(46/4/0) ending 17:38 1 September 2005 (UTC) Scimitar (talk · contribs) - I have been editing at Wikipedia since 5 April, 2005, and as a registered user since 5 May. During that time I have attempted to improve Wikipedia, both through improving existing articles and creating new ones. Although early on I made several mis-steps (particularly at VfD), I believe I've learned a lot, and now have a good grasp of Wikipedia policy, and have matured to the point that I would be a capable administrator. Thus, I request administrator tools. As a sidenote, I have over 3000 edits, and am on the List of non-admins with high edit counts. --Scimitar ^parley 17:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

This is a self-nomination. --Scimitar ^parley 17:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Strong Support OMG! I'm the first vote! Very well written answers. Acetic Acid 17:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
2. Support - good editor, active on VfD, has a good grasp of policy.-Satori ^(talk) 17:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, a fine editor. He has not been on the project for a long time, but this is a good situation for assuming good faith, it seems. --Sn0wflake 18:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - meets my standards. I really like people who have well-written answers. --Celestianpower ^{hab | myRFA} 18:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support for an editor that I would have nominated had I realised his desire. In my experience Jonathan has been good-humoured, sympathetic, intelligent and methodical. I cannot think of any way in which he could be better qualified to wield a mop (although I think he might have trouble if he gets his fur in the bucket). —Theo (Talk) 19:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Rje 19:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
7. Support absolutely. -Splash 20:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mega Ultra Strong Support I know this has been said before many a time, but I seriously thought he already was one... if I didn't, I would have nominated him myself! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
9. Strong Support, is an excellent wikipedian, always good work. Also I'd say that his edits, not the time speak for themselves. feydey 20:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, no reason to believe he would misuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:55, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
11. Support. Journalist ^{C.File:Smilie.gif Holla @ me!}
12. Support: I've had disagreements with Scimitar before and been impressed at how placid he has been and how interested to find out the options and work within the structures. He is still somewhat new, especially by the elephantine standards of some of us, but a good pick, and he's been very active in his time on project. Geogre 21:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support good answers. Seems honest, straightforward. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 01:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support! Scimitar is really active on Wikipedia VfD's and other community activities, which is a sign that he knows Wikipedia policies pretty well and shows himself as a friendly Wikipedian. He also does a lot of much-needed work and helps out a lot. Scimitar will make an excellent Wikipedia administrator. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Good contributions, lots of VfD work, and great answers. Jaxl | talk 01:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. I've been quite impressed where I've seen him at work. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:22:28, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
18. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
19. Full support. Excellent WPn, 1300 articlespace edits, 1200 WPspace edits, one featured article, participates in sysop-related activites including RC and NP patrol, good participation in VfD with a display of good sense and an understanding of policy, is not "stupid or insane." Unconscionable if he didn't get the keys/mop/broom/other clichéd trope.—Encephalon | ^ζ  07:59:03, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
20. Good idea. Radiant_>|< 08:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. A very friendly and active user who has a firm understanding of Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - for all the reasons stated above --Doc (?) 11:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - Will be a fine admin. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 14:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Friday (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. His patience in trying to deal with User:Maoririder is exemplary. Ground Zero | t 15:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Good humoured and tolerant user. Alf 16:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Good editor. android79 18:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
28. Support, will make an excellent admin. Hall Monitor 20:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support fits admin criteria on my userpage. Y0u (Y0ur talk page)(Y0ur contributions) 21:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
30. Suppor Change from Oppose to Support after more detailed review of user. Astrotrain 21:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Sure. --Chris S. 02:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strongest possible support! OMG, why didn't someone tell me Scimitar was up for an adminship? - Lucky 6.9 06:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
33. Full support. Strong editor, helpful, and willing to get his hands dirty. Full support. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
34. You're 19 and you're not alcoholic, huh? Oppose, then! Only alcoholics can be admins. (Sorry, the apparent non-sequitur on Scimitar's user page amused me. Support, if you haven't figured it out.) Andre (talk) 17:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
35. El_C 17:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. -- Essjay · Talk 06:45, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
37. Support. Time in service at Wikipedia is usually a very important consideration of mine, as I believe one needs a lot of exposure to really know how things work around here, (actually, I still don't know how things work around here), but I'm going to make an exception for Scimitar's good edits. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
38. Good chap. He's been around just about long enough. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Excellent contributor. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. I just don't get the "not enough" reasoning. Not enough against some magic number? It's well enough to make a judgement how good an admin would come out. --Irpen 08:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. utcursch | talk 13:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. Briangotts (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Yeah I'm happy with that. Enough time and edits to show trustworthiness. That's all that's needed for me, not edit counts and time limits. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
44. Support, you'll make a fine admin. - ulayiti (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oh Yeaahh! the wub "?/!" 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. I shouldn't let this one get by without my vote, especially considering the very rapid growth in maturity as noted by the candidate answer to questions #3 & 4. Unfocused 18:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not enough time. siafu 17:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose- Not been on long enough Astrotrain 20:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Variable and Astrotrain. freestylefrappe 04:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose Too soon. The JPS 10:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

• According to Kate's Tool I have 3164 edits. --Scimitar ^parley 17:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• In the interests of full disclosure, I am one of the editors who have been involved in the RfAr for Maoririder, which is currently here. I don't view it as a conflict; rather we're trying to help him see what he's doing wrong, and he's responded by ignoring everyone. If you have any problems with my actions in this respect, please let me know. --Scimitar ^parley 18:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. There are a number of sysop chores that I would like to participate in. Several of the articles I've been involved with have suffered numerous vandalisms, and the rollback button would be an appreciated tool, altthough I will continue to revert manually if this fails. Furthermore, until recently, there has been a massive backlog at Votes for Deletion; I'd like to assist in keeping it clean, and already close discussions where admin tools are not required (i.e., keep or redirect consensus votes). It is my view that consensus varies, with 70% being the low threshhold, and I have no difficulty in instituting a ruling that goes against my personal viewpoint. I certainly am not impartial in all areas; however, I recognize that I am but one cog in a vast enterprise, and that the decisions of the majority are to be valued over my own. I also patrol New Pages, and it would be helpful to speedily delete pages rather than simply tagging them, especially in cases where the page is obviously a new user test.

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

A. I'm particularly pleased with a number of articles. Among general contributions to NHL coverage, Canadian history and politics, as well as geography, a few articles stand out. John Manley was my first major project, and I was quite pleased to overhaul it. I rescued Okahandja from VfD, something I love to do and get to do all too rarely (perhaps because our nominators are doing it themselves). My proudest achievement was getting Major-General Sir Isaac Brock, K.B. up to Featured Article status, since it was barely a micro-stub when I started and the man was a childhood hero of mine.

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

A.I've had a few tiffs in my short time here, although most were easily remedied misunderstandings. I played a bit role in the POV battles with Argyrosargyrou, and had my user page repeatedly vandalized for it. I was quite upset, as this was my first real conflict, but now I generally remain calmer when faced with some troubles. As I voted delete on the l0de Radio Hour article, I was stalked by a couple of anon IP's, and again, vandalized; however, all things considered, I view this as minor. The most stressful thing, from my standpoint, is seeing strife between good Wikipedia users, of which the Schools debate is one example. Simply because we have diverging opinions doesn't mean we shouldn't value one another's contributions and viewpoints, and I have a great deal of respect for those who clean up and expand school articles. Although I feel most school articles don't particularly help the encyclopedia, these editors ensure that they don't hurt it through poor quality or shoddy writing either. A wakeup call for me was when RickK left. It made me realize that even the best editors are only human in the end, and deserve the same amount of civility and respect I would accord a flesh and blood person standing in front of me. Thinking in this manner has helped me minimize the amount of stress I experience, and I will strive to treat other users with civility and respect, regardless of whether or not I serve Wikipedia as an administrator or an editor.

4. You say you've "made several mis-steps (particularly at VfD)", but what you've answered to #3 doesn't sound like missteps (or is that what you were referring to?), so what are you referring to specifically? Keep in mind I think everyone is entitled to some mistakes and I'll likely vote support anyway, but I'd like a little more honest elaboration on what you meant. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 22:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

A No, none of the incidents that I cited referred to my early errors. Most of my early VfD mistakes were a lack of policy understanding, and then a lack of civility. In my first two weeks in particular, I tended to be sarcastic and not terribly civil- things I've tried to remedy since. There weren't any huge, glaring errors, mostly just an early pattern of incivility that I hope hurt nobody's feelings. Sorry for being vague originally.--Scimitar ^parley 14:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]