Open main menu


  Support = 29;   Oppose = 5;   Neutral = 0 - 85.2% Result - Despite some concerns about things that happened at other projects, a clear majority of Commons regulars that commented feel that Rootology would make a good admin and there is a clear consensus to promote. - Promoted ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rootology has been around here for a long time now. He's very much involved in community discussion, in deletion requests, in tagging images, and so on. I think he will make excellent and clueful use of the admin tools, and so it's my pleasure to nominate him. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. rootology (T) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


  •   Support as nominator. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Since root's been around for a long time and I can't remember anything especially negative about this person, I support. Bastique demandez 16:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support — I view self-noms Collard-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger a good candidate. BJTalk 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Was thinking of nominating soon. Majorly talk 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Root has been nothing but helpful here on Commons. There may have been other stuff other places, but Commons is not the "Other Wiki". --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Per CB and SGN -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well - I have a preference for self noms mainly (the "anti thing" seems mainly an en wp driven one, on many small wikis self nom is normal), most of mine have been that. That said I've seen good work from this user & was wondering about nudging them one way or another so   thanks for helping! --Herby talk thyme 19:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support There are some incidents, but after talking with the candidate I believe they have learned from the issues I raised with the user. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • support --Szczepan talk 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Drama. As a fellow zOMG badsite user, I can say with certainty that rootology has Commons' best interests at heart. He might use strong language at times that some will find uncivil, but he tells it like it is and generally works for the good of the project. My concern is that he might (not willingly, mind you) give innappropriate weight to issues that started at EnWP, due to his banning there (since unbanned), and due to his sometimes unfair (IMO) critique of the site (though most of it is fair and justfied... hopefully he knows what I mean). I hope he understands this concern and will keep it firmly in the back of his mind when doing Commons stuff. And I wholeheartedly support him doing Commons stuff. So support. Good luck. Thanks for helping out ;-) —Giggy 23:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I know exactly what you mean, and to be honest, I was so burned out on drama from the old days that I really want nothing to do with it, ever again. Thats one thing I like about commons, is that drama seems to be like a super-ultra-rare event, and its all about the work itself. The absolutely last thing I want is the drama. I'm far more active here than en anyway, and don't even have any Drama: WP name space stuff watchlisted there. rootology (T) 23:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Will do well as an admin here. Kelly (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Per Bastique (talk · contribs) and Kelly (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support per, inter al., Shakata. I don't think the candidate would do too poorly to try to follow Giggy's suggestion; I am sure, in any case, that Rootology will use good sense in dealing with any Commons issues that should touch on any en.wp drama. Jahiegel (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I've only seen good things from this user. And although his activity on other wikis doesn't have anything to do with his work here, I'm only encouraged by his en-wiki user rights log. --jonny-mt 05:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - no problems here anyways. Excellent track record & good knowledge of policy. He'll be just great :) - Alison 10:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know Rootology well and admire him in many ways, but I am not convinced that he is ideal admin material.--Poetlister 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Contributions indicate a knowledge of processes; no reason to expect that he won't use the tools well. Edgar181 (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Strong support I'm seeing many deletion requests that should've been speedied, but hopefully these tools will help out with that. :) Rocket000 (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC) + "strong" per some recent comments by the candidate. :) Rocket000 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Just keep up the good work, hey? Kylu (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Hey, can I ask you or somebody to delete Amerique (talk · contribs) so that I can keep the same username across all wikimedia spaces? I registered Amerique here and apparently also at wikinews, and lost the passwords. I'm mostly active at en, and know Root from there, and think he'd make a great admin here.Americanist (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    You are looking for COM:CHU  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   I thought you were already an admin  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support A suitable candidate for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No thank you. This Rfa on Commons is just a way for Rootology to use it as clout to eventually make an Rfa bid at This editor was only recently unbanned at He was banned for spending the better part of several months harassing me needlessly about the encyclopedia dramatica website he was an editor on.[1] A website he edited adding outrageous harassment to articles about not only myself but numerous other Wikipedia editors as well. He then lied about his involvement in that website and his posting of harassment there until uncovered by a neutral third party who took interest in the arbitration case.[2] When he knew he was going to be banned, he insulted myself in ways that were not only childish but repulsive.[3]...he subsequently used a ban evading sock account at known as User:XP to continue his what does this matter now since this is Commons, not Like I wrote...this is less about his interest in helping out as an admin and more about getting clout here for a later run for admin elsewhere. Rootology also started the now defunct website known as WikiAbuse...a website he claimed was created to document what he perceived as abuses made by administrators. When I logged in there to ask him repeatedly why he failed to admit his own shortcomings, he banned me from his site...I guess it was okay for him to document supposed abuses by admins but he didn't have to list his own. He tried to pander the WikiAbuse domain off to some readers at Wikipedia Review...and they considered reviving it but it apparently has lapsed. Rootology had added some stuff under a different username to the encyclopedia dramatica article on TonySidaway and he had previously had dealings with Sidaway on before he was banned. Now, not long after his return to he once again has posted sanctions be brought on Tony Sidaway[4]...presumptuous? You betcha. The arbitration committee at asked me how I felt about Rootology being unbanned...I was at first opposed, but decided to give him a chance. I feel he has shown he can do good work both here at Commons and at Wikipedia. But I am not now comfortable giving this guy admin tools anywhere. I suggest he still has to prove by demonstrated editing and collaborative evidence that he can be someone that should be entrusted with admin it here or on Wikipedia.--MONGO (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr, but also, what? "This Rfa on Commons is just a way for Rootology to use it as clout to eventually make an Rfa bid at", well no. I nominated him, with no prompting or hints from him (you can see the emails if you really want). As for Other Wiki drama, that's none of our concern; it's no secret that the lunatics run the asylum over there and, as such, it has a way of bringing out the worst in people. But wat do i no, lols. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"It's no secret that the lunatics run the asylum over there" Sorry, but that comment is just offensive. Perhaps you'd like to consider refactoring it? Attacking an entire project because one person opposes someone you've nominated for adminship is pretty ridiculous. WJBscribe (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If you find it offensive, you probably read it wrong. It was not my intention to suggest that the other wiki is all bad (how could it be -- I edit there from time to time), nor (as I suspect you were upset by) that the admins there are all bad, either. My point was that does have too many people that win disputes simply by being the one to shout loudest, raise the most drama, or (as in my friend's case) threaten someone with whom they disagree with serious IRL harassment. This, is what I meant by the "lunatics running the asylum". My views on that subject have nothing to do with someone opposing an RfA; it's not as if this is the first time I have made my views known. Don't take it personally, anyway. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Lewis, in view of essays such as this one, User:Redvers/Say_no_to_Commons, which is not exactly laudatory of commons, but which some folk have not appreciated as much as others, I'd like to see less cross wiki disparagment of all sorts. No wiki is perfect. No person is perfect. But the best way to get things to improve, in almost every case, is not to take pot shots from afar, but rather to work for change constructively. The first phrasing is a bit of a potshot. The second phrasing is better, but it's still importing en:wp's drama here, which I think we should avoid. Again, remember ... ...please! ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Signed that for you. Your words may carry more weight if left non-anonymously. Further, I'd prefer to see us all stay mellow. MONGO is entitled to make his views known. The relevance of matters that happen on en:wp and on non WMF sites is something for every voter to decide for themselves. Note that on en:wp, there are constraints in place on how much interaction MONGO and Rootology can have. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Note, the above was a response to this contribution, since removed, and not directly to MONGO. I thought of deleting it but most of it is generally relevant. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - per his comments here, on other wikis, and elsewhere, I have concerns about maturity and attitude. Naerii (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - given his remark above, I'm far from impressed by the nominator but it would be rather unfair to penalise Rootology for that. He does good work here and seems to have experience in all the right areas. He has a clear use for extra rights here. My interactions with him on the English Wikipedia have also been positive. The matters to which MONGO refers largely predate my involvement with Wikimedia projects and I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Rootology that he has abandoned old grudges and that any problematic behaviour is well in the past. WJBscribe (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe (and I think many around here would agree) that Lewis holds strong views on the English Wikipedia, partially because he hasn't benen treated the best there, but that ultimately he holds the WMF's mission at heart, and is willing to help out where possible, both here and on other wikis, to help achieve that. He generally uses words forcefully, which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, though in this case perhaps the phrase used wasn't the best (even if justifiable, and justified), but I don't think he means harm, or hates EnWP, or anything like that. And I agree with you that it shouldn't be held against Rootology. —Giggy 23:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • FWIW I've never been mistreated there (and I'm too thick-skinned to care much about what someone on the Internets thinks of me anyway). And he's right; I don't hate en, or any of our sister projects. They might be like our really annoying siblings sometimes, but even though they strip the food cupboards bare, borrow our clothes and play loud music at 1am, they're still family. We're here to do the same thing, anyway, so I do have their best interests at heart. This RfA is no longer about me; back to Rootology.... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I thought MONGO was supposedly against conspiracy theories, but he seems to be the one spouting them here. Dtobias (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent, really experienced editor :) ...--Cometstyles 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think his actions on en disqualify him here, too. --rogerd (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Clearly a good candidate. This is not some other site and we should be looking at his record here.--Londoneye (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Londoneye. If he is helpful and reliable here, it's all I need to know (and in fact, I thought he was already sysop here). KveD (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see what Rogerd means. Does making him an admin here give him power on en?--Whipmaster (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - and thank you for proving the point I was trying to make (and was blasted for daring to do so) at the global adminship discussion [5]. --UserB (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support thanks --.snoopy. 06:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm Mailer diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


  • Please put a language box or boxes on your user page, thanks. Also, please remember ... :) ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • This has been done, thanks! It is important that all administrators have these on their page so that users get an idea of what languages the admin can use. We also maintain a list of administrators by language which gets updated when a new adminstrator is promoted (or is supposed to be, lazy 'crats like me sometimes forget!) and having the boxes there makes that job a lot easier. ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I forgot to mention I did it after I did yesterday! rootology (T) 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)