make it official.  :)  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Okay. Jmlk17 05:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support I've only had positive interactions with Chase. And, gotta love the user name. -- Jreferee t/c 08:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Heh... per Gaillimh below :p --D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - yet another fine candidate! Love the user name - always nice to see a bit of individuality! Good luck ;-) Lradrama 10:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - good answer to question 10. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - Another fine RFA. Happy to support, and love the Username! Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 14:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - Good tone in comments, nice attitude towards noobs; a worthy wielder of the mop-and-bucket. --Orange Mike 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Strong support - fantastically useful at XfD's, helpful attitude, great editor, can be trusted. Bearian 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support See this user around a lot, he's trustworthy--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support (& thought was admin) Thoughtful answers to the questions. The whole PSU issue seems to strongly imply a responsible editor who can be trusted with a mop. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support (and, yeah, also thought was admin)... I have seen this user's intelligent, thoughtful and useful contributions in many places around Wikipedia and I know his work is based on a solid understanding of Wikipedia's underlying principles. He will use the tools well. Accounting4Taste 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. I really like how well the candidate has responded to various concerns. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose because all the ladies are chasing him and not me. Hmph. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support, because he's the cavalry, of course. And a trusted, experienced editor to boot. --krimpet⟲ 08:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support More than qualified. Spellcast 08:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, very level-headed editor with an excellent record who handles disputes very well - I lent a helping hand with one of those SPAs mentioned above and appreciated this editor's calm demeanor and patient resolve. Dreadstar † 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support , I have seen this editor around a lot in the short time I have been editing and have been impressed with the thoughtfulness of his contributions particularly when dealing with problematic/sensitive situations (and like many others I am surprised to find that he is not already an admin) nancy 15:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support -- current opposes are completly without merit --T-rex 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support -- prodigious editor, very well versed in policy, handles himself well in difficult interactions. I am sure he will do very well with the tools. Into The Fray ^T/C 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Dealing well with somewhat absurd difficulties here is a good sign. DGG (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Knows what he is doing and does it well. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support I have seen him around and seems OK. Carlossuarez46 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Yup. We need more sane people wielding mops. Doesn't take himself too seriously, which is always a good sign. Raymond Arritt 06:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Does good work; will make an ideal admin. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support per all of the above, but especially because of his excellent user name. AniMate 09:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. GarryOwen⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Spank me vandals I'm an admin. Thought I'd already added my input here. Based on previous interaction and some stunning input at AFD plus per the above. Pedro :  Chat  16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support — Save_Us_229 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support. Was kind enough to welcome me to Wikipedia and answer my questions. David Sher 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Bleh. I was going to nominate this user in about a month's time. I also have to say that I'm impressed by the degree of maturity shown by CML's willingness to change his username upon learning that someone else found it genuinely offensive. (Yes, this is my support.) DS 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - Sensible and level headed, will wield the mop well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs)
88. Support. Good understanding of process, both how it's supposed to work and how it actually works. No reservations whatsoever. The name just adds that much more win. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. A very active editor who has been seen all around the encyclopedia. Excellent contributor. Marlith ^T/C 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support; I doubt this user would abuse admin tools and their work so far has been exemplary. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Excellent candidate should make for a fine sysop.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support him ladies, He's the Cavalry Wizardman 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Per Wizardman (even if I am male). —Animum _{(a rag man)} 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. Good contribs to the community and well thought out answers. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support AV admins are always wanted. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support, Seems a well versed and a seasoned contributor. Modernist 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Seems very adept at protecting the project, and AIV is always getting backlogged, so he can help there. • Lawrence Cohen 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV gets backlogged because of the outstanding work of vandal fighters like CM,L,ITC (um... and the vandals, I guess.) Making him sysop works both ends of the shift! ;~) -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

98. Slade (TheJoker) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why would one chase the calvary? Seems as though one would either be running away or cheering on from a safe distance, no? gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This is the best oppose I've seen this month. (It may also be the most valid as well.) the_undertow ^talk 07:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It might have something to do with Harry Hutton's humour website 'chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry'.Nick mallory 10:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Why are you opposing? Will you tell us why? We would love to hear your reasons:) Cheers!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 10:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Aside One of the best user names I've seen. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Harry Hutton's website I have found since changing username, but I assure you that the inspiration for this name was individually mine! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I request that this oppose be struck from the record. I have asked the user for a reason, I feel unless he provides a reason that doesn't resemble a joke that it be struck. However, I am stating my opinion, not a formal request. If you feel that it was misplaced or there was something I did not understand and/or missed, then feel free to ignore I said this. I just think in the issue of fairness it would be best (unless a reason is stated, or even no reason. I just feel a solely joke sounding reason is better to suppose it's not serious. --businessman332211 17:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The comment will be taken into consideration at closure. If the user cares to clarify or respond to your request, so be it. However, I see no reason that the comment need be stricken. It's certainly unhelpful, but only the editor placing the comment should strike it, should he/she deem it necessary. the_undertow ^talk 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm Ok with the comment staying regardless if it was a joke or not. An unopposed RfA is a sad sight indeed. It means that none of you are looking hard enough for my bad sides! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm looking as hard as I can - but your edit history might as well be made of sand for the good it'll do me! PatrickSW 21:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi all! Come now, we cannot reasonably expect a bureaucrat to factor in my own meager participation into his or her final decision. Just a bit o' wit, really. Nothing sinister, hehe. Cheers fellows! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not so much fussed about the oppose, but I would most urgently like to know what a calvary is, a nursery for young cows, perhaps? Or perhaps this merely demonstrates Gaillimh's sub-conscious desire to (figuratively?) crucify the candidate. I'm at a loss. Ronnotel 15:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   weak oppose too many declined speedy deletion taggings just in the past few days [4], [5], [6]... a bit of unfamiliarity suggested by his answer to my question. Articles for deletion isn't articles for merging. I just think the candidate needs some more experience. --W.marsh 23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to clarify on this: I put it forward for AfD because I wasn't sure if the article should be merged, or deleted outright. I was leaning about 60% towards outright deletion. I understand your point about the speedies - several have been declined, although I think compared to the ones which have been approved, it's an acceptable 'margin of error'! I'll be more careful in future. Thanks for the advice :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This opposition does not sit well with me. El_C 12:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Opposition withdrawn after closure (I was away). El_C 09:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely - that Oppose vote was utterly pointless and helped to sink a good candidate's RfA. However, I don't see that this is enough reason to oppose this candidate at RfA, as getting the admin tools won't affect his influence on the promotion of other admins. (If this were RfB, it would be a different matter.) Walton^One 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty rough assertion. I find the oppose valid. I look at overall characteristics of an admin - not just if they will abuse the tools or not. If the writer of an essay believes that Wikipedia is X, then he or she may treat it as such. If the comment was 'utterly useless,' it could not have help sink anything, as it would have been of no use. the_undertow ^talk 23:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it was quite 'pointless' - having re-read it, however, I realise I may not have explained fully enough - that was bad of me, I know. I am generally unnerved by opinions making their way into Wikipedia. I was worried in this case that if the user feels it necessary to commit their opinions - however well-meant - to paper, even in userspace as an essay, that there is a chance that these opinions are strong enough to migrate into the user's decision-making processes. In any case, thanks for the comment, One - I'll be more careful in future, as RfAs do mean a lot to some people. Thanks again! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It came across as too US-centric, and possibly, even intolerant. I think that someone whose profession involves operating and/or conducting the operation of instruments of death (and, for better or worse, I know a thing or two about that), should be more sensitive and diplomatic in this and similar extensions. Take for example my user page, now that is understated subtlety! El_C 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point; however I did not mean to come across as US-centric. I'm in the UK, don't forget! I think that comparing Wikipedia to Communism (which is an oversimplification at best), especially seeing that the majority of Wikipedians have a bad experience of communism, is a poor analogy, and one that we really should avoid making. I have found in my experience that comparing anything to anything is almost always a gross oversimplification, and badying around terms like 'communism' is as offensive to some people as 'fascism'. It's not something that should be done unless you have the experience of what communism is! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that level I agree with you, and have accordingly struck my comments above. I apologise for calling your reasoning pointless (and note that I have supported this RfA). Walton^One 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. OpposeIt's my personal opinion, and I am aware other females may feel in a different way, but as a female editor, I take his or her user name annoying. I feel sexually harassed, honestly. Unless he or she changes it, I strongly oppose his or her promotion. --Aphaia 12:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry you feel that way - the name certainly isn't meant to be sexually harassing in any way, and it's concerned me that it may have come across like that. It's meant as a light-hearted play on the idea of a 'dashing cavalry officer' - as I'm an officer myself, I find the stereotype of a 'dashing cavalry officer' to be rather amusing and (sadly) completely untrue, as women certainly don't swoon at the sight of me! If it would make you feel less threatened, I'll happily change it to 'Chase me, I'm the Cavalry', if you think that'd be better. I'll wait until after this RFA is over to complete the Changing Username process, in order to keep everything neat and tidy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 14:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for your consideration. Your proposed alternative seems less offensive to me. I'd put trust on your words, paying respect the support you enjoyed in which I found those who I trust profoundly, and therefore withdraw my objection. --Aphaia 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I also find your username to be, well, annoying. I wouldn't say it's offensive, or that I feel threatened. Maybe it's that I just don't like being told what to do. (Am I supposed to "chase" you now?) And the word "ladies" can be a charged word, depending on who you talk to. I respect the fact that you don't mean to be offensive or annoying, and thank you for explaining your position in a friendly manner, without dismissing Aphaia's opinion. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So dozens of congratulatory messages on a wonderful username, and the nominee is being told he should change it because one person finds it offensive. If Wikipedia worked that way, then there'd be a high likelihood that every single editor would have to change their username, repeatedly forever. Besides, we all know the "comment" isn't aimed at you - the typical Wikipedia editor looks like Simon Weston anyway. PatrickSW 15:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment. While I see the point in general, given that Aphaia is a Greek deity of fertility, I'm surprised that she specifically is against names with sexual overtones. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I would add, I came from the land US Marine people raped 12 year old girl and thus sensitive this kind of things. Besides that, I hope sexuality should be treated in its dignity - not joking, particularly in the public place. That is partly why numerous Internet community drives female participants. As for Greek cult of fertility, if you think it only sort of jest, you wouldn't understand it.

   I believe you find the user name to be sexually 'charged' or 'offensive' but harassment is an active behavior, not a passive one. You can't voluntarily stroll by this RfA and claim to feel sexually harassed. It is a HUGE accusation and is not something used in passing conversation. I do not suggest the user change his name. I also suggest that the accusation be amended, as it is logically impossible to be harassed when you have been shown zero unwanted sexual advances. the_undertow ^talk 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Outrageous username – excessive in length, inconvenient, churlish, infantile. Administrators sporting such generally turn out to be Xtremely Rouge bullies who torment and bite newbies and drive established users off the project while conniving with the forces of evil!! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   We do have a highly respected user called Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) who has a more outragoes name. You also have a very long name that might breach the username policy (Don't name yourself after famous people, he might be fictional but he's still famous). What about Hit bull, Win streak who recently gained adminship? He's got an outragoes username--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't mean to be the one that spoils the joke, but... *clears throat* —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, I thought so but I wasn't sure. We've been having a debate on irc as to whether it was a joke for the past five minuites....--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Here's a cough drop, bbatsell. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   On a totally unrelated note, I wonder what would happen if User:Evil Clown and User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me ever met?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Presumably one would go sleepless, and the other would... oh, never mind. Raymond Arritt 06:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Nick, I have a question for you. Do you have any other reasons to oppose, or is this it? If you have other reasons, please share them. Cheers!--SJP 04:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe that Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's oppose was to be ironical ;) the_undertow ^talk 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't worry about him, Mimsy's insane...:) --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. This guy is simply an antivandeliser. Anyone can do that, the last thing we need is another anti-vendilism administrator.--PackersFan79 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   PackersFan79, this seems like a genuine oppose !vote so I'm adjusting the formatting so it will be counted properly. Apologies if I have misunderstood. Ronnotel 15:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Whether User:PackersFan79 can really oppose on this basis, given his/her contributions to date (which I see have yet to lead to any warnings, remarkably) is another matter. Oh the irony... Bencherlite^Talk 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the heads-up. That situation has been remedied. Raymond Arritt 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Oppose indented accordingly. -- Acalamari 17:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Answer to question 4 is good, but answer to 5 is a bit lacking. A "list of notable people who have taken a certain type of drug" is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. G4 may not apply, but common sense/WP:BLP does. Mr.Z-man 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to support after consideration. Mr.Z-man 05:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tell you that there is no question 6 yet. NHRHS2010 talk 02:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, I meant 5. Mr.Z-man 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify about question five - I was recommending taking it to AfD, and not re-instating the article! Obviously I don't have the best grasp of every single policy, but there will be editors participating in an AfD who will have a good grasp. Taking it to discussion is always a good idea, as you get a final decision either way, and editors with experience can offer solutions that the involved admins may not have thought of. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral until the editor turns on the facility to force the adding of edit summaries; communication is vital in the role of admin. Once this happens this editor has my whole hearted support (which isn't important - but edit summaries are!).LessHeard vanU 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Switch to support per response below. LessHeard vanU 01:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are going to have to be something I improve upon. I will go and switch on the option now that you've reminded me of it :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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